What sort of jackass bastard has the FCC decided to saddle us with now? According to several sources, (and here, since I said several) the new FCC "Diversity Czar" is an unabashedly racist, excruciatingly ignorant swine.
Anyone who feels that 'white people must step down and let other races have a go at power' is ignorant of the paths of Western Civilization. BY DEFINITION, white people will have some power; this has been true for, oh, say....4000 YEARS OR SO??? Mark Lloyd needs to actually open a history textbook sometime. Oh yes...news flash: the American people just elected a Black man to be President....but I guess it's not good enough that we've reached the point where anyone of any color can grow up and become an elected official in this country. Or maybe Mark Lloyd would like some "No Whites Allowed" signs on our Government buildings?
Forget it - I'm not gonna waste the space calling this asshole out. Mark Lloyd just pisses me off with his flagrant intellectual shortcomings, his calling the First Amendment out as "communications policies", and his genuinely incredible racism. This sort of Loser being in a position of power is the sort of thing that leads to race riots and revolution....I just hope that the administration takes a cue from it's handling of Van Jones and kicks Mark "I'm a racist jerkoff" Lloyd to the curb.
And kids: racism is ugly, immoral, and wrong regardless of what color you are. Hating someone for something they have no control over is a self-defeating policy of persecution that leads to insane levels of racial tensions (think the Deep South in the early 60s) and causes problems on a widespread scale...the kind of problems that end up with large chunks of neighborhoods being burned down (and again in '92).
Anyone who thinks that this wouldn't happen with ANY ethnic/racial group that feels completely disenfranchised needs to be seriously educated; history is full of rebellions and revolutions based entirely on racial tensions. It never ends well, and is something that we can easily avoid....unless people like Mark Lloyd are there to fuck it all up....
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Young Plants
The young plants die too soon.
They wither early, then fade
soft cinders sleeping on the grass.
Contracted, spinning on a wire in
quiet breezes; dangling like
Antarctic explorers grappling
with the Roof of the World.
Beauty hangs, precarious,
stretching forth green wires with
!!Coral explosions!!
Shivering in the biting wind,yet unafraid.
They weather the storms as chance may
guide them,
grasping life by the throat,
taking her in green claws rending
(their only voice)
They wither early, then fade
soft cinders sleeping on the grass.
Contracted, spinning on a wire in
quiet breezes; dangling like
Antarctic explorers grappling
with the Roof of the World.
Beauty hangs, precarious,
stretching forth green wires with
!!Coral explosions!!
Shivering in the biting wind,yet unafraid.
They weather the storms as chance may
guide them,
grasping life by the throat,
taking her in green claws rending
(their only voice)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Some observations on the polls
I was looking over the CNN website this morning, and I noticed that they'd done some sort of nonsense "Second 100 Days" poll, and I decided to check it out. It was actually a series of questions, apparently asked to the population at large (via CNN's website, I believe), and graded along a traditional "school-grade" system. Readers were asked to rate the following:
1. Obama Administration's handling of the economy (C-)
2. Obama Administration's handling of health care reform (D)
3. "" "" handling of foreign affairs (C)
4. Performance of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (C+)
5. Vice President Joe Biden (C-)
6. The performance of YOUR state's 2 senators (C-)
7. The performance of Congress (D)
8. The performance of the Republican Leadership in Congress (D)
9. The performance of the media (D)
10. Grade President Barack Obama (C-)
The results were kinda fun, if somewhat telling. Most of the grades indicated are averages of huge numbers (388,000) of internet viewers. The numbers also tend to skew HEAVILY into the "F" category, with sometimes 40 or 50% (or more) of those polled responding in this way.
The first thing that popped out at me was the fact that there is no poll to grade Democratic leadership. Are they afraid of the results? The Repulican leadership was roundly denounced in the polls here (although, checking results, they actually do better, on average, than the "Entire Congress" option (question 7), so read that how you will.
Then, looking at question number 6, only one state gave it's senators a grade over a C: North Dakota. I applaud Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad; you both are apparently well-liked by your constituency. I personally think that they just haven't gotten the joke yet (actually read the details of the Dorgan Tourism bill sometime...he's no better than the rest).
Fun Fact: If you check the results of those polled in Question 7, the only place where Congress got better than a D was in Washington D.C. Apparently, they all voted for themselves!
But yeah; I have better things to do than waste my time on internet polls. The internet is an unreliable, fickle creature at the best of times.....and these are definitely not the best of times
1. Obama Administration's handling of the economy (C-)
2. Obama Administration's handling of health care reform (D)
3. "" "" handling of foreign affairs (C)
4. Performance of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (C+)
5. Vice President Joe Biden (C-)
6. The performance of YOUR state's 2 senators (C-)
7. The performance of Congress (D)
8. The performance of the Republican Leadership in Congress (D)
9. The performance of the media (D)
10. Grade President Barack Obama (C-)
The results were kinda fun, if somewhat telling. Most of the grades indicated are averages of huge numbers (388,000) of internet viewers. The numbers also tend to skew HEAVILY into the "F" category, with sometimes 40 or 50% (or more) of those polled responding in this way.
The first thing that popped out at me was the fact that there is no poll to grade Democratic leadership. Are they afraid of the results? The Repulican leadership was roundly denounced in the polls here (although, checking results, they actually do better, on average, than the "Entire Congress" option (question 7), so read that how you will.
Then, looking at question number 6, only one state gave it's senators a grade over a C: North Dakota. I applaud Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad; you both are apparently well-liked by your constituency. I personally think that they just haven't gotten the joke yet (actually read the details of the Dorgan Tourism bill sometime...he's no better than the rest).
Fun Fact: If you check the results of those polled in Question 7, the only place where Congress got better than a D was in Washington D.C. Apparently, they all voted for themselves!
But yeah; I have better things to do than waste my time on internet polls. The internet is an unreliable, fickle creature at the best of times.....and these are definitely not the best of times
Thursday, August 13, 2009
In Defense of Obama
I'll keep this one short; no sense getting maudlin about it, because I still have some points of disagreement with the man's policies. But..
After reading this interview from back in April, I come away with two impressions: First, President Obama is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. He does legitimately have a lot on his plate. He's not entirely responsible for policy, but he is the Captain of the Ship of State, and he unfortunately will be seen as being responsible, regardless of the truth....
And secondly, that he's had a lot of insane, horrible things dumped into his lap. He's actually trying to do something good, but he's going about it incorrectly. It doesn't help matters that Congress is packed with corrupt politicians. But he's a lawyer and a college professor; he knows these things.
I would ask anyone reading this blog, regardless of your political views, to take a moment and say a prayer for Barack Obama. I feel that he is a good man, and, however misguided some might think his policies are, he is still the President of the United States, come what may.
......Good luck, sir.
After reading this interview from back in April, I come away with two impressions: First, President Obama is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. He does legitimately have a lot on his plate. He's not entirely responsible for policy, but he is the Captain of the Ship of State, and he unfortunately will be seen as being responsible, regardless of the truth....
And secondly, that he's had a lot of insane, horrible things dumped into his lap. He's actually trying to do something good, but he's going about it incorrectly. It doesn't help matters that Congress is packed with corrupt politicians. But he's a lawyer and a college professor; he knows these things.
I would ask anyone reading this blog, regardless of your political views, to take a moment and say a prayer for Barack Obama. I feel that he is a good man, and, however misguided some might think his policies are, he is still the President of the United States, come what may.
......Good luck, sir.
Ways and Means FAQ - some clarification, please?
After seeing this on the House Majority Leaders website, I had a few questions about some of these comments. These questions are generally directed towards members of the House Ways and Means Committee; they are merely items in your press release that I would like some clarification on:
First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).
Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.
Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.
Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.
Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.
Thanks, but no thanks.
First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).
Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.
Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.
Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.
Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Taxes, Deficits, and Social Security
So I was reading this morning about how the White House's economic figures are meaningless and completely wrong, and I was wondering: Why don't we hear about this from more people in the media? How does this joker even have a single person backing his lame-brained healthcare ideas (or any other financial ideas).
Let's face it: The government is hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to our Navy friends). And then, I got a letter from the Social Security Administration today. The letter was dated July 23, 2009, and includes the following paragraph:
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."
This is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
My generation continues to pay for these benefits for the previous ones. However, through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, we will never see a dime that we have paid into the system (disability or death notwithstanding). This is screwing my generation, and in addition to the TRILLIONS of dollars in inherited deficits that we're gonna get, it's too much.
So, given that the previous generations have decided to hand us the bill in 10 or 15 years, I have a counter-proposal:
Go ahead and pass all the legislation that you want. Stick my generation with the bills. But stop taking my damn money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Stop asking my generation to support yours gratis. You can even keep all the money you've already siphoned off from my paychecks (it's gone already, so whatever). But quit being a bunch of damnable hypocrites. If Congress can spend the Social Security pool and not have to worry about replenishing it, then I don't want to be responsible.
If someone in charge up there is willing to change the way that Social Security works (e.g. FIX THE SYSTEM), then I have no qualms about continuing to pay for it. I just want to get some kind of return on my investment, so to speak.
And for all you crooked-bastard Congressmen: I'll be seeing you on September 12th!
AEQUITAS EN TODOS!!!
Let's face it: The government is hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to our Navy friends). And then, I got a letter from the Social Security Administration today. The letter was dated July 23, 2009, and includes the following paragraph:
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."
This is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
My generation continues to pay for these benefits for the previous ones. However, through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, we will never see a dime that we have paid into the system (disability or death notwithstanding). This is screwing my generation, and in addition to the TRILLIONS of dollars in inherited deficits that we're gonna get, it's too much.
So, given that the previous generations have decided to hand us the bill in 10 or 15 years, I have a counter-proposal:
Go ahead and pass all the legislation that you want. Stick my generation with the bills. But stop taking my damn money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Stop asking my generation to support yours gratis. You can even keep all the money you've already siphoned off from my paychecks (it's gone already, so whatever). But quit being a bunch of damnable hypocrites. If Congress can spend the Social Security pool and not have to worry about replenishing it, then I don't want to be responsible.
If someone in charge up there is willing to change the way that Social Security works (e.g. FIX THE SYSTEM), then I have no qualms about continuing to pay for it. I just want to get some kind of return on my investment, so to speak.
And for all you crooked-bastard Congressmen: I'll be seeing you on September 12th!
AEQUITAS EN TODOS!!!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Some Questions About Gov't Healthcare
After watching the discussions online about the ongoing Healthcare "crisis", I started thinking about some sticking points that I'd like to see discussed personally. I'm sure that a lot of Americans would like answers to these questions, so here they are:
1.) President Obama has repeatedly called for the legislation to be "deficit-neutral". How do our Congressmen propose we do such a thing? Should we cut the budget elsewhere, raise taxes, or what?
2.) I've also noticed several articles out there about how certain groups would be exempt from required coverage levels imposed on citizens by the proposed legislation (at least in the version that was released to the American people). Why are Congressmen afraid to be a part of their own solution?
3.) Looking at where medical costs come from, one notices that a substantial chunk of healthcare costs are incurred by doctors seeking to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Tort Reform, as it is referred to, would greatly cut down on overhead costs; savings which would then be passed on to patients (or so it would seem). Why does the released version of the healthcare bill not have ANY MENTION of Tort Reform? Any legislation that is serious about decreasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans must address this issue.
So there you have it. Anyone with the answers, please let me know...thanks!
1.) President Obama has repeatedly called for the legislation to be "deficit-neutral". How do our Congressmen propose we do such a thing? Should we cut the budget elsewhere, raise taxes, or what?
2.) I've also noticed several articles out there about how certain groups would be exempt from required coverage levels imposed on citizens by the proposed legislation (at least in the version that was released to the American people). Why are Congressmen afraid to be a part of their own solution?
3.) Looking at where medical costs come from, one notices that a substantial chunk of healthcare costs are incurred by doctors seeking to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Tort Reform, as it is referred to, would greatly cut down on overhead costs; savings which would then be passed on to patients (or so it would seem). Why does the released version of the healthcare bill not have ANY MENTION of Tort Reform? Any legislation that is serious about decreasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans must address this issue.
So there you have it. Anyone with the answers, please let me know...thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
