Reputation Maintenance

I suppose it is only natural for a politician to want to maintain the reputation of his party. Apparently this holds true for Republicans even though their party is reputed to be the party of stupid! In this regard the senatorial candidate in North Carolina, Tom Tillis, is setting a fine example for his fellow Republicans. He has chosen to run against President Obama rather than the Democratic nominee Kay Hagan. Furthermore, he has chosen to run against a very successful program. Of course Mr. Tillis will not call the Affordable Care Act the Affordable Care Act because if he does that the ignoramuses might be curious enough to see what that act entails and they will like what they see. So Mr. Tillis calls it Obama Care. He does his because he knows that he and his party have buried that title in so much bull shit that the ignoramuses now dismiss it out of hand.

While that strategy is risky, it does not seem that stupid. What is stupid is who Mr. Tillis is using as his segregate to attack the Affordable Care Act. It is none other than Nit‑Mitt Romney! That is right, it is that Nit-Mitt Romney. It is the former governor of Massachusetts, who passed Romney Care in that state. Yes, I mean that Romney Care, the very model for the Affordable Care Act. Those of you who are old enough and do not suffer from Alzheimer's might recall with some amusement how Presidential Candidate Romney tied himself into a pretzel trying to Attack the Affordable Care Act while Defending Romney Care!

So here is to you, Mr. Tillis! By attacking an achievement and reminding us of Mr. Romney's dishonesty, you are doing Reince Priebus proud. I am sure he would tell tell you that you are doing a good job of maintaining the reputation of the party of stupid

Castrator

Joni Ernst, castrator, wants to cut just about everything that is productive, including the government she is aspiring to become a part of. You do become a part of the government when you get elected to the senate, you know. But not to worry, she has a gun and promises to use it if the government does something she does not like. I guess those are the views you have when you cut off the circulation to your brain by sitting on it.

Judicial Infamy

Congratulations to Supreme injustices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. In the case of Veasey v. Perry you have cemented the place of your court in judicial infamy. No court has ever been more politicized, unethical, or damaging to our democracy. In ruling that the Texas voter ID law was unconstitutional, Federal Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos said the voter ID requirement could disenfranchise as many as 600,000 citizens. It is really distressing that the court would even review this decision, and lifting the stay on enforcing such an outrageous law is unconscionable! It is quite obvious that by letting this draconian voter ID law in Texas remain in effect during the upcoming mid-term elections the Supreme Court is permitting the Republican Party to suppress the vote in order to gain an unfair, partisan advantage. Trying to justify voter ID laws by saying they prevent voter fraud is ridiculous. In none of the relevant court cases have the proponents of strict voter ID laws been able to point to any significant voter fraud. Furthermore, saying that changing the Texas law before the election would cause confusion is utter nonsense. Getting rid of the stricter requirements has absolutely no effect on people who meet those stricter requirements. Eliminating the stricter requirements simply allows more citizens to vote. Isn't the right to vote what democracy is all about?

Sadly, democracy is not what concerns Injustices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Those five injustices want to dampen any progressive movement that might challenge the power of the oligarchy. After all, if the oligarchy is challenged the oligopoly is threatened. This despicable ruling was all about money and power. The majority of our present Supreme Court seems to believe that only the super wealthy have earned the right to govern this nation!

Your vote is precious, do not let it wither or misuse it! Use it to give the party of the Greedy Old Plutocrats and the five supreme injustices a well deserved middle finger. Stand up for democracy and all of the high values this country proudly proclaims

Death With Dignity

Death with dignity does not mean silently waiting for death to arrive and relieve you of the suffering that is robbing you of your cognitive ability and the basic functions we all take for granted. Brittany Maynard is a young lady who has terminal brain cancer. She has gone to Oregon to choose when she will end her life. This is something I really understand. I was taking care of my brother when his lung cancer metastasized to his brain. In spite of all the drugs used to ease his pain, this was the most heart wrenching thing I have ever witnessed. My brother was being tortured by his cancer. No one should ever be forced to endure that torture!

I want to thank Brittany for having the courage to make her decision public. In doing so, she has made us focus on the question of whether a terminally ill patient should be able to put an end to the suffering. As Brittany said, this is a decision no one wants to make. She would rather live, but a few more days, weeks or months of agony or not knowing who or where you are is not really living. My heart goes out to you and your family Brittany. I hope you know you are making a positive difference by bringing attention to your struggle and the difficult decision you have made!

Straw Dogs And Bogeymen

With the increasingly apparent lies about Obama-care still ringing in the ears of skeptical voters, the party that has failed dismally in foreign affairs, has crashed our economy, and is still denying millions of people affordable health care is desperate. The Republicans would like to make the economy the issue but it is improving in spite of their obstruction. There is, however, another issue Republicans love, and it is an issue that takes no thought at all. They point at President Obama and squeal, “WEAK! WEAK! WEAK!” They want you to believe that merely calling President Obama weak makes it so, and that he is incapable of protecting America.  Of course they cannot tell you what they would do differently to protect America. They are certainly not going to provide the State Department with the funds Hillary Clinton requested to protect our diplomats before the attack at Benghazi, nor are they going to restore the funds they cut from the CDC. I guess the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are not important unless you run into problems with diseases such as Ebola and the Adenovirus. The same thing could be said for confirming a Surgeon General or providing medicare so that preventive care is available to everyone. This begs the question; what have Republicans carried out in the last two years? Well they got the hell out of Washington, thereby avoiding their duty to deal with the war on ISIS.

 

So bereft of any positive programs are the Republicans that they now have to count on their new and improved straw dogs and bogeymen to carry them through the mid-terms. “WEAK! WEAK! WEAK!”  That is their cry.  That is it folks! Fear and loathing is all the GOP has to offer you. Unfortunately, the news media is unwittingly helping the Republicans sell that fear and loathing. Do not misunderstand what I am saying, the media is responsible enough to point out that Ebola is not easy to transmit from one person to another. What the media emphasizes, however, is that the mortality rate of those who catch it is high, and that is scary enough to make people want to hear more. The utter brutality of ISIS is also frightening enough to attract an audience, but the immediate danger ISIS poses to this country is not that great because it is not on our border. That, of course, does not keep the news media from constantly reporting the brutality or the Republicans from lying about terrorists or people infected with Ebola crossing our southern border. What is amazing to me is that the Republicans continue to tell those lies even after they repeatedly fail to meet challenges to name a single documented case in which a terrorist or a person with Ebola has crossed our border with Mexico. As Richard Wolfe said on MSNBC: can you imagine someone infected with Ebola being healthy enough to work his way from Mexico City to the northern border, then sneak past the US border patrols and hike through the hot, dry desert to a city! As unlikely as that scenario is the Republican base wants to believe it badly enough to embrace it

One of the most vexing problems we have in trying to give the public a realistic assessment of the danger we face is that the incessant news coverage in and of itself serves to greatly exaggerate the threats, thereby putting a certain luster on the straw dogs and bogeymen the Republicans are selling. We can only hope that the people will say no sale, that they will reject the straw dogs and bogeymen, and that they will vote for candidates who present a realistic approach to dealing with ISIS, Ebola and the other challenges we face.

.

Define Your Terms

I am so damn sick of pundits referring to the five injustices on our current Supreme Court as judicial activists. Merely overturning a precedent is not judicial activism.  As I pointed out in a previous post, “judicial activism" is a pejorative term reactionaries use to describe the practice of overturning unjust but well established precedents; which makes "judicial activist" a badge of honor that must be earned!  Laws that protect the right to vote and make it easier to exercise that right are not unjust. Laws that allow legal remedies for injuries caused by medical malpractice or the negligence of companies are not unjust. Laws that protect us from the risky and bad behavior of financial institutions are not unjust. Laws that protect the right of employees to collectively bargain with employers are not unjust. Laws that prevent the oligopoly from buying politicians and elections are not unjust. Calling the five supreme injustices “judicial activists” is therefore a bastardization of a term used to describe the very justices who have done the most to make our laws and our society fairer and more equitable.

What is obviously called for now is a term to describe the injustices who are casting us back into a time before either of the Roosevelts, when there were no labor unions and the robber barons pretty much did as they pleased no matter how harmful that was. The definition of a reactionary is: someone who is resistant or opposed to a force, influence or movement; “especially: [a] tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy.” I therefore propose that we describe overturning just and well established precedents as acts of “judicial re-activism,” and that we describe the five injustices who are overturning those just precedents as “judicial reactionaries.” 

Given the fact that Messrs. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy have made this the most politicized and retrogressive court ever, calling them "Judicial Reactionaries" seems almost too polite to me.  I mean, how do you describe men who have and are causing so much damage to our country and the reputation of its highest court without becoming profane?  If you have a better suggestion than "judicial reactionaries" or "supreme injustices," please let me know.