Change in Categories

September 30, 2012

Until now I have organized my entries under different categories.  I would like to change them, but it appears that WordPress will not allow me to reorganize my categories.  So, I will for the foreseeable future be putting all my posts under the “uncategorized” heading, or as I like to think of it as the general category.

Please bear with me, and if you know how to change categories in WordPress please let me know.


Cannabis

September 30, 2012

The following is an interesting video on Cannabis.  Obviously the panel is composed of people who are all pro pot, so there is a bit of bias in their feelings on the issue.  Still, they make some good points.  For me there is no rational reason why we continue to criminalize cannabis.  It consumes enormous police and judicial resources at a time when budgets are tight.  I was watching one of those COPS shows and the police were spending the vast majority of their time busting non violent drug users and sellers.  IT seems to me that the police should be focusing their resources on controlling crime, like muggings, burglaries, robberies, etc.  Hard drugs combined with crime need to be controlled, but busting people for possessing marijuana is both heavy handed and a waste of police resources.

It seems to me that powerful forces want to keep the drug war going.  Maybe it is Big Pharma which fears the therapeutic power of cannabis against its won patented and often ineffective medications.  Maybe the DEA, the police, and the prison complex all want to keep the drug war going because it supports them.  There maybe other forces as well.

What seems odd to me is how the Obama administration reversed course and is now using Federal power to go against the laws of California.  The people of California have voted in a referendum to allow medical cannabis, and yet the Federal government insists on prosecuting it.  Why is Obama doing this?  I see little if any outcry, and even less so among Democrats, to pursue an aggressive anti-cannabis policy, especially when such a policy goes against the laws and wishes of a large state.  Who is demanding that the Fed crack down on pot?  Not a lot of people that I see.  Obama himself admitted that he smoked cannabis several times, and it was not even an issue in the campaign.  On the far more controversial issue of gay marriage and gays in the military Obama has sided with the pro gay stance, generally to his benefit,  despite what conservatives think on the issue.  So why is Obama using Federal power to go against the wishes of Californians?

The largest demographic in the US are the baby boomers, who generally are cool with marijuana.  The youth are also the same. The only group that might be a bit against pot are those over the age of 65, but even in this segment of the population opines vary.  And seniors have never been much of a base for Obama anyway.  I cannot see that Obama is getting tough with medical cannabis in California, because the electorate is demanding that he do so.  Quite the contrary.  So why is Obama so anti-Marijuana?  It makes me wonder if there are wealthy forces out there that have a stake in keeping cannabis illegal.  The medical establishment?  Or the police, judicial, and prison complex?  This is something to think about.  I am open to opinions.

By the way the war on drugs was begun because all the anti-prohibition agents needed a job in the 1930s, and Cannabis fit the bill.  The government has spent decades developing an anti opiate drug which works really well at getting heroine addicts off of the stuff, but the DEA has imposed so many restrictions on is use, even making it hard to get as a prescription, that its usefulness is limited.  I think that the DEA does not want to fix the drug problem, because the problem keeps them employed.  This is a weakness of  so many organizations set up to deal with a problem.  Once they are established, they actually do not want to fix the problem, because the problem keeps them in hock.  Thus we have the Cancer Industry, and the DEA both fighting ways to deal with the problems they were ostensibly set up to handle.

What has become apparent to me is that we need to start treating drug addiction more as a health issue than as a strict law enforcement issue.

Here is the panel discussion

Here is an example of how those involved in the whole business want to keep cannabis illegal and profitable for them.

NaturalNews has been a great source of information on what is going on.  Here is their latest update in the GMO issue.  It talks about the upcoming Proposition 37 to ban GMOs in California.  It also mentions the top 10 breakfast cereals for GMOs (I especially like the “heart healthy” and “healthy grains” on the labels.  I guess that breakfast cereals are now going into the comedy of the absurd business to give their customers a laugh.)  Finally the NaturalNews article talks about the recent French long term study on the negative effects of GMOs.  The findings are sending a shock wave around the world, and should make people wake up to the dangers.  It is news like this that makes the powers at be want to censor the internet.  A few years ago this type of information would not be getting out to the public, because the media would put a blanket on it and the vast majority of people would never find out.

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GMO corn

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) By now, nearly everyone interested in healthy living is aware of the recent research linking Monsanto’s GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. News of the research is spreading like wildfire across the ‘net, and support for Proposition 37 — which seeks to label GMOs in foods — is growing by the day.

But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto’s genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.

According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.

The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.

Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.

The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GM corn

Cocoa Puffs and Corn Chex

Frosted Flakes and Honey Graham Oh’s

Honey Nut Chex and Kashi Heart to Heart

Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Kellogg’s Corn Pops

Kix and Barbara’s Bakery Puffins Peanut Butter

Which cereals contain no GMOs? Nature’s Path

There is only one brand of breakfast cereal I know of that’s 100% non-GMO and 100% organic across their entire product line. That company is Nature’s Path:

If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don’t want to eat Monsanto’s GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature’s Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company.

Many “natural” brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, “Barbara’s Bakery” cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto’s Roundup.

You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children’s cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known.

What we do know is that rats fed this very same Monsanto GM corn developed shockingly large cancer tumors.

The photo released by the French research team, showing large cancer tumors growing at a strongly heightened risk in rats fed a “lifetime” of Monsanto’s GM corn, is shown below. According to that study, 70% of females died premature and showed significant damage to their liver, kidneys and other organs.

Pretty crazy, huh?


Latest Updates on GMOs

September 30, 2012

NaturalNews has been a great source of information on what is going on.  Here is their latest update in the GMO issue.  It talks about the upcoming Proposition 37 to ban GMOs in California.  It also mentions the top 10 breakfast cereals for GMOs (I especially like the “heart healthy” and “healthy grains” on the labels.  I guess that breakfast cereals are now going into the comedy of the absurd business to give their customers a laugh.)  Finally the NaturalNews article talks about the recent French long term study on the negative effects of GMOs.  The findings are sending a shock wave around the world, and should make people wake up to the dangers.  It is news like this that makes the powers at be want to censor the internet.  A few years ago this type of information would not be getting out to the public, because the media would put a blanket on it and the vast majority of people would never find out.

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GMO corn

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) By now, nearly everyone interested in healthy living is aware of the recent research linking Monsanto’s GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. News of the research is spreading like wildfire across the ‘net, and support for Proposition 37 — which seeks to label GMOs in foods — is growing by the day.

But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto’s genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.

According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.

The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.

Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.

The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GM corn

Cocoa Puffs and Corn Chex

Frosted Flakes and Honey Graham Oh’s

Honey Nut Chex and Kashi Heart to Heart

Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Kellogg’s Corn Pops

Kix and Barbara’s Bakery Puffins Peanut Butter

Which cereals contain no GMOs? Nature’s Path

There is only one brand of breakfast cereal I know of that’s 100% non-GMO and 100% organic across their entire product line. That company is Nature’s Path:

If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don’t want to eat Monsanto’s GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature’s Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company.

Many “natural” brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, “Barbara’s Bakery” cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto’s Roundup.

You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children’s cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known.

What we do know is that rats fed this very same Monsanto GM corn developed shockingly large cancer tumors.

The photo released by the French research team, showing large cancer tumors growing at a strongly heightened risk in rats fed a “lifetime” of Monsanto’s GM corn, is shown below. According to that study, 70% of females died premature and showed significant damage to their liver, kidneys and other organs.

Pretty crazy, huh?


Monsanto and Romeny and Obama

September 29, 2012

People often demonize the other party while supporting their own.  A lot of people are going to vote for Obama or Romney because at least their candidate is not the candidate of the other party.  This is a false choice which a lot of folks do not want to recognize, because they are too wrapped up in their partisan politics.  The reality is that both Obama and Romney are corrupt and bought off.  They have sold out their integrity and the country to feed their political ambitions.  Power above principle.

I have come across evidence from Natural News that both Romney and Obama have worked for Monsanto, rated the most evil corporation, and the prime driver behind genetically modified foods.  Here is an expose of Obama´s murky past with Monsanto.  All of this from the candidate of hope, change and reforming politics.

Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

by Jon Rappoport

(NaturalNews) During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

Sources:
http://redgreenandblue.org

http://www.motherjones.com

http://fooddemocracynow.org

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com

JonRappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
www.nomorefakenews.com

About the author:
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon
was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an
investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics,
medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine,
Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon
has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic,
and creative power to audiences around the world.
www.nomorefakenews.com

If you think Romney at least is a bit better, then think again.  Here is evidence that he worked from Monsanto also.  It is just like the financial industry.  Powerful interests buy off both parties, and Obama´s policies towards banks have been just as indulgent as were Bush´s.

Romney’s first project with Bain in 1977: Help propel Monsanto

by S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) One year before Mitt Romney began working on the Bain & Company project to rebuild “Monsanto” and cast their new image and focus on agriculture biotechnology, Congress passed a bill banning PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl), an odorless, tasteless, clear liquid known to cause cancer that was the “bread and butter” of Monsanto’s profits. Monsanto was already branded and plagued with the label of having created the “Agent Orange” contaminated dioxins used in Vietnam. Now Monsanto would need a big save, financially and reputation-wise, so they could fool the public with their new image and a new “frontier,” while secretly polluting and genetically modifying American agriculture with the new faceless poison known as Roundup.

Romney knew his first job at Bain was to propel an evil company that was on the brink of failure. He knew Monsanto’s previous reputation and about all the litigation. Romney also knew he would be rewarded financially in the biggest way if he could pull the whole thing off, and he did. Romney changed Monsanto’s image over the years, from a scandal ridden chemical giant to a seemingly “prestigious” Agri-business firm. (http://dprogram.net)

Fresh out of Harvard in 1977, Romney basically lead Monsanto down an unethical but highly lucrative path, helping sweep the PCB and dioxin scandals under the rug, since that negative public perception was crippling the company. Romney and Bain recommended to Monsanto that they focus the business on genetically engineered crops and RoundUp, the massively profitable weed killer. Monsanto finished developing and patenting the glyphosate molecule and has marketed Roundup ever since. (http://naturalsociety.com)

But it wasn’t a “pretty” road to this infamous success for Romney. Monsanto was still bombarded with an onslaught of litigation throughout Romney’s years at Bain, including a $180 million settlement covering the claims of over 50,000 troops that got cancer from hiking over and through Agent Orange in the burned up jungles of Vietnam. Agent Orange is on record to have contaminated a total of 10 million Vietnamese and American people, including children and babies. This was by far the largest chemical warfare operation in human history up until now, when Monsanto’s RoundUp laced GMO vegetables like corn and soy have begun a cancer inducing genocide which could easily surpass the damage done in the Vietnam jungles just 50 years ago. (http://naturalsociety.com)

Romney would later use his Monsanto “payback money” and power to become the “private equity king,” mowing down companies and robbing workers of their retirement savings. (http://dprogram.net) This is how Romney created jobs back then, and GMO is how he will create jobs and promote disease if he wins the presidency of the United States. Big Pharma, of course, is behind it all, because when people eat GM vegetables and get cancer, Big Pharma and the chemo scam make billions, if not trillions.

Romney has already chosen his biotech partners in crime

One of Mitt’s advisory co-chairs was a key speaker at the ‘Biotechnology Industry Organization‘ and said, “It is vital for the United States and other countries to support science-based standards and systems that will bring agricultural biotechnology products to the market to meet this demand.” It’s not hard to guess who will make up Romney’s cabinet if he wins. But the most disappointing part of the upcoming election isn’t the fact that Mitt Romney, the “Savior of Monsanto” is running for president, it’s the fact that Obama already supports GMO and has the former vice president of Monsanto running the FDA right now. America has everyone believing they have a choice, voting between good and bad, or good and not so good, but really, the choice is that you can vote yes for Obama GMO or yes for Romney GMO. President Obama and Mitt Romney both support human beings eating RoundUp pesticide regularly and without any labeling on the foods. Just to let you know. There’s definitely a “War on Cancer” in effect, but it’s a war to promote cancer, to make sure more people eat CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS, ones that are made by the same company that created the AGENT ORANGE nightmare. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

No matter what the TWO PARTY SYSTEM says, they support GMO

Back in 2008, Obama promised his supporters he would be on their side when it comes to knowing what they are eating, and in a campaign speech he stated, “We’ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they’re buying.”(http://spreadlibertynews.com)

Today, Monsanto (the seed police) and similar unethical chemical giants loom over ALL FARMERS AND ALL FOOD, and a global cancer epidemic is imminent. Monsanto survived its near collapse thanks to Mitt Romney, and Monsanto thrives today thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Soon, if enough Supreme Court Justices side with the biotech industry, the U.S. government will have complete reign over the food industry. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html)

Question: Why doesn’t either candidate for president mention nutrition at all? Shouldn’t we be praising Nutritional Science like we do NASA? Is the GMO shame too heavy? When the next bailout comes, will Monsanto get a big cut? After all, their lobbyists are like a “Super PAC” of ONE PERCENTERS. If only we could see how much their offshore accounts inflate after elections. Make no mistake, the current handful of “running” politicians want GMO to rule over all farms in the United States.

Don’t give in; you can set the precedent in November!

You have real choices. You can eat only organic food. You can write your “anti-GMO” congressmen like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who support efforts to not only label GM food, but ban it altogether. You can help end this hostile takeover of the food supply. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg) We, the organic people, can win this “election,” and the precedent can be set in California in November, and then eventually all over the United States. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

Vietnam may have been the largest chemical warfare operation in human history, but at least this time the people have a choice, because instead of being drafted and hiking through the toxic “cancer machine” in a war, humans can simply educate themselves about contaminated dioxins in genetically modified foods and not eat them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFSS1vLcXA&feature=related)

Sources for this article include:

http://naturalsociety.com

http://dprogram.net

http://www.alternet.org

http://spreadlibertynews.com

http://dprogram.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFSS1vLcXA&feature=related

http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html

http://www.naturalnews.com

We need to stop thinking that our party will fix things.  The reality is that both parties have been incorrigibly corrupted.  We need new parties and new leaders.  We must throw the bums out, and stop believing in their superficial manipulative rhetoric.  This Nov. please vote for a third party candidate.


Why Romney is not an attractive candidate

September 25, 2012

The GOP spent the nomination process thrashing around rushing from one mediocre candidate after another before just as quickly dropping them.  Perry, Cane, Sanatorium, Gingrich…All of them failed to be the savior that the Republican base was looking for.  In the end Romney won the nomination because he was the least unappealing candidate.  All the rest really were disappointing, while Romney was only half disappointing.  That does not make him attractive, except when compared to the other Republican candidates.  Compared to Obama, Romney has a problem.

While Obama is highly charismatic, relaxed, and humorous, while Romney is stiff and uptight.  But, of course he is.  Romney is the quintessential Mormon and Mormons tend to be weighed down by responsibility and ambition.  Having God watching you all the time, and needing to be worthy enough to become a god eventually tends to make people earnest and serious.  Personally I could care less if Romney is serious and stiff.  What I care about are candidates´ qualifications to run the country.  But I must be in a minority, because candidates usually win by winning the “who would I want to have a beer with?”  Charisma-not substance-is what seems to motivate the average voter.  Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama all have charisma and they all won by using it.

So Romney has a major problem with his lack of folksy charm.  On top of that he is a mulch-millionaire at a time when class divisions are greater than ever.  The 1% has been steadily getting richer, these past few decades, while the bottom half has steadily gotten poorer.  While top bankers created the financial crisis, they were rewarded with bailouts and mega bonuses, while the rest of the country suffered.  In this climate of resentment having a typical plutocrat running for office is a challenge.  The Democrats have been exploiting this message to the fullest.  Romney making statements like “I love to fire people.” and “Corporations are people.” have not helped.

On top of that Romney earned his money in a way that is typical of the financial games that the very rich play, to make out like bandits by exploiting the system.  Romney did not make his fortune by building a successful tech company like Steve Jobs, which actually makes something useful that contributes to the economy and creates employment.  Instead Romney worked in Bane Capital, a Venture Capital firm, ostensibly focused of fixing up companies and then selling them for a profit.  In theory great.

The problem is that Bane Capital would pay themselves huge bonuses derived from taking out massive loans using the companies that they bought on margin, as collateral.  For instance, they would buy a company, and then pay themselves $75 million in bonuses, that came from debt newly extracted from the acquired company.  Then they would sell off the company, keep the money, and hope for the best.  Sometimes Bane Capital would be able to find efficiencies in their acquired companies, and they would do better.  But just as frequently they left once successful companies as shells of their former self, weighed down by new debt (spent on massive bonuses) and employee attrition.

For me fixing up a company to later sell it for a profit is a perfectly legitimate undertaking.  The problem is when companies like Bane Capital paid themselves huge bonuses, even they screwed up companies.  It is a nice racket because Bane Capital gets paid massively whether they are successful or not.  Does this sound familiar?  CEOs who get large golden parachutes for running companies into the ground, and incompetent bankers who are rewarded with bail outs and record bonuses.  Too much of modern wealth accrual is focused around ways to financially game the system, while providing nothing positive economically.  They are  just clever and manipulative ways to move money around.  Romney likes to paint himself as a businessman and entrepreneur, but his type of business leaves something to be desired.

On top of that Romney has a problem with flip flopping, which gives the impression that seeking power is more important than principle for him.  I have also heard Romney skillfully tap dance around awkward question without ever really answering them.  While I can admire his ability to BS, I would prefer a candidate to actually honestly addresses questions presented to him.  Ron Paul has a sincerity and genuineness about him that Romney sorely lacks.  That is why I liked his leaked comments about the 47%, because for once he was articulating a clear opinion, and I knew where he stood.  Normally he is so opaque, that it hard to know what the man really believes in, if anything.

More troubling is the way that the Republican Party engaged in voter fraud to shove the Romney candidacy thru by force, and trample on Ron Paul voters.  Anyone associated with circumventing democracy, the rule of law, and the will of the people cannot be good.  If the Republican Party loves Romney sooooooo much that must be a bad sign.

Finally for me the deal breaker was when Romney unequivocally supported the NDAA.  That was going too far for me to swallow, and he lost any chance of getting my vote then and there.  We do not need another authoritarian in power.

I wanted to like Romney.  He had a Mormon earnestness and seriousness about him that I found appealing compared to Obama´s jive and shuck personality.  But in the end the two are pretty similar.  They both want power and have sold their principles to do so.

So, we have two lousy more-of-the-same candidates in Romney and Obama.  This election I am going third party candidate.  People say that I am throwing my vote away, but I believe that voting for more of the same, is just throwing our votes away by reinforcing the failed status quo.  Of course if enough people do like I do then we will become a force to be reckoned with, and we can start changing things.


Voter “Suppression”

September 24, 2012

There has been a lot of talk recently from Democrats about a Republican conspiracy to “suppress” voters.  Basically the brouhaha revolves around requiring voter IDs to be able to vote.   Since a small minority, which just so happens to be heavily Democratic leaning, does not have such IDs, the Democrats are mad and trying to discredit such measures with charges that these changes are examples of voter “suppression”.

Both sides are being opportunistic. The Dems resist the ID laws, and the Republicans favor them, because each party will benefit or suffer due to how they are implemented.  However, despite the opportunism, the Republicans are generally right on the issue, and the Dems. are guilty of irresponsibly gross exaggeration, just as they did when they fomented hysteria about a nonexistent “war on women”.

The reality is that people should have to present a photo ID to vote, just as they have to do for every other important transaction, where proving the identity of the person is important.  Just try using your credit/debit card or cashing a check without one.  As far as I know all functioning nations require an official photo ID to do any government transaction including voting.  Spain is absolutely this way.  When I wanted to get a criminal report in Virginia for my Spanish visa I had to present two photo IDs.  Is getting one´s criminal report more important than voting?  I don´t think so.

It seems to me that if people are so out of it and dysfunctional that obtaining a photo ID is beyond their capacity, then maybe they should not vote.  Voting is an important right and duty and should not be taken lightly.  There are already too many stupid and ignorant people voting with their emotions as it is without a clue about what is really going on.  This race to the bottom has not helped the nation.  But is has been pursued by the Democrats because lowering voting standards helps their party.  It is reasonable to expect minimal standards from those who shape our electoral process, and I think that having a valid photo ID is both necessary to reduce voter fraud and to set a very minimal standard to vote.

A couple of other caveats.  Having national ID for all citizens and legal immigrants would drastically reduce identity theft and voter fraud.  We would also instantly be able to tell who is in the country legally.  It would resolve A LOT of confusion, duplication and fraud related to identification.  Instead of a mish mash of 50 different state IDs, we would have one.  For some reason neither party wants to touch it.  We can have The Patriot Act, NDAA, illegal suveillance, but apparently having a national ID card is just too fascist.  In Spain everyone has one, it simplifies identification, and there is nothing fascist or tyrannical about it.  The system works well.  In fact every country in the world except American and the UK have one.  Maybe they are onto something.

Finally, if the Republicans go beyond photo ID laws and engage in genuine voter suppression, then I will oppose it.  And it may happen.  The Republican party is highly corrupt and up to anything.  Unit then I will criticize the Dems. for their demagoguery and fear mongering over sensible measure to reduce voter fraud.

 


Bias in the creative arts

September 23, 2012

I have enjoyed watching The Key of Awesome for some time now.  Their parodies are often amazingly witty and funny.

One thing, tho, is a certain bias in their political parodies.  By now they have made 3 anti-Romney videos and no anti-Obama ones.  This was also true the last election when Obama girl appeared to support Obama.  Eventually they made a McCaine girl, but it was a me to after thought copy.

I have noticed that the Simpsons or Family Guy has wonderful satire of the stupidity of conservative white middle of the road Americans, but they never make fun of the absurdities of political correctness.  Bloom County years ago was an amazingly funny and clever cartoon, but it had the same problem.

What is going on?  Is it that the creative class is just leftist overall?  I suspect that all of them are afraid of taking on political correctness, and running the risk of being labeled something like racist, inflammatory, stereotyped, hate speech, and offensive.  So, they avoid PC, and instead focus their guns on whites, conservatives and religious people.  Romney can be endlessly lampooned as a robot and a rich out of touch white person.  But do the same with Obama and one is running the risk of doing something that could be labeled racist, inflammatory, stereotypical, hate speech and offensive.  The status quo wants to avoid that.

This is an unfortunate double standard in our society.

Here is the video.