Do I need a new dictionary?

After listening and reading so many things about the President, Health Care, and Justice Roberts, I think I need a new dictionary. You know the one I'm talking about, the one the right-wing uses. My dictionary defies a judge as someone who decides which of two sides is right, and to be effective, can not have a stake in either side. So by definition, a true judge can't be a traitor. Or if a side thinks of that person as an ally who rules against them and is a traitor, that person can't be a real judge. I've heard that President Obama is a Communist. Isn't Communism the belief that government should run everything? Has he and the government taken over any insurance companies, automobile companies, or oil companies? No? I've read letters that call the President is a dictator. This isn't an obvious one? A dictator does whatever they want to do. Think the bills coming out of Congress now are basically edicts of the President? No, neither do I. But at least Universal Health Care is un-American in my dictionary. American Health Care has always been that if you have the money or something to barter with, you can get medicine, and if you don't, you just try to fight it off  when you get sick, and probably die. I think the right-wing dictionary has the same definition.  

OK GOP, that's how you react to a loss

Well, I have to give the GOP one thing: They figured out how to react to a loss. When the Supreme Court threw out 3/4 of the Arizona law and gave provisions that might lead to the entire bill being overturned, you would have thought from the GOP reaction that they won. Everyone involved in the passing of the bill, form the person in Kansas who wrote it (Which seems strange on its face) to the governor of Arizona hailed the decision, saying things like the decision kept the heart of the bill in place and other states would quickly flock to enact the law. This while the bill was basically overturned was basically grandstanding, and telling lies. But today, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was legal, and almost the entire bill will continue to be law, the GOP quickly went into full-throated opposition. House GOP members quickly stated that they would bring a vote to repeal the Act, although even if they do, it would never pass the Senate, and would quickly vetoed at the House House if it did. And with no chance of 2/3 of both chambers overturning the veto, the Act will stand. So now the GOP will bluster and lie about the bill, in an attempt to get enough votes to keep the House, get the Senate, and get Romney elected President. This will cause the Democrats and the House to explain the bill's good points, most of which won't happen for 18 months. And the discussion will be good for the country, for lawmakers to explain the good and the bad of the bill (Almost no bills are all good or all bad), and gives citizens more information on the upcoming changes due to the law's enactment.And for once, the GOP aren't acting delusional about what happened and what they need to do. And that is good for the nation, too. Surprising, but good.        

There's a line in a movie ...

After the Supreme Court overturned most of the Arizona " Paper Please" law, it didn't take long for both the Democrats and GOP to spin the decision. And in truth, they both came to the same conclusion: A better immigration policy needs to be enacted. But where Democrats said that Congress needs to pass the Dream Act, the GOP said that it was the President's lack of leadership that was stopping any immigration bill from passing. Now, what they didn't say today was that it the Dream Act passed the House, and got 55 votes in the Senate. But since GOP Senators banded together and filibustered the bill, it never passed. So, in truth, it was 45 GOP Senators that stopped the Dream Act from becoming law, overturning the will of a majority of House members and Senators, and nothing to do with a lack of leadership by the President. Listening and watching some of these same GOP Senators today, I was reminded of a line in a movie I watched this weekend, The Outlaw Josey Wales. And so to those people in the GOP that were blaming the President knowing it was Senators in their party that caused the bill to fail, I want to tell them the same line that was said in the movie: "We have a saying here in Missouri, Senator. Don't try pissing on my back and tell me it's raining."    

An All-American City? Yeah, if you're GOP.

Being born in Kansas City and raised in Independence Missouri, after I retired from the Air Force, I wanted to come back and live in the same town with my family. And Independence, a fine town with many things to see and do, has twice been named an All-American town. But I wonder how truly for all Americans it actually is? In the next week, the city will change bus companies, and customers have been told that more places and a longer schedule will going into effect. Right now, there's no bus between 9and 11 AM, or after 6PM, or on Sunday. And many places that recently opened, like the new arena that has concerts and the new Bass Pro Shop weren't on a bus line at all. So now, with this new company and schedule, yes you can get to the arena and Bass Pro Shop, and it runs hourly from 6AM all through the day until 6PM. But still no Sunday bus service, so want to go to a concert or a hockey game? Yes, drive or take a cab. Want to get into Kansas City and get close to home at night? Same thing, and a cab is $50 from downtown Kansas City. All-American City? Not if you're old and don't drive, or you're poor. Sounds like a GOP All-American Town to me.

The GOP, Romney, and Immigration

Can anyone believe what Mitt Romney and the GOP are saying about immigration now? Or maybe a better way to say it is, how can anyone believe what Romney and the GOP are saying now about immigration? For the entire GOP presidential campaign, Romney was the most anti-immigration candidate on the dais, and that's saying something. But he said he would repeal The Dream Act if he was President, spoke on the need of illegal aliens to self-deport, and moved farther right against immigrants from Mexico whenever someone tried to out-flank him. And the rank-and-file of the GOP applauded each move that he made. So now, how can anyone believe that now, if he was President, he'd look at enacting a law that would help young illegal aliens get a green card and become a citizen? And as far as the GOP members in Congress, it was them that stopped the Democratic version of the Dream Act, and Rubio version of the bill, one that is more restrictive that the Democratic version, couldn't even be voted on as it was blocked by far-right members of the GOP. So this is the group that now complains that the President didn't follow law, but wants to help illegal immigrants by enacting his Presidential Order into law? No, the GOP isn't that group, but the group that lies to people, puts down the President at every turn he makes, and will say anything to get a vote. Like I said, how can anyone believe what Romney and the GOP are saying now? Oh yeah, about immigration, too.  

Just when I thought politics was bad

In  this Presidential election year, it's tough to imagine sadder and darker than the campaigns and the media coverage of them, but the Jerry Sandusky trial may have reached a new low. And the worse thing is, if the reporting is right, it may not be what Mr. Sandusky is alleged to have done Oh, the acts, as any sexual acts forced upon a minor would be, are disturbing enough. But it was reported that Penn State may have known several years before the alleged acts came to light, but that officials at the University decided that it would be inhumane to Mr. Sandusky to investigate the allegations. Inhumane in Sandusky? What about the kids, Penn State officials? Isn't the entire charter of your school, and therefore your job, is to teach students subjects that properly mold young people, to help them become better people and citizens, and to provide a proper environment to them so this can happen? And you thought not investigating Mr. Sandusky helped this endeavor how? I believe most people would call this CYA.
There have already been many things in this election year that have been said that are sad, and in some cases very dark. But, if this reporting is true, let's hope nothing that happens this year in the political arena will be as sad and dark as the lack of actions and backbones by the officials at Penn State a few years ago.    

No war on women GOP? How about a siege.

For at least a month, the GOP has said they aren't waging a war on women, although almost every GOP governor has tried to restrict a woman's right to choose. But on Tuesday, when the Democrat in the Senate tried to pass a law ensuring equal pay for women and men for the same job, Tea Party members (The GOP) in the Senate made sure it couldn't pass. And only 1 GOP Senator could even speak up against the bill, and not one could say anything after the vote to explain their vote. So GOP, you don't want women to make the same pay as men in the same job? Well, you may not be waging war on women, but you're certainly forcing a siege, making them accept what you want, rather than allowing them to do what they want, and make choices.    

Campaigns, when does the main event start?

I wonder when the Romney and Obama campaigns will get to the actual main event, and stop with all these under cards. Because all these ads that I see look like under cards on a fight card, and all I want is the main event, the way of the future. That's right, not past performances with successful or failed businesses,  not the unemployment rate, not even visions of the future to me is the real main event. Since it's just now June, maybe I just have to put up with all these important yet smaller themes. No, the real main event is, simply, how do we get to the future? Which is the way to that future that everyone wants? Is the GOP way, which is to cut taxes on everyone, while cutting spending and opportunities for the poor, the indigent, women, education, infrastructure, older Americans, and immigrants while spending on the military goes up? Or is it the Democrats way, which would be to raise taxes on the wealthy, which are at historic low rates, ensure opportunities for the indigent, women, older Americans, and immigrants, ensure spending for education and infrastructure continue to allow people the opportunities to better themselves, and to keep the military spending at a level that will keep the country strong but not choke off the funding for domestic programs. Now I know which way I would vote in that debate, but I think both sides have a viewpoint, and people have the right to decide which way to the vision of a better America they would prefer. The real question is, will we ever see that main event, or will both campaigns keep showing the American people under cards that really don't matter to most people.