Goodbye Miss Garnett, I love you–Always Will

 

Miss Garnett: 1996 – August 29, 2012

Miss Garnett, as I write this you are in your little basket.. hopefully dreaming of better times. You and I have had quite an adventure… it seems like only yesterday I scooped you and your brother up from the side of the road and rescued the both of you. I was still immortal then, as were we all.

What a magnificent and fateful decision! You and your brother, Kitty Grey, truly opened my eyes to the wonderful love that can be shared when we open our hearts and homes to God’s other wonderful creatures!

When we’re living the adventure we never stop to think – it has to end. Living in the moment, walking across that desert of time, we don’t really think about our companions who will fall. And when confronted – when reality finally unveils its despicable and ugly self to us, we rebel. No! NO!

A thousand times FUCK NO! I WILL NOT LET YOU FALL! I WILL NOT LET YOU GO!

And I beg God for one more miracle. Please. Just one more. God blessed us with miracles several times in the past when you stumbled. What’s One More? JUST ONE MORE.

I won’t be greedy.

It’s the same plea I’ve made when you stumbled before.

As I sit here writing this.. I can hear your cries; They only stop when I hold you or when you sleep. Baby I’ve tried my damndest to find a way out and I can’t. And I know.. this time there will be no cheating that cheeky bastard Death.

He’s showing a Royal Flush and all we have are a pair of Broken Hearts.

I won’t drag you along in pain for a few more days. I can’t. And it’s tempting as hell because I know I COULD drag you along for a few more days. I could put you into an ICU, hook you up to IVs, inject you with drugs and drag you along for a few more days.

God, how tempting that is. But I won’t. Our journey together – so filled with love and adventure – must now end. There remains only one answer for the shackles of your suffering – release. I’m crying my eyes out because I know I’m the one holding the key.

The next step in your journey is one we all must take on our own.

What I can – and will do – is I will be by your side. You will feel my love of you as you move on. Your pain will end as your soul returns to God. The Promise of God is that all things will be renewed, including you. As with all of my family members & friends, you too shall be restored.

Until we meet again my sweet Miss Garnett, farewell, and know that you were a cherished blessing and one of the many signs that God does love us all.

I’m finished writing. And now soon I have to turn the key. I love you, baby.

Always will.

DKOS Diary: Ryan Budget Cuts Veteran Benefits at Kabuki Theater of the Absurd

 

Today I came across a Daily Kos Diary talking about Ryan’s Budget plans.  One of the items jumped out at me: Cutting benefits to veterans.  Shocking! Why, there will be a veritable stampede of Military Active Members and Veterans to the Democrats, right?

Wrong.  Read the Diary if you want the full context.  Below are two key excerpts, followed by my response explaining what is truly happening.

Excerpt:

Looking at the recently released GOP budget, written by Rep. Paul Ryan, it's hard to see how they do. In fact, looking at the nearly 100 page document, the word "veteran" doesn't appear once. Not once.

And:

But, without saying the word "veteran," the budget tells us a lot about what they think about veterans. The budget calls for across the board spending freezes and cuts. If enacted, the Ryan GOP budget would cut $11 billion from veterans spending, or 13 percent from what President Obama proposes in his own plan.

 

Now, my response in its entirety, which seeks to shed some light on what is going on:

Nixon Went To China:

It's simple, really:  When it comes to certain constituencies, you need a certain party to "cut" or otherwise degrade benefits to that constituency.

Blogger Labels: DKOS,Diary,Ryan,Budget,Cuts,Veteran

Technorati Tags: ryan,budget,veterans

It took Nixon to go to China.  Had a Democrat attempted such, he would have been branded a "communist" sympathizer.

The GOP, under Bush, reduced benefits for service members... which resulted in a huge defection of "military" support for the GOP, right?  Nope.  Didn't happen.

Flip it around:

Bush, who started two wars, passed Patriot Act, enacted Tax Cuts for the Wealthy... couldn't significantly alter Social Security.  The Dems wouldn't let him - because Social Security is solidly in the Dem Bailiwick.

So who was able to alter Social Security?  Democrats.  Using rhetoric from the GOP on taxes, the Dems - in the name of stimulus, led by Obama - gave a "tax cut" to American Workers.  In the form of reduced Social Security payments... but made up the cut by... linking it to the General Fund.

Think about this:  At some point, you will have someone claiming that we need to "cut" Social Security as it contributes to the Deficit.  Anyone who even TRIES to say "well, let's just get rid of the tax cut and fund it like it was designed to be funded"... will be labelled someone who wants to Raise Taxes.

So, what to do, what to do? 

One of two things: 

• Cut Social Security payments (in the name of Deficit Reduction) –OR-
• B) Cut other social programs in order to "save" Social Security.

Neat little trap, that.  And not something the GOP would ever be allowed to do because.. Social Security is in the Dem's Bailiwick.

 

What do Veterans think of the parties?  Even after Bush cut active members benefits?

Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney leads a new poll this week showing veterans would  pick him over President Barack Obama.

And, unlike the 2008 presidential election, when Sen. John McCain won 54 percent of the veteran vote, neither Obama nor Romney is earning an edge based off of experience (or lack thereof) in the military.

The Gallup poll shows  58 percent of veterans prefer Romney, compared to 34 percent who support the president.

Sure, there might be a percentage point or two to be gained by playing with the issue.  But in the end, there won't be much movement because... Veterans / Military is in the GOP Bailiwick.

Let's pivot and look at another issue:

Congress could be poised to pass three long-delayed free trade agreements, which promise to create jobs and help boost the anemic economy.  South Korea, Colombia and Panama all hammered out trade deals with the U.S. during President George Bush’s second term but none was able to make it through the political gauntlet on Capitol Hill.

What what?  King George - who, let's face it, was able to ram through all sorts of evil things, wars, Patriot Act, Tax Cuts for 1%, School "Reform", Torture, Indefinite Detention.. couldn't even get some Free Trade (smaller than NAFTA) through that ol' Congress? 

But wait - I thought the Dems were powerless to stop the GOP juggernaut?  (Tax Cuts, Wars, Torture, Indefinite Detention, Supreme Court selections…etc..)

It's because Free Trade is a Democratic Issue.  Not a GOP one.  And the respective parties guard their constituencies and issues like a hen watching her chicks.

It took Nixon to go to China.

But that was a long time ago.  That issue - Free Trade - no longer belongs to the GOP.  It hasn't for a long time.

Military issues?  Specifically benefits to service members? A democrat has to tread lightly.  An (R), on the other hand, is just what's needed when you want to cut benefits... because it has been hammered into the military constituency's brain that GOP = Military Support.

One more pivot...

Education "Reform", Charter Schools, and attacking teachers via "Testing".  

This one was really interesting... the GOP took the issue (which didn't belong to them), ran with it.. and the "Left" howled.  No Child Left Behind was attacked, ridiculed, and portrayed as nothing more than policies which would lead to for-profit corporations getting their hands on tax payer dollars at the expense of students and teachers.

When a party is strong enough - if it has the political capital - it CAN actually - briefly - move into territory formerly occupied by the other party.  That's what happened with NCLB.  Or, over the long hall, a party may actually seize what was former territory of the other party (Free Trade Job Off-shoring, anyone?)  NAFTA?  Panama?  South Korea?  Columbia?  Trans Pacific Partnership?

Fast Forward:

Democrats take control of Congress.  A Dem President is elected.  And appoints Arne Duncan as Education Secretary.  NCLB is renamed "Race To The Top".

The outrage, previously aimed at NCLB, was all but silenced.  Because "Education" is in the Dem bailiwick.  And the Dems wanted the issue back.  Rename it, tweak it a little.. and Bingo, it moves forward.  You wouldn't want the GOP doing education reform, would you?  

Best just to accept whatever excuses are offered up and move on.  Things will get better in the future, won't they?  Hang in there, kiddo, real reform is just around the corner.

To Wit:  The Party which "holds" a certain Constituency is the party which can affect changes near & dear to that Constituency with the least amount of resistance, meaning there is a higher chance of success.  The other party may attempt to score political points, but they will rarely be able to change the overall equation or affect perceptions & momentum on the issue / constituency.

American Job Off-Shoring: Romney & Obama Agree

 

President Obama, and his adoring fans, are railing against Mitt Romney on Mittens’ business dealings which led to the off-shoring of American Jobs. 

How stupid does Obama think his “base” is?

It would appear that Obama is positioning himself as a President who opposes American Jobs being Off-Shored to countries with cheaper labor / less worker & environmental protections.

This appearance is nothing more than that – appearance.  It is BULLSHIT.

 

This is President Obama signing the Free Trade Job Outsourcing Deal w/ Columbia, South Korea, and Panama.

So much for giving a shit about the American 99%’s Jobs, eh?

 

Question:

If Obama is against the Off-shoring of American Jobs, why does Obama sign Free Trade Job Off-Shoring Treaties and then request the Senate to ratify them?

Question:

Does anyone actually think bitching at Rethuglicans and Corporations over the issue of off-shoring American Jobs will actually influence Obama to STOP negotiating more Free Trade Job Off-Shoring Treaties?

The chutzpah Obama displays in attacking Mittens over American Job Off-Shoring is a testament to his confidence in the stupidity of his “base” to overlook the fact that without Presidential Free Trade Job Off-Shoring Treaties American Companies would have far less incentive to off-shore American Jobs in the first fucking place.

As a point of fact, thanks to Presidential Free Trade Off-Shoring Treaties, American Companies MUST OFF-SHORE or be beaten by their competitors who do off-shore. 

In essence, without Obama (and Clinton before him), American Companies would find it vastly less attractive to off-shore American Jobs.  The Free Trade Job Off-Shoring Treaties of Clinton and Obama all but force America’s 99% to lose their jobs to cheaper labor and countries with poorer (or nonexistent) protections for workers and the environment.

GOP Senators Convene Rape Panel: Blame Vagina For Rape

Above:  The nefarious Vagina (note the beard).

Above:  Republican moderate, Senator Collins of Maine.  A recent Republican-Led Senate Committee on Health & Crime recently identified the Vagina as the cause of Rape.

This afternoon in Washington, D.C., a U.S. Health & Criminal Senate Committee – staffed exclusively by Republican Senators, announced they were issuing a long-awaited report on the root cause of Rape. 

Republican Senator Collins (R-Maine), held a press conference to announce the summary findings of the Committee’s report.  While Sen. Collins was excluded from the actual Committee itself (lack of expertise in women’s health matters), she nonetheless agreed to announce the findings and voice her support for the Committee’s work.

Said Senator Collins:

I believe the quality and accuracy of the report speaks for itself.  The one common element to all cases of rape involving a female is that a Vagina is present.  Clearly such a strong pattern cannot be ignored as simply a coincidence.

Republican Senators discuss their recent report on the root cause of Rape at a Senate press conference in D.C., March 23, 2013.

Republican Senators started by explaining what motivated them to launch this important inquiry into the issue of Rape.  According to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Republican Senate Committee on Health & Rape:

We take the issue of Rape seriously. As a result, we have undertaken to explore the causes of Rape and have discovered that the Vagina appears to be the likely culprit.

Our Committee spent many months investigating this important issue and, according to our experts, Vaginas appear to be inextricably linked to Rape.  In every case our experts looked at, they found that a Vagina was always present during Rape [ed: of women].

The Democratic response was swift in demonstrating the difference between the two parties.  Senator Harry Reid, (D-Nev), held his own press conference to discuss the differences between the Republican’s Senatorial Committee on Health & Crime with the findings of the Democrat’s own similarly named Committee.

Democratic Senators of the Democratic Senate Committee on Health & Crime, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), hold a press conference to explain the differences between their Committee’s report on Rape and a similar report issued earlier today by the Republican’s Committee investigating Rape.

Harry Reid explained the Democrats strongly disagreed with the Republican’s report on Rape, and its root cause, calling the Republican’s assertion that Vaginas are exclusively at fault “radical” and “disgusting”.

Highlighting these differences, Senator Reid had this to say about the Democrat’s own report’s summary findings:

Certainly I respect the good work our Republican colleagues have undertaken.  I believe the voters understand that both Republicans and Democrats stand firm in our belief that Rape is a serious issue facing our country and that politics shouldn’t get in the way of addressing this vital issue.

However, my Republican friends are clearly radical in their thinking that Vagina is the sole causation of Rape.  Our own research shows that Vagina is not the singular cause of Rape. 

While our report acknowledges that the presence of a Vagina [ed: when women are raped] is indeed a significant factor which bears at least 90% of the burden for causing Rape, we also recognize that lack of education bears some blame as well.

We, as a result of our own Committee’s findings, are calling on our Republican colleagues to support legislation which funds an Aware Program which will seek to teach males that Rape is not always the most appropriate avenue to take when engaging in romantic activities.

I believe the American People will quickly recognize the vast differences between Republicans and Democrats and realize that Democrats do in fact care more about Women’s issues than our Republican friends.

Will this conflict between Republicans and Democrats be able to be reconciled?  Will the Republicans compromise on their radical position or will they cow-tow to their base?  Will Democrats be able to overcome their radical base and work with Republicans –or- will their base cause them to lose the support of the Middle?

Find out next time when we convene our own panel of experts to investigate and explore the topic of Rape.

Obama & His Chiefs of Staff

 

So.  Obama represents an alternative to GOP rule.  Really?  Let’s take a moment and ask ourselves:  Is placing Wall Street Predators in positions of power a path to change?  Or would such Predators look out for Wall Street (and their own) interests? 

It’s really a pretty simple question.  And let’s keep in mind:  Obama gets to choose his Chief of Staff:  The GOP can’t filibuster it, there’s no one forcing Obama to pick this or that Chief of Staff (except the 1%) – IT IS OBAMA’S CHOICE AS PRESIDENT.  It is HIS POWER to decide.

And what has Obama decided?

That ALL of his Chiefs of Staff should come from Wall Street Banks.  ALL of them.  One would be bad enough… but ALL?  This is called a PATTERN.  Let’s examine Obama’s three Chiefs of Staff, shall we?

Rahm Emanuel:

After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and joined the investment banking firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he worked until 2002.^[35] Although he did not have an MBA degree or prior banking experience, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office in 1999 and, according to Congressional disclosures, made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-years as a banker.^[35][36]

Really?  Someone close to Clinton – with NO banking experience – suddenly becomes a banker and makes out like a bandit?  I wonder what value the banksters saw in Rahm?  Perhaps his political connections?  Which implies Rahm would advance their interests?  Either that, or the banksters just loved Rahm so much they were moved to make him wealthy with nothing expected in return.

Emanuel was named to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) by President Clinton in 2000. His position earned him at least $320,000, including later stock sales.^[37][38] He was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, and the Board met no more than six times per year.^[38]

320K for meeting six times in a year.  Not bad “work” if you can get it.  I wonder what value he brought to the table?  Surely – Certainly – the banksters weren’t expecting Rahm to advance their interests politically, right?  Why, that wouldn’t lead to Change We Can Believe In, would it?

During Rahm's time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.^[38][39] The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director.^[38]

Well, color me shocked!  Obama rejected calls for information related to questionable activities conducted whilst Rahm was a Board Member?  I’m certain Obama had no choice (snark) – the GOP would have filibustered something, right?

William “Bill” Daley:

He became associated with Amalgamated Bank of Chicago, where he was first vice chairman (1989–1990) and then president and chief operating officer (1990–1993). Daley returned to the practice of law, as a partner with the firm Mayer Brown (then Mayer, Brown & Platt) from 1993 to 1997.

Daley was appointed to the board of Fannie Mae in 1993 by President Bill Clinton,^[2][3] serving until 1997. (Hmm.. seems to be a pattern here, eh?)

In December 2001, following his service as U.S. Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton, he was appointed President of SBC Communications to help reform the company's image. In May 2004, Daley was made the Midwest Chairman of JPMorgan Chase, following its acquisition of Bank One Corporation, to oversee its operations from Chicago. Daley formerly served on the Board of Directors of Boeing, Merck & Co., Boston Properties, and Loyola University Chicago. He is currently a trustee of Northwestern University and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Again.  We see Obama SELECTING (no GOP obstructionism here folks!) a Bankster as Chief of Staff.  Why?  What kind of policies do you think a Wall Street Bankster from JP Morgan would advance?  Do you think he would advance the 99% or the 1%? 

And now we get to Obama’s latest Chief of Staff:  Jacob Lew.

In June 2006, Lew was named chief operating officer of Citigroup's Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group. The unit he oversaw invested in a hedge fund "that bet on the housing market to collapse."^[3]

Gee, Beav – any thoughts as to what policies ol’ Lew will advance?  Think it’ll be for the 1% or the 99%?  Perhaps THIS is the Wall Street Bankster who will seek to make up for his past behavior which helped impoverish the 99%?  Ya think?  Or – and this is just a suggestion – perhaps the American public should wake up and smell the java? 

Call me cynical, but if you made your fortune betting that the 99% would be evicted from their homes, I’m guessing that you probably don’t give too much of a shit about the working class.  Perhaps I’m jaded.  Maybe I just don’t understand how the Banksters that destroyed the 99% actually wish it well?  Or maybe I’m facing reality.

Lew co-chaired the Advisory Board for City Year New York. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, (ooh! Council on Foreign Relations.. well, that’s certainly an interesting group, eh?)  the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project Advisory Board, and the National Academy of Social Insurance. Lew is also a member of the bar in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.^[4]

So what we have folks is that Obama – the President who supposedly the 99% should invest their future in – appoints Wall Street Banksters with a history of destroying of destroying the 99%, advancing policies that destroy the 99%, to… the White House Chief of Staff position. 

Explain to me again why I should have any faith whatsoever that Obama actually gives two shits about the 99%?

Protests & Strikes: Then and Now. Change You Won't Believe

A former governor of Michigan:

On Jan. 11, workers and police fought a pitched battle that injured 27 people, including 13 strikers with gunshot wounds.

A court ordered the governor to expel the strikers, but Murphy had his own ideas. He sent the National Guard to Flint, where soldiers kept the peace while the governor helped mediate a compromise.

So what happened to this radical governor?

Big business came to despise him and spent freely to defeat him. Murphy lost a 1938 rematch with Fitzgerald.
***
HE LANDED on his feet in Washington, joining FDR's Cabinet as attorney general in 1939. A year later, Roosevelt appointed Murphy to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Contrast that with what we have today :

He got Chiquita execs off with a hand slap for paying $1.7 million to rightwing death squads in Colombia, to slaughter 4,000 union leaders and workers.
For fucking Attorney General!

Why do I bring this up?  Because it is connected.

When our "leaders" do not back us and instead chose to align with the plutocracy and our corporate overlords - WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE it.

And recognize what naturally follows:  If you are on the side of the plutocracy, you will never represent the non-plutocrats.