Dear SC®OTUS,
"Money is speech" is a concept with which I do not agree, but it is the law of the land, so there.
With this concept enshrined in law, a question arises of just who is doing the speaking and who is listening.
"Person(s) X (Y, Z) is (are) spending $125,000,000 to influence this election!" claims an email or two. Perhaps. But just where is that being spent?
Could it be that it is being spent here in the 45th District of California? How do I know? Someone's possibly speaking to me and if so, I don't know to whom the voice belongs. Americans for Apple Pie? The Century of America? Club for Stymied Growth?
Who runs these groups? Soros? Rove?
Who contributes those funds?
Someone's speaking to me, and I hear (metaphorically, because I read, realistically because I watch television and listen to the radio) the "voice," but I can't "see" who's doing the talking. I can't read the speaker's body language; I can't hear the nuances of the speaker's voice. Who is this speaker?
Isn't there a word for people who hear strange voices?
Are we in danger of becoming schizophrenics?
Help us out, here, SC®OTUS. Tell the speakers they have to identify themselves--openly, with exact spelling.
The cost of free $peach should be identification of the speaker.
Otherwise we are in danger of being turned into a nation of deafened citizens.
[tagname]
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Who dat? (A plea to the Supreme Court (Republican) of the United States)
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Does Dave read his own work?
Poor David Brooks. He tries so hard, yet so often shoots himself in the foot during the effort.
Take this quote from his column today:
[Obama’s] economic advisers have generally touted the benefits of globalization even as they worked to help those who are hurt by its downsides.
All of Brooks’ argument in this column can be refuted by taking the final two clauses of the quote as a basis for your argument’s construction.
The difference between the visions of capitalism of Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney which we see in today’s political arena is exactly that Mr. Obama is working to help those who are hurt by various policies which might or might not be necessary in a capitalistic system.
As Brooks writes, “[Romney’s] an efficiency expert.” He does best what is best for the business plans under which he works. His vision with Bain had not been broadened to include helping those who might fall to the dictates of a theory.
We live in a society with a social contract which demands we all take responsibility for our actions. Sometimes it means giving a helping hand to a person we knocked down.
Brooks knows that, and, in that quote, he inadvertently gives the strongest possible negative take on Romney he could have given. The question remains, Why didn’t Dave realize that when he published?
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, September 05, 2011
Actually, God’s punishment…
Every wonder why God doesn’t punish those people who behave antithetically to the “teachings of the ages?”
For instance, it seems obvious to clear thinkers that the wildfires in Texas are punishment for supporting Rick Perry.
Doesn’t it?
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, May 23, 2011
SCOTUS* vs California Republican Demagoguery
In case you didn’t know it, Dear Gentle Reader(s), the State of California’s prison system is in dire straits. Check out this bit of information provided by the Supreme Court of the United States today:
The degree of overcrowding in California’s prisons is exceptional. California’s prisons are designed to house a population just under 80,000, but at the time of the three-judge court’s decision the population was almost double that. The State’s prisons had operated at around 200% of design capacity for at least 11 years. Prisoners are crammed into spaces neither designed nor intended to house inmates. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, monitored by as few as two or three correctional officers. App. 1337–1338, 1350; see Appendix B, infra. As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet.App. 1337.
This court case has been going on since the early 1990’s.
Don’t quote me, but I blame the Republican Party’s draconian misuse of the ballot initiative available to Californians. (OK, these ballot measures passed, which means a majority of voters agreed with them.) Specifically, the three-strikes issue, and the 2/3 majority in the legislature needed for tax increases.
By one vote (*thankfully, Mr. Justice Kennedy provided it, otherwise I’d’ve been forced to call it a SC(r)OTUS decision because it would’ve gone the other way) the Court has upheld a lower 3-member Court’s decision to require California to reduce its prison population by some 40,000 inmates.
That’s a tough number, but it brings home the lesson of the dangers of falling for hyperbole during election cycles. We can’t get away from responsibility by believing those who don’t have our societal best interests at heart.
Sphere: Related ContentFriday, January 07, 2011
This does not bode well
Alas, Dear Gentle Reader(s), we’re in a pickle.
Remember all those references to the Constitution by Republican candidates during the last election cycle? Well, now we know why they talked about it so much. They needed lessons.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) stood in front of a television set at a fundraiser, when he should’ve been standing in the House of Representatives, and raised his hand when other members of the House, actually in the House at the time, were raising their hands and being sworn in as House members. And there was another newly elected Republican representative at that fundraiser, Mike Fitzpatrick. It was his fundraiser.
A virtual swearing in?
It’s going to be a very strange 2 years with these clowns in office.
By the way, read the entire piece, and discover how Petey acted in violation of the Constitution on the second day of the House calendar.
Trust, but verify. (Might be hard to do.)
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, November 08, 2010
Hmmm…
Is there any thing sadder than watching Fred Thompson shill for reverse mortgages?
50 years ago today I cast my first vote in a presidential election—for John F. Kennedy.
Two senators, two vastly different men.
Tempus fugit.
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday, October 28, 2006
Do The Republicans Deserve an "Easy" Vote?
“All politics is local;” except when it isn’t. This year it isn’t. In this off-year election, no less than a re-affirmation of the principles of the U.S. Constitution is demanded. The Republican party’s participation in weakening some of our basic principles demand that we think carefully about voting to return to Congress a representative who will “organize” with the Republican leadership.
The most egregious attack on the erosion of the Bill of Rights lies in the willingness of the Republicans to erode habeas corpus.
The Bill of Rights is further eroded by the Republican administration’s attempt to lessen our right to privacy.
The balance of power demanded by the Constitution is eroded by the Republican rubber-stamp congress of the past 5 years.
The Republican redefinition of what is allowable evidence in a trial as well as virtually secret trials has opened the door to a near-cousin of the loathsome Star Chamber which the writers of the Constitution knew and feared too well.
Forget selling one’s soul for a tax cut; maybe we should refuse to sell our Constitutional rights for a local road project or national parks and monuments.
This year we must give serious consideration to voting for the Constitution, and the Democratic party’s nominee to Congress.
U.S. Constitution
2006 Elections
Republicans