Barb Caffrey's Blog

Writing the Elfyverse . . . and beyond

Archive for the ‘United States Politics’ Category

WI Rs dither over Unemployment Benefits Extension . . . while National Rs Continue their Do-Nothing Ways

with one comment

Folks, again I have two topics for discussion.

First, the Wisconsin Republicans have acted up again, refusing to pass a bill to extend unemployment benefits — or, rather, refusing to pass the same, exact bill.  The Republican-controlled Assembly passed a bill that requires a one-week wait for unemployment benefits (a one-week, unpaid wait, at that), while the Republican-controlled state Senate passed a bill that did not require a wait and passed that decisively, 30-3 in an unusual bipartisan vote.

As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s headline put it, “Dispute on Jobless Benefits Puts Unemployed in a Bind.”  A relevant quote from the article:

Republicans who control the Senate and Assembly agree they should accept the federal money to allow the unemployed to collect benefits for an extra 13 weeks – in part because that won’t hurt the state’s struggling unemployment insurance fund. But the two houses cannot agree on whether to make laid-off workers wait a week for their initial benefits – a move that would save the fund money.

The main problem is, some in the Assembly believe it will take months to resolve this issue — months, when some Wisconsinites have been out of unemployment since April 16, 2011!  As stated in this article:

“It’s not something we’re going to leave hanging out there,” said Andrew Welhouse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). “It’s just trying to come to the right answer. We all understand the stakes here.”

The senator’s brother, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), has said he wants to fix the problem soon, but added that lawmakers might not be able to do it until September.

As you see — it’s July 22, 2011, right now as it’s just clicked over to midnight as I write this.  Not doing anything until September would indeed take months, at a time when even Republican Gov. Scott  Walker admits that unemployment rates are too high in parts of the state (including my own Racine, WI).

I’m sorry; I agree fully with Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona), who said this:

“It is due to incredible incompetence or coldhearted calculation that we are delaying passage of this bill . . . It’s time we recognized that the workers in Wisconsin that have lost their jobs are not toys to be played with,” Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said.

Miller is exactly right.  He knows what happened here; the Senate Rs, six of them facing impending recall elections, voted to say they want unemployment extensions done right now and not to wait a week before any worker receives benefits, either — partly because they are facing recall, and this looks good for them.  But the Senate Rs knew full well that the Assembly Rs wouldn’t play ball here; none of them are facing recall (they aren’t eligible for recall until January of ’12), and they don’t seem to be very concerned about the possibility of a recall election, either, as normally their seats would be up at the end of ’12 anyway.

So what the Senate Rs did is this — they figured they’d “have their cake and eat it, too.”  They did this in order to look compassionate, but their real beliefs are probably in line with the Assembly Rs, who aren’t budging and won’t budge, even though many people in Wisconsin haven’t had any unemployment since April 16 of this year and won’t get any until this bill is finally passed.

As of now, the Senate will have to take it up again next Tuesday, July 26, 2011.  They may well not do anything other than affirm their same bill; this will once again allow themselves to look good, while knowing that the Wisconsin unemployed workers remain shut out of the decisions . . . remember, unemployment insurance is not welfare.  It is our right, as workers, as we’ve paid into it and deserve to be able to tap into it when times are very hard and bad (as they are now).

I implore the Wisconsin Legislature, Rs and Ds alike, to do the right thing here.  Pass the unemployment benefits extension now.  Worry about the one-week cut later.

As for anything else, the national Rs also do not impress me with their willingness to work together toward anything.  The deficit talks remain stalled out, with word tonight according to Ed Schultz at MSNBC and Keith Olbermann of Current TV that President Obama has met with both Rs and Ds and wants his “Grand Bargain” to take place.

Don’t know about the “Grand Bargain” yet?  Well, it’s simple — it would cut the deficit by cutting three essential social programs, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security in exchange perhaps for some tax revenue (maybe by raising taxes on the top 1% of the country, maybe by closing tax loopholes).  Yet Social Security is running at a surplus — any short-term “deficit” there is because the Congress keeps raiding the “lock-box,” nothing more — and while I support an end to waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare (including disallowing really expensive medicine — something that costs over $500 monthly and will not add any life expectancy to a cancer victim, say — unless that expensive medicine actually helps to restore life and health to someone so that person can re-enter the work force after his/her health crisis has been taken care of), I do not support any other changes to these essential programs.

Basically, there are now three groups of people in Washington, DC.  Those who will work with others in both parties.  Those who will work with others in their own party only.  And those who won’t work with anyone, period, because they think raising the debt ceiling is morally wrong.  

While I have some sympathy, emotionally anyway, for this last group, no one has ever been sent to Washington, DC, to completely obstruct the process of governing.  Instead, they’re sent to work and make the best deals they can, so refusing to do so is pointless and absurd, not to mention a waste of taxpayer money.  Because last I checked, it’s the taxpayers — i.e., all of us — who pay the salaries of the House of Reps.

So what we have here isn’t just a “failure to communicate,” as the movie actress once said.  It’s a failure to even understand what communication is, much less do anything about it.

And all the while, the United States of America’s credit rating starts to slip . . . people start to worry about losing their jobs (for example, much of the Federal Aviation Administration is being held up due to similar problems and they could end up “furloughed” — meaning they don’t get paid — as early as Saturday) . . . fewer people work, meaning the tax base gets lower overall, meaning the deficit increases.  All very, very bad things.

President Obama, by putting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table for discussion, has caused some of the Rs — those willing to work at compromise — to salivate at the bit.  But as President, Mr. Obama is supposed to be working on behalf of all Americans, including the least among us.  Those who are ill.  Those who are helpless.  Those who are on fixed incomes, such as those on Social Security who have nothing else.  Not only for the needs of the wealthy, none of those likely to need those three programs.

I stand with Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann tonight (among others), who wonder what this Democratic President is doing by even thinking about cutting these essential programs.  Because it’s just not right to kick anyone when they’re down . . . not the poor, not the disabled, not the helpless, not anyone. 

And that’s all cuts to those three programs will do.  Hurt those who cannot help themselves.

Dave Hansen Retained; US Reps dither in DC

leave a comment »

Folks, I have two things to discuss tonight.

First, in the “grand opening” recall election, Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) has easily defeated Republican challenger David Vanderleest.   The Associated Press called the race with 47 of 72 precincts reporting; so far, Hansen has 13,675 votes to Vanderleest’s 6,191.  Or, in other words, Hansen has 69% of the vote to Vanderleest’s 31%.

This recall election may or may not be a harbinger for the six Republicans who face recall on August 9, 2011 — remember, this was an election where the question was, “Do you wish to retain Dave Hansen, or not?” more so than, “How angry are you with Dave Hansen?  Do you want him out?”  And while the six Republicans certainly will have to face all three questions, too, my best guess is that the second two questions — i.e, “How angry are you with Alberta Darling?  Do you want her out, or not?” (fill in the name of the other five Senators in place of Darling’s, here) — that will count far more in those elections.

Otherwise, I’ve been bemused for several days now watching the United States House of Representatives dither in Washington, DC.  The Republicans there have proposed something called a “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan that would cap the amount of federal expenditures to 18% of the Gross Domestic Product (what used to be called Gross National Product), which sounds good until you realize they’re talking about doing this for political advantage rather than to do anything good for the country at all.  And the fact that the US remains in, if not an actual, textbook definition recession, in very bad economic straits does not help anything.

See, sometimes if you cut programs that work during a recession (or in this case, in very bad economic straits — a “jobless recovery,” in short), that is counterproductive.   It adds more strain to the economy when you don’t make any provisions for people who are hurting.  And it adds more strain on the economy when people can’t find work — the case all over the country, but worse in some areas than others — or are working far below their capacity, either in hours, in pay, or in most cases, both.

All I know is, that “Cap, Cut and Balance” plan will never pass the US Senate.  And the House Reps know this — which means all of this has been political posturing, not anything that will do any good in the long run.

I’d rather the US House of Reps, Rs and Ds alike, concentrated on the “art of the possible” rather than play these ridiculous games.  And right now, what’s possible is this — raise taxes on the top 1%.  Close loopholes in the tax rates so corporations pay some taxes — it’s absolutely absurd that a big company like General Electric pays less in taxes than I do, and some companies pay even less than GE!  And continue the troop draw-downs in Iraq and Afghanistan, bring those troops back home, and station them instead on the border with Mexico to help out there.  (This way, there aren’t a whole bunch of soldiers joining the ranks of the unemployed, and they’re doing something vital and necessary, to boot.  But we get rid of a lot of expenses that come from having a bunch of our folks overseas in the bargain.)

If the Republicans do all of that — or even if they do some of it, as we’re talking about the “art of the possible,” here — then I agree that changes to the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs should be discussed, too.  But at this time, the Rs have shown absolutely no willingness to raise revenue at all — not even by closing tax loopholes, which is the easiest thing in the world to do — which frustrates me greatly.

During a time of three separate wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — we need all the revenue we can in order to keep funding those wars (even if they do start immediate draw-downs as I believe would be best for the country in many senses).   Why the Rs refuse to close the tax loopholes is beyond me, because that would be by far the easiest thing to do — then they can work on instituting additional taxes on the top 1% to bring them in line with the middle class in this country (note that I’m not asking for draconian increases; I simply want to see something that’s comparable to what the middle class are paying, that’s all).

So far, the Rs in Congress — especially in the House of Reps — have shown no willingness to compromise whatsoever.  Which makes me wonder: why did they even go to DC at all, if they were going to refuse to work on issues that are best for the country? 

Surely these Rs don’t believe that defaulting on our debt as of August 2, 2011, is really the best thing to do, right?   So taking that as an axiom, why is it these Rs don’t want to deal with what they know will work — raising some revenue, even if it’s only by closing tax loopholes or eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies (the wealthiest companies ever to exist on this Earth according to more than one economist), speed up the troop draw-downs, and then and only then talk about cuts to essential programs that many Americans use — and need — every day?

Written by Barb Caffrey

July 19, 2011 at 10:00 pm

Discussing Two Deaths: Betty Ford and Shannon Stone

with 4 comments

Tonight, I mourn.

In baseball, a 39 year old fan, Shannon Stone, passed away at a Texas Rangers game after he fell over a railing trying to grab a ball flipped to him by Rangers OF Josh Hamilton in order to give to his six year old son, Cooper Stone.  Conor Jackson of the A’s had just hit a foul ball, and Hamilton had flipped the ball into the crowd.  However, the toss was a bit short, and Stone fell, head first, twenty feet to the ground. 

I have no words for this, but the closest I can come to my feelings have already been expressed by sports columnist Greg Couch here:

I don’t even know what to say. I can’t stomach this. It makes me want to call my dad, hug my son. This is the prototypical father-son moment in this country, and it ended with Stone falling over the railing.

But what was even worse was what happened next:

They put (Stone) on a stretcher and, according to A’s pitcher Brad Ziegler who saw it all, Stone was telling the paramedics “Please, someone please get my son. Please check on my son. He’s up there all by himself.”

Ziegler, on ESPN’s Mike & Mike show in the morning, said, “One of the paramedics was right there, said, ‘Sir, we’ll get your son. Your son’s going to be OK. Don’t worry about your son.’ ”

A few minutes later in the ambulance, Stone died.

This reminds me ever so much of my husband Michael’s last few conscious minutes (after the first heart attack, he fell into a coma before we ever got to the hospital, and he died ten hours later).  Michael’s words were for me — the person he cared about the most in the world.  While Stone’s words were for his six-year-old son — one of the people he cared the most about.  In the world.

Stone was only 39.  He was a firefighter for 18 years, one of mankind’s unsung heroes.  He is survived by his thirty-six year old wife Jenny, his mother, Suzann, and of course his young son.  He will be greatly missed. 

Compared to that, the passing of former First Lady Betty Ford at age 93 was both more somber and more understandable.  Ford’s life was remarkable; she crusaded for the Equal Rights Amendment (and yes, she was a Republican).  She was a feminist who believed that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare (in Hillary R. Clinton’s famous words).  Ford was relentlessly honest about herself, from her breast cancer to her issues with substance abuse, and she helped to found the Betty Ford Center (which later spread into more than one, helping numerous people overcome substance abuse addiction).  And she was a very good wife who loved her husband, very much, something I empathize with a great deal.

Betty Ford was 93.  She lived a life filled with great, and public, meaning.   Many are left behind to honor her memory in and out of her family, and she, too, will be greatly missed.

Written by Barb Caffrey

July 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm

Why Weiner’s Behavior Warrants the “Truly Horrible” Label

with 6 comments

Over the past few days, I’ve resisted the temptation to kick Representative Anthony Weiner, D-NY, while he’s down.  Weiner, as you probably know, has been in the news for the past two weeks due to having a picture of him, in his underwear, published inadvertently on Twitter.  Weiner lied about this initially, claiming he had been “hacked.”  He admitted on Monday that this picture really was him (the one in his underwear), and said other pictures existed, some conversations with women not his wife existed also (before and after his marriage to Huma Abedin, one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aides at the State Department), and that he was “deeply ashamed” and really, really “sorry.”

So, since I resisted saying anything up until now, you might be wondering what has changed.  Two things, really.  First, Weiner’s wife Abedin is reportedly pregnant with their first child, which makes all of Weiner’s behavior (including a nude photo of Weiner’s “equipment,” which surfaced today) even more sophomoric than it already was — and second, I got to thinking.

Look.  I’ve known people — myself included, with my wonderful, late husband Michael — who got to know each other online, mind to mind, before they ever got into physical proximity** (we’re talking long-distance relationships, here — committed, monogamous ones).  Or perhaps one of the pair had to take a job far away from the other — hundreds or thousands of miles — and to keep the “home fires” burning, the pair may well have sent scantily-clad pictures of themselves in order to encourage fidelity.   Or maybe the pair had intimate phone conversations.  Anything, to keep the relationship — a monogamous, consensual, committed relationship — on track.

It takes a lot for me to call behavior “truly horrible.”  Usually when I slap that label on it, we’re talking about one political party behaving badly and doing stupid things, not a juvenile, irresponsible man over 40 who can’t keep his pants zipped when he has a wonderful wife at home.

And make no mistake — what Weiner did is definitely cheating.   He talked about sex with women (not his wife, when his marriage was still a going, vital concern), and presumably acted on his desires.  That’s cheating.  Period.

To be clear, I do not believe Weiner should resign from Congress.  But I do think his behavior was terrible and reflected very poorly not only upon him and how he conceives of marriage, but makes anyone who’s trying to use cyberspace and/or the telephone to keep a long-distance relationship going feel like they’re either doing something sleazy, or have already done it.

I feel terribly sad for Abedin, who knows her husband has not been faithful to her and did not take his wedding vows seriously.   And I feel even sadder for Weiner, who not only didn’t realize the jewel he had (and for the moment still has) in his wife, but went around cheapening himself — and everyone else who uses alternative means to remain close to his or her committed partner — because he was too damned stupid to know any better.  Or care, either.

All of these thoughts make me wish once again my husband was still alive, because I’m sure he’d have something interesting, funny, scathing, or possibly all three at once about the Weiner set of scandals.  But I truly wish I weren’t thinking about him — the most wonderful man in the world, the most wonderful person the Deity ever created — in this context.

Thanks a lot, Anthony Weiner.  Really.

—————————

** In my case, Michael and I met once, at a mutual friend’s house, then I went home to one state and Michael went home to another state, hundreds of miles away.   We relied on our mutual friends (we had several) to help us out when the inevitable miscommunications arose — and ultimately, being so far away from each other helped our relationship immensely because we had to learn to communicate or our relationship wouldn’t survive.  That’s how cyberspace, and the telephone, can help a relationship — whereas what Weiner did just shows how a stupid man can screw up his life with the latest, up-to-date technology.

Ed Schultz — From Hero, to Goat, to . . . ?

with one comment

Ed Schultz, for the past several months, has done a great job reporting on what’s going on in Wisconsin.  Schultz was probably the first person to take an interest in the protests against Governor Scott Walker (a Republican), and he went to Madison early on during the protests to show the real Wisconsinites who were upset over Walker’s proposed “budget-repair bill.”  These protests broke out partly because the Wisconsin 14 — the Democratic state Senators — went to Illinois to filibuster the proposed legislation, because the WI 14 knew that if they weren’t there, the Senate would not have a quorum as per Wisconsin rules on financial matters, and partly because Walker’s proposal was extremely unpopular.   I gave Schultz great credit for doing all this, as he understood the story from the Democratic and Independent perspective, and he explained it accurately — one of the first, and best, to do so overall.

But then, yesterday, he said something truly inappropriate regarding Laura Ingraham, a right-wing radio talk show host.   His comment was about our current President, Barack Obama, being photographed taking a swig of beer in Ireland, and how when George W. Bush did the same thing, no one complained — and the substance of that is true.   But he took it a step further when he called Ms. Ingraham a very nasty name on his Sirius XM Radio talk show — I will not reproduce this epithet — and now, MSNBC has suspended him for a week without pay.

Here’s a link regarding the whole mess:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/ed-schultz-to-take-unpaid_n_867186.html

Schultz went from a progressive hero of sorts — someone willing to tell the truth about why people were so upset in Wisconsin (it wasn’t just in Madison; there were protests all over the state including Union Grove, a little town of 4,322, a place that usually votes strongly Republican but wasn’t having any of Scott Walker’s proposal to do away with collective bargains for public-employee unions), someone who was willing to stand up for the “little guys” who are rarely talked about by the media — to a goat.  And an extremely smelly and foul-tempered goat, at that.

Now Ed Schultz has been suspended from MSNBC.   According to what I just listened to during the first segment of his “Ed Show” tonight, Schultz offered to take an unpaid leave of absence because he recognized that his behavior was beyond the pale.   He said he tried to get a hold of Ms. Ingraham to apologize, left a message for her apologizing, and will continue to try to get a hold of her because in any context, what he said was not acceptable. 

And he’s right — it wasn’t.

Schultz also discussed how he has failed, big-time, on this issue.  That he expects better of his children and grandchildren, and how can he possibly set a good example for them when he has fallen down on the job this way.  And that he hopes to do better in the future and that he promises that he will never, ever, use the incendiary verbiage that came out of his mouth during a radio ad-lib — that he will, indeed, do better.

Mr. Schultz, I commend you for apologizing and for admitting how wrong you were to do this.   I hope you will remember this day, not because of your humiliation, but because you were right to apologize and to step aside for a week (or however long it may turn out to be) to get your head right.  Your speech tonight showed true remorse and I hope that you will remember that no matter how much you dislike someone — no matter how stupidly they may behave — they are still a human being, and they don’t deserve to be called nasty names.

An insult to one woman is an insult to all of us, Mr. Schultz; I am not a fan of Ms. Ingraham, but I believe very strongly that you shouldn’t have insulted her.  You lowered the tone of the discussion, and that was indefensible, as you said yourself this evening — and the only possible good that could come out of this is a frank discussion about why the term you used is inappropriate for anyone with taste, class, or an education. 

My advice is this: learn from this.  Become a better person.  And please, please, continue to focus on the real people who’ve been hurt by Walker’s proposals in Wisconsin,  because that is where your true gift lies.

Scott Walker signs union rights stripping-bill into law; recalls pending.

leave a comment »

Just a very brief note, folks . . . following the possibly illegal behavior of the Senators on the Senate-Assembly Conference Committee, Scott Walker today signed the noxious bill which strips public employee union-members of their rights to collectively bargain.

But this is not the end . . . oh, no.   This is far, far from over, and I, for one, will be avidly awaiting the results of the recall elections which will happen in at least seven of the eight districts where Republican Senators can be recalled. 

UPDATE:  All eight Republican state Senators now have active recall efforts going against them.  People are furious about what the state Senate Republicans did here in passing the union-stripping measures without an abstract of the bill in question, without giving the public time to look at it and without even giving two hours notice as required under the Wisconsin Open Records law.  Note that the Conference Committee, especially the Senators on it like Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, are far more likely to get into trouble than the WI state Senate on its own as the Senate most likely voted legally — it’s that the Conference Committee was a) called before the WI state Senate voted and b) didn’t get two hours either that’s most likely to get this bill stricken from the record and a re-vote may well become necessary down the line.

And while we wait to see what the courts will do with this bill, it’s time for the recall process to begin on the eight Republican Senators vulnerable to recall at this time.  (Note that there are also eight Dem. Senators who could possibly be recalled, but the guy funding those recalls is a very wealthy man in Utah who doesn’t live in WI at all.  My best guess is that if any of the WI Dems has to run in a recall election, he or she will win re-election, but it’s possible one, maybe two of them might have people in their district who are madder about them going to Illinois to prevent a quorum than they are about Scott Walker.  I don’t think that’s the case, mind you — I think people are irate regarding Scott Walker — but anything is possible, including the potential stupidity of voting out any of the courageous Democratic Senators who left the state in a legal procedural move to delay this process until everyone in the state following the news could be informed of what was truly going on.)

Scott Walker’s hours are numbered also as Governor, because there’s no way in the world Wisconsin voters will stand for what he and the Fitzgerald brothers (Scott as the Senate Majority Leader, Jeff in the Assembly as its Speaker) just forced down our throats.  We cannot get signatures to recall Gov. Walker until November, but my best guess is that we will get many more than the 540,000 signatures (1/4 of the total of the last vote for Gov. statewide) needed to force a recall election.

For those of you who do not live in Wisconsin, a recall election is a “do-over” election.  And as many people who unfortunately voted for Walker now feel betrayed, it is very likely our next Governor will be a Democrat — whether it’s Russ Feingold (former US Senator) or Tom Barrett (current mayor of Milwaukee, who ran unsuccessfully for Gov. in 2010) makes no nevermind as either would be far, far better as a Gov. for the state of WI than Scott Walker could ever be.

Please go to this Web site for further details as to how the “Republican 8” Senators vulnerable to recall right now will be recalled (the signatures are being gathered right now):

http://www.recalltherepublican8.com/

Also, see this site for further details:

http://wisconsinrecall.net/blog/ — for those wishing to get state Sen. Mary Lazich out, there’s a number of places working to recall her from this site.

And see this very good opinion from the Capitol Times (in Madison, WI):

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_df073de6-4be5-11e0-944e-001cc4c03286.html

And go, go, recallers!

Time to de-stress

with 3 comments

After the tumult of the past week, I badly needed a day to get away from it all and de-stress.

You see, I get very worked up about politics.  I don’t see it as “political theatre,” or at least not just that . . . I see it as extremely important.  And sometimes, the importance of the political moment can crowd out everything else.

I don’t know about anyone else, but what I do to de-stress is to read my favorite “comfort books” (as I discussed a few blogs ago), rest, then meditate after I’m a bit calmer.  Because things are usually neither as bad as they first appear, nor as rosy as they can look in our best moments — they’re like people, period, and have elements of both.

That we can have the seed of hope in a truly despairing day is one of those conundrums philosophers have been trying to solve for millenia, and I know I certainly don’t have the answer to it.  But that does seem a saving grace, now and again.

Yesterday, the hope I saw despite all the tumult was an unusual picture — on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” starring disc jockey and humanitarian Ed Schultz, he had a member of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBT) community in Madison right alongside a member of the pro-life community in Madison.  This is rarely seen; even more rare, they got along, and agreed that what the protestors are fighting about (the right to have their voices be heard through collective bargaining) is extremely important.

But I couldn’t take in that hopeful picture just then; I was too wracked by the suffering I could see, easily, if the current Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, gets his way.

Therefore, what this blog is about is simple: sometimes we need to take a step back when we’re too emotionally involved in something — particularly if it’s an external event.  (I’m not saying you should step back from your love relationships; far from it!  Though sometimes sleeping on a decision helps you, so the principle does apply somewhat even to this example.)  Only when we de-stress a bit can we actually figure out that there are hopeful things going on all around us, big and small . . . and that life isn’t as bad as it first appears.

My late husband Michael often used this axiom — just get through the day, or as he put it, “sufficient unto the day are the needs thereof.”  (I know he’s quoting someone but I haven’t been able to figure out who said this first.)   It helps to remember that not everything in the world is awful, hopeless, bleak beyond belief or worthless, even though stupid things do keep happening (today, in Madison, some probably well-meaning doctor handed out fake “I am really ill” slips to anyone who asked, including a Fox News producer) that make my teeth grind.

Now, I’m going back and watching some more of “The Maury Show,” which is yet another way to de-stress that I find extremely helpful.  I hope you find your way to relax, get away from it all — at least mentally if you can’t physically — and remember to enjoy whatever you can of your life.

Written by Barb Caffrey

February 19, 2011 at 10:45 pm

State of the Union: Awful, awful, awful.

with 4 comments

Folks, I don’t even know where to start regarding last night’s State of the Union speech (henceforth to be referred to by its acronym, SotU), except for one word, repeated three times: awful, awful, awful.

Why would I choose to repeat one word three times?  Well, the state of the United States right now — or of our Union — is exactly that.  Awful. 

That the President of the United States, Barack Obama, talked around the problem rather than talked about the problem, is also exactly that — awful

And finally, that the pundits did not call the President to account for not coming right out and saying, “Right now, people in the United States are suffering and rather than talk about nonsensical things or irrelevant things, I’m going to talk about them,” they, too, can only be summed up by just one word (you guessed it): awful.

I listened to the SotU last night and was appalled.  Barack Obama is a very smart, literate, intelligent man who knows better than this.  The American people were waiting for him to say, “I know it’s bad.  I’m working on trying to make it better.  I really think these things will work,” and only pick a few things to discuss — not so many things that after an hour of draining words, you don’t have anything to show for it but a bunch of meaningless quotes that won’t mean anything to the average person at all.

Yes, I get it that we need Green Jobs.  Hillary R. Clinton ran for President in 2008 and this was one of her platforms; I am for Green Jobs.  I see how they could actively help the economy if carefully managed, because Green Jobs won’t be able to be created overnight.

But talking about that as one of the hallmarks of your plan is not something most people care about.

No, Mr. President.  What we care about is simple.  The economy, stupid.  (From Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid,” not meant as a pejorative.)

The economy is in the toilet.  Unemployment is horrible — over 9% and rising — and the only reason it’s not well over 15% is because people have fallen off the rolls and have “aged off” the system.   No provision has been made for these people, which is beyond disheartening; it’s as if the people in Washington, DC, including the President of the United States who should know better, have turned their backs on these folks (collectively called the 99ers).  They can’t find work not because they aren’t qualified: most are.  Not because they don’t want to work: they do.  But because there aren’t anywhere near enough jobs for all the people who want work.  That’s the fact, and it wasn’t even touched last night.

Nor was the second-biggest issue that’s currently on people’s minds — guns, or at least semi-automatic handguns with extra-large clips** wielded by people who are delusional and unable to understand reality like Jared Lee Loughner.  Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was discussed very briefly in the opening paragraph, then dropped, which left a huge opportunity on the table.

Next, I realize the SotU address is political theatre, but did we really need the theatre of the absurd?

I’m referring, of course, to the ridiculousness of seeing the Republicans and Democrats uneasily co-existing in front of the President rather than sit on opposite sides as they’ve generally done.  No one looked happy with this, and if it was intended (as was said) to be a “call for civility” in action, it was a dismal failure.

Finally, I re-iterate: what about the jobs?  What about the economy?  What about the high unemployment?  What are you going to do, Mr. President, about any of this, other than pontificate, obfuscate, and talk meaninglessly for over an hour?

The address, Mr. President, was simply too long.   And it wasn’t what we wanted — nay, needed — to hear.

Regardless of the left-wing pundits, the right-wing pundits, the centrist pundits or whatever other pundits may exist . . . and regardless of how some of the SotU address might work in smaller “sound bites” . . . this speech failed the country.  I don’t care what anyone says; I know the truth, as I’m a highly educated woman with a Master’s degree, and I’ve read a lot of history.

This speech was a dismal failure.

We needed to hear that you care, Mr. President.  That you are trying to do something.  And that what you’ll do will take effect this year.  Not next year.  Not the year after that.  Not in 2020.  Not in 2040.  But this year.  Now.   Because things are bad and are getting worse.

That you did not, Mr. President, probably will affect your chances in 2012.  For the worse.  And I can’t believe you don’t have some advisor who isn’t a yes-man up there in Washington, DC, who should’ve told you that this speech was a stinker.  Because if that person did so, you should’ve listened.

The 2011 SotU speech will end up making no difference in the long run, except to cement that you, President Barack Obama, are seen as well-meaning and benevolent, but also out of touch.  Big-time.

——–

** Jason Cordova kindly pointed out that Jared Loughner used a semi-automatic handgun rather than an assault rifle, and he is of course quite right.  The main reason I keep thinking “assault rifle” is how big that clip was that Loughner was using — a legal size, yes, but still, very large.  That doesn’t excuse why I got it wrong even though I’ve heard the term over and over again, of course.  The error has now been corrected, as you see.  BC

Lobbyist Jimmy Williams says “It’s Hate” that causes shootings, not guns.

leave a comment »

This, friends, is the best thing I’ve heard from the pundits since the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ, last Saturday afternoon.

To be brief, Jimmy Williams, who is a Democratic lobbyist, said on today’s ‘Dylan Ratigan Show” on MSNBC that it is not guns alone that kill people.  He noted that on 9/11, the terrorists did not use guns.  In Oklahoma City, the terrorists did not use guns.  And while some terrorists have used guns like Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, they undoubtedly would’ve found another way if they hadn’t had guns because they were drunk on hatred.

So to be even more brief:  “It’s hate,” said Jimmy Williams.

Williams elaborated that people learn hatred at home but can learn differently; he used his own experience growing up in the South, mentioning that his father had far different views about black people than he did, and that he’s told his father many, many times he’s wrong.  And that focusing only on the fact this guy Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is severely mentally ill is missing the point.

Amen, brother!

Listen.  I get really upset when someone blames all mentally ill people for something like this.  The term “mental illness” has broadened to the point to include people who are grieving the loss of a loved one (transitory depression), those who suffer from panic attacks (the most high-profile one being football Hall of Fame running back Earl Campbell), and those suffering from situationally-based depression.  None of these types of people are likely to go on a killing spree, though some are responsible hunters and take their responsibility as gun owners seriously.

So just saying, as one gal did here on the Dylan Ratigan show (I forgot her name already, sorry), that “all crazy people should not have guns” is really beside the point.

Also, what, exactly, is your definition of a “crazy person?”  Is it, like the famed definition of pornography by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, something you’ll “know . . . when you see it?”

Jimmy Williams is right to say that it is hate, pure and simple, which makes someone — crazy or not — go out on a rampage like this one.  And he’s right to say that hate — not being crazy — is what led to the deaths of six innocent people and the wounding of fourteen more (some of whom, like Congresswoman Giffords, remain in critical condition at this time).

You need to see this video from Dylan Ratigan’s MSNBC show; I can’t seem to get it to properly upload, so please go to this link where you should be able to see it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#41026206

Cut and paste this link if Word Press does something odd again . . . it should work and bring you to Dylan Ratigan’s home page, where this video (about ten minutes in length) will play, and you’ll see Jimmy Williams extraordinary “cut through the bull” moment, along with a few others who didn’t understand, plus host Dylan Ratigan, who did.

US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Shot at Town Meeting; 6 dead, 12 wounded

with 3 comments

While driving today, I heard the distressing, horrifying news that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) had been shot at a town meeting this morning at 10 AM local Arizona time; she was shot in the head at point-blank range.  Six others, including federal judge John Roll, a child, a baby, and one of Ms. Giffords’ aides, are dead according to various wire reports, while Ms. Giffords has already undergone successful neurosurgery.  Her condition is considered critical, but stable, at this time; no one knows whether she will fully recover, but all hopes are high.

Here’s a link to the most recent wire report I could find:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345386/Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-Congresswoman-fighting-life-Arizona-gunman-identified-Jared-Laughner.html

Notice this is a UK newspaper, but their information is accurate as far as I can tell from monitoring CNN and Fox News this afternoon.

As Speaker of the House John Boehner said:

“An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.

“Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country.”

I agree; this is truly awful.  Horrifying.  Disgusting.  Distressing.  And insane.

The gunman, whoever he is — all we know is he’s 22 or 23 years old, though this article identifies him as Jared Laughner — needs to be seriously questioned at to what, exactly, he thought he was doing.  Because no matter how much you hate your elected representative — though Ms. Giffords was said to be well-liked by colleagues and voters — the only thing to do is this: VOTE THEM OUT.  DO NOT SHOOT THEM.  (OR ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING WITH THEM.)

** CNN just identified the shooter (I want to use much stronger verbiage, believe you me) as Jared Lee Loughner, 22.  Note the variation in spellings.  This still may not be the right identification.

Written by Barb Caffrey

January 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm