Letter to the Editor
When the Supreme Court decided the corporations are people then people became non-people. America was supposed to be a democracy created to serve real people and no other reason. We were trying not be a kingdom where we were ruled by a king. Nor were we trying to be a feudalistic society where the peasant class (99%) was forever enslaved through bondage (debt) to the “Lord of the Manor” (1%). We are a country where all men (people) were created equal.
This week J. P. Morgan had 2 billion in trading losses. Chief Executive (Lord of the Manor) Jamie Dimon has been lobbying for less government regulation of Wall Street so that they can make more money through higher risk investments. However in 2008 when everything collapsed the banks came begging to the government for a bailout of trillions of dollars that we The People are supposed to be responsible for. They aren’t taking the risk – the risk is transferred to us. That isn’t fair. Why should We the People just hand the Lord of the Manor trillions of dollars that we have to pay back to them? I don’t think so. Why should we deregulate them and have The People pick up their losses?
The top 1% are sucking the life out of America. That’s why we need to tax the rich to get our money back that they stole from us in 2008. These investors are not “job creators” they are turning into slave owners and our debt becomes the mechanism for instituting slavery. If the phrase “We the People” means anything to Americans then we need to rise up against our oppressors and tell them – we are the people – corporations are not people – and we are going to take America back from the rich and make them pay off the national debt that they created and tried to put on us.
Letter to the Editor
In general the idea that all people should be treated equal is a sound starting point for a discussion about same sex marriage. Everyone should be treated equally. But there is no such thing as marriage and what the states pass off as marriage isn’t marriage at all. It’s just a really bad property contract between two people and the government.
We are arguing about the definition of marriage as to sexual orientation, but we forget that marriage was also supposed to be about a lifelong commitment. But with no-fault divorce that went away and was replaced with a lifelong contract with the government over your income and property. In California for example, if you are married longer that 10 years and one person makes more than the other then the person who makes more has to pay spousal support to the other for the rest of their lives. Divorce courts punish good behavior and reward bad behavior. “Till death do us part” means absolutely nothing to the courts. If your spouse is in jail, you’re going to have to pay him/her alimony.
Marriage is also a bad one size fits all contract that was designed for heterosexual virgin teenagers starting life together and applies those rules to all groups. So if grandma dies and grandpa marries a 20 year old then she, as wife, is first in line to make medical and financial decisions over his adult children. That’s just plain wrong. Marriage at 70 is not the same as marriage at 18 and should not be treated as such.
In the case same sex partners, men and women are different. Two men marrying is not the same as two women marrying or a woman and man marrying who can have children as opposed to man and woman marrying who can’t. Relationships with children, including same sex adoptions, are different than those without. Yep all we have is a one size fits all option.
Half of all marriages end in divorce. The other half end in death. The entire system is broken and needs to be replaced. If the state is going to treat marriage as a temporary property contract then it should be set up that way from the beginning. Or alternatively we should just phase out marriage altogether in favor of customizable civil unions where the terms of the agreement are spelled out in advance so that the two people joining can create the kind of union that applies to them. What we have now is broken and neither straight or gays would want it if they knew what they were getting into.
Letter to the Editor
Romney now claims that he deserves “a lot of the credit” for the comeback of the American auto industry in spite of the fact that he opposed the government rescue of GM and Chrysler. What an amazing claim! That would be like Hitler taking the credit for the creation of Israel by saying. “It wouldn’t be here if not for me!”
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is so boring and awkward that his secret service code name is John Kerry.
Letter to the Editor
On this first anniversary of the execution of Osama bin Laden we hear the Republicans crying foul because of the Democrats dirty politics. The Democrats have the audacity to run on their accomplishments, Republicans complain. “How dare they! How dare they!”
The reason accomplishments are unfair to Republicans is that they now against accomplishment. They want to distinguish themselves from the “reality based world” and to accomplish something is a sign of weakness. It implies that a reality based world exists and that one should put out and effort to make things better. That is now blasphemy. Instead it’s all about what you believe. And if enough people believe something then it becomes true. The world, for example, used to be flat until enough people believed it was round. The liberals with their science brainwashed us into believing the world is round and so now it is.
But because Obama has chosen a reality based world view he went out and got Osama bin Laden. Bush, less than 2 years after 911 said, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
Romney said, “I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world.
It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.”
But Obama excommunicated Osama from reality, so he’s not here anymore. And the universe is better off without him. So I’m giving Obama a high five on this one. Obama put the “Accomplished” back in “Mission Accomplished”.
Letter to the Editor
Newt Gingrich declared before the NRA that “he will submit a treaty to the United Nations that would make the right to bear arms a universal human right.” However – it’s what Newt didn’t say that makes me wonder if he’s serious about gun rights. Newt didn’t say that when the Moon is the 51st state and he’s governor of the Moon – after serving 2 term as President of the United States – if he would extend gun rights to the moon. Makes you wonder if he’s going to cave in just because liberal scientists think that it would be dangerous to discharge a gun inside of a pressurized living enclosure. Or is he going to make you put on a spacesuit and take it outside?
Letter to the Editor
President Obama has been touting the “Buffet Rule” – that billionaires like Warren Buffet shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. I think they should call it the “Romney Rule” instead. As we come up on April 15th to pay our taxes we are reminded that presidential candidate Mitt Romney only pays a 15% tax rate while a middle class person like myself pays 30%. I don’t see why I should pay twice the tax rate Mitt Romney does. We need to pass the “Romney Rule” so that millionaires like Romney have the same opportunity to contribute to America that I do.
Letter to the Editor
The whole pink slime controversy is an example of how poor journalism is in this country. If it’s pink and it’s slimy it must be bad. Actually what they call “pink smile” is a lower fat meat than the meat they are adding it to, which is after all the rotting carcass of a dead cow. Technically we’re all made out of pink slime. If journalists had any white smile between their ears they would understand that.
Letter to the Editor
We all know that Obamacare is essentially the same thing as Romneycare. The only difference between them is whether the state or the federal government makes you buy health care insurance. Now Obama (finally) is embracing Obamacare as an accomplishment taking credit for getting it passed. Romney could be doing the same thing. He could be trying to make the point that this is his idea and Obama just copied it. But instead Romney is running against Romney. He’s running on the platform that his only major accomplishment was the wrong thing to do. I don’t see any way Romney is going to win this debate. Maybe that’s why he’s having a such hard time winning the Republican nomination.
Letter to the Editor
I see the Republican party salivating over the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Obama’s health care reform law. Republicans seem to see this as some sort of huge victory but I think this could backfire. If the Republicans win it means that people and treatments that are now covered will no longer be covered. Voters are not going to be happy with Republicans taking things away from them when they vote this year. The result might ultimately be a public insurance option or a single payer system that Republicans will hate even more.
Letter to the Editor
Although it doesn’t help Romney in the Republican primary it would help Romney in the general election if he were to flip 180 when he gets to the general election. So the “Etch a Sketch” Romney may be something he needs to embrace.
In order to win the Republican nomination a candidate has to go so far to the right that there’s no way they could win a general election. We all know Romney is faking it just enough to get nominated. Obamacare is Romneycare. Romney is actually pro-choice and supports Planned Parenthood. Romney doesn’t care about the social issues that evangelicals want. All Romney really cares about is cutting taxes for the rich and enslaving the middle class to be forever indebted to the top 1%.
So the Tea Party should just shut up, sell out, and support the Republican nominee because the longer Romney has to fake being a conservative the more he has to flip flop in the general election. Comments from Santorum and Gingrich saying things like the GOP is better off with Obama than “Etch a Sketch” Romney is just going to make Obama’s victory that much more of a mandate.
Letter to the Editor
I think it’s a travesty for America that we allow George Zimmerman – the man who killed the black teenager Trayvon Martin – to just walk around free. About a month ago Zimmerman shot and killed Martin in Stanford Florida. Martin was unarmed and screaming for his life when he was shot. Zimmerman pursued Martin after being told by the police not to. Zimmerman’s excuse was self defense. You have to be kidding me! You can just shoot someone and tell the police you did it and just walk out the door with your gun and not be arrested! That is just plain crazy!
Allowing Zimmerman to walk free without an arrest sends a message to all black people that in America that someone can come up and shoot you and just walk away. And it’s not just black people. I’m white. and it tells me that I can be shot like that by anyone who doesn’t like me for any reason. All they got to do is say it was self defense. It makes me wonder if this is a sign that we have collectively gone insane?
Letter to the Editor
I listen to the news and hear the pundits saying that we have good economic news, and good news is bad for Republicans? And I have to say to myself – this is insanity. Why is good news for America bad news for Republicans?
Maybe Republicans need a new game plan. Rather than to try to sabotage the economy and blame Obama, why don’t the Republicans join with the Democrats and try to fix the economy and try to take the credit for it? It would be better to share the credit for doing the right thing rather than share the blame for doing the wrong thing. I’d rather be arguing about what we are going to do with the surplus like we were when Clinton was president rather than what we’re going to do with the deficit after Bush was president.
Letter to the Editor
With all the talk of starting yet another war that the world can’t afford there is an opportunity to increase the peace. We can turn a disadvantage into an advantage. Israel and Iran should both agree to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. It has been signed by all nuclear capable nations except Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and now Iran. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty’s significance.
It would be a great step forward in the interest of world peace for Israel to set a new example and come on board with the rest of the civilized world and sign the treaty. If Israel signed the treaty then there would be no excuse for the rest of the countries holding out not to sign it. However if Israel continues to refuse to be part of the non-proliferation community then other countries will hold out saying, “If Israel can refuse to sign then why can’t we?” There is no special reason why Israel is different than any other nation.
Israel and Iran both signing this important treaty would decrease the tensions towards war and could be the start of a narrative of peace. I therefore ask everyone to urge Israel to take steps towards increasing the peace and stop beating the drums of war. The world community can not afford the luxury of war.
Letter to the Editor
Rush Limbaugh is now apologizing for calling a Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute because she testified in favor of requiring heath insurance companies to cover birth control. Calling her a “feminazi” Rush added that “We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
Rush is now apologizing. Rush says, “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
Most people don’t believe him but I do. It wasn’t a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. That’s the way Rush feels about all women who use birth control. And Rush is saying what Republican men are thinking. That’s why he remains so popular among his conservative listeners.
Letter to the Editor
The Republican candidates are struggling to demonstrate who is the most conservative candidate. Who is willing to go all the way and stand out from the pack? Here’s some ideas:
They can make a YouTube video clubbing a baby seal to death.
Promise to drill of oil in San Francisco Golden Gate Park.
If a woman gets pregnant through rape she has to marry the rapist.
Your employer can tell you where to go to church.
Require women to have to get their husband’s permission to get a drivers license.
Close all public schools and colleges.
No taxes at all for the top one percent.
Criminalize birth control, solar energy, teaching science, labor unions, vaccines, and yoga.
Require Atheists to go to church.
If one of the Republicans took these positions they could win the primary. But might have a little trouble in the general elections.
Letter to the Editor
It just blows my mind that the Republicans thing the your employer should get to choose what kind of medical coverage you should get based on the boss’s religious or moral beliefs. Does one have to defer one’s own religion or morality to your boss? I can’t believe they are actually proposing it.
What if your boss is a Jehovah’s Witness? Should you be denied a blood transfusion? What if your boss is an Orthodox Jew? Does that mean you can’t go to the doctor of Saturday? What if your boss is morally against vaccines? Does that mean you can’t get vaccination coverage for your children? And your boss gets to determine if you get birth control coverage? Give me a break!
I’m beginning to think that this is all a distraction so that we don’t focus on the fact that Republicans caused this depression are currently in and they want to distract us so we don’t remember they are the part of Bush. Every day they become more and more ridiculous.
Letter to the Editor
Israel wants to keep America out of the loop when it comes to its decision to attack Iran. But Israel expects America to back it up once it starts the war. So we’re supposed to sit back and let Israel decide when America is going to war? I don’t think so! If it were up to me if Israel attacks Iran without including us in the decision – they’re on their own.
Letter to the Editor
The liberal news media is making a big deal out of Mitt Romney saying his wife has two Cadillacs, like she’s so rich or something. Perhaps Mitts wife is just like the rest of us. Maybe she just has one Cadillac for parts so she can keep the other Cadillac running? Bet you won’t see that possibility in the liberal news!
Letter to the Editor
Mitt Romney says that Obama “fought against religion” and sought to substitute a “secular” agenda for one grounded in faith. What’s totally pathetic about Romney’s statement is that he doesn’t even understand what the word “secular” means. He thinks that secular is the opposite of faith. It’s not.
America has freedom of religion, all religion. That makes us a “secular society”, which means that no matter what religion or non-religion you are, when you go get your driver’s license, pay taxes, appear in court, that what you believe doesn’t matter. Everyone is treated the same. This protects religion from the government and prevents the government from picking favorite religions.
The reason we are a secular nation is because the original 13 colonies weren’t. In some states you have to be Catholic to hold office, in others you had to be Protestant. Mormons like Romney didn’t exist back then but if they did they wouldn’t have been allows to hold office at all. But when we became one nation under the Constitution we had to have a single standard. That standard was “no religious test” and because of that standard Mitt Romney can now run for president. Being a secular nation is a good thing. If we weren’t secular we’d be like the middle east where religions are all at war killing each other for control of the government.
Letter to the Editor
Many right wing religious zealots like presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who believes birth control is evil, might find it shocking to find out that married women use birth control too. Even though he has 7 kids I’d bet there are times when his wife tried to avoid getting pregnant. How can anyone be so out of touch with reality? But what I find even more shocking than that is – Santorum for president? Seriously!
Letter to the Editor
President Obama made a weird compromise on birth control coverage. Under his plan all women will have contraceptive coverage regardless of religion. However to create the illusion of religious freedom Catholics won’t have to pay for their birth control coverage. Those costs will shift to non-Catholics who will have to pay for Catholic birth control through higher premiums. Atheists will have to pay for Catholics who sin. I suppose the good side is that we won’t have to pay as much in taxes to pay to raise their kids that they can’t support.
Letter to the Editor
In response to the assertion of the Catholic Church the Church of Reality today reasserts the rights of it’s members to have access to contraception and abortions services as a religious right. In our religion every individual owns their own life and are wring their own individual life stories and therefore have a religious right to self determination.
Additionally our view is that the religious rights of the patient come before the religious rights of the doctors or the institution that owns the hospital. For example, we would not allow a Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist owned hospital to close their emergency room on Saturday because of the Sabbath? We would not allow a Jehovah’s Witness hospital to deny a patient a blood transfusion because it’s against the hospital’s religion? Why then would we deny a woman who has been violently raped emergency contraception so that she doesn’t become pregnant by her attacker because the Catholics don’t like birth control?
Letter to the Editor
I sit here in amazement that the Catholic Church thinks it has the right to deny birth control to the rest of us. Who do these people think they are? Women have a fundamental intrinsic right to have access to birth control regardless of the religious bent of the provider who is publicly subsidized. Medical care is about the patient – not the health care provider. The very idea that Catholic views even matter for non-Catholic patients is something I consider religiously offensive.
I think Catholics should focus on stopping priests from raping children and quit trying to force women who have been raped to carry the baby of the rapist. Religious freedom is about the rights of the patient, not the rights of the doctor.
Letter to the Editor
When Obama took office in January of 2009 America was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Now we’re adding 250,000 jobs a month. Although we have a long way to go, the number of jobs is almost 1 million jobs a month increase since the end of the Bush administration. It seems to me that we are heading in the right direction and I don’t see why we should consider going back to the party of Bush and have them ruin the economy like they did last decade.
Letter to the Editor
A lot of columnists have been comparing the Romney vs. Gingrich primary battle to the 2008 primary battle between Obama and Clinton. I don’t think they are similar.
In 2008 the Democrats had two strong candidates that they liked. People who wanted Hillary to win liked Obama too. People who liked Obama also liked Hillary. Both candidates were very popular. In contrast Republicans dislike both leading candidates. It’s a battle between those who can’t stand Romney more vs. those who can’t stand Newt more. Republican have to choose between the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama vs. the guy who is going to make the third lady into the first lady. I don’t see the Republicans coming together behind any candidate this year.
I have another paradigm which I’d call the rolling yuk factor. The Republicans started with 8 bad choices none of which can beat Obama even though Obama has some serious problems himself.
Romney is known and voters don’t like him. That’s why McCain beat him last time. But the elites are behind Romney so he’s the man to beat.
Because voters don’t like Romney every other candidate surged one by one as the anti-Romney candidate and when the focus cam on them they were all flawed and fell back to the bottom (except Paul who has a small band of loyal followers)
Once Iowa and New Hampshire voted it seemed Romney was inevitable again and because of new missteps and renewed scrutiny a wave of yuk against Romney returned. Evangelical leaders met to endorse Santorum as the anti-Romney.
In a 4 person race with Ron Paul it’s down to Romney and 2 anti-Romney candidates. Santorum is weak and lacks gravitas and is only still in because he surged at the right time in Iowa. But soon it will be between Newt and Romney.
Newt has serious serious problems as well which are being brought out. But Newt is a fighter and Romney is sort of John Kerry like. Republicans like a fighter and see Newt as much more of a fighter than Obama, who the Democrats are also experiencing the yuk factor with. Obama is no Bill Clinton and Democrats are not thrilled with Hope and Change becoming Nope and Same.
So with 2 candidate that are too weak to even beat a weak president Republicans are trying to choose how they are going to lose. So the final paradigm is what I will call the “go down fighting” paradigm. With Newt they can at least lose with dignity and maybe the hope that if they put up a strong fighter they at least have some hope for a miracle.
Letter to the Editor
They say that every cloud has a silver lining. As we all know Mitt Romney hasn’t wanted to release his tax returns and explain his bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. With Newt’s big win in South Carolina it looks like he may not have to.
Letter to the Editor
The news is that the justice department is going after a “pirate” web site called Megaupload and they have shut them down in foreign countries and seized their assets also in a foreign country. And the Justice Department did it without laws like PIPA and SOPA. Looks to me like the music and movie industry already seems to have powers currently that borderline on scary. I’m glad to see Congress stepping back and taking a more serious look at laws that break the Internet. Thanks to Wikipedia and Craigslist for taking a bullet for the team.
Letter to the Editor
It’s kind of interesting that so many Republicans see Mitt Romney as the inevitable candidate and the most likely to beat Obama. In 2008 Romney, who had a virtually unlimited amount of money, managed to lose to John McCain. McCain went on to lose to a previously unknown Democrat named Barack Obama. Now Obama is the incumbent president and is in a much stronger position to win. McCain lost in part due to the Bush depression, and we are still in the Bush depression. So I don’t understand why Republicans see Romney as their best hope. Losing to a loser doesn’t make you a winner.
