Thanks to some mis-firing brain cells and a certain actually good reason I moved to Michigan, Rick Snyder's Michigan. It seems that there is some buyers' remorse setting in. Gov Rick is polling underwater at 56% sucks to 37% approve. I guess I have a couple thoughts... and they're not exactly complimentary to my "fellow" Michiganders.
Which one of you assholes who is sorry now failed to notice the goddam (R) after his name?
Which one of you sorry idjits couldn't be bothered to notice that the (R) designation means "hate unions" among hate other things?
Is it any consolation for you sorry bastards that a whole bunch of those who share your "sucks" sentiment didn't vote for him and get to live with the stupidity of your vote?
Hey, union brothers and sisters who voted for this guy... you really suck bad and I hope you're really, really satisfied with yourselves. Tell that butthead next to you just how pleased you are he isn't paying dues along side you. Yeah buddy, that'll teach them Unions to be nice to gays and browns.
There are enough assholes anywhere without you adding to the quota of stupid ones.
You don't like that kind of talk? Kiss My Ass, I was smart enough to live in Oregon when you elected this twit and his fellow traveler twits. Yeah, they've tried this crap there... nope.
Showing posts with label Votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Votes. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Hill Shill Page Gardner Serially Inept
If you like truly bizarre statements that somehow manage to completely miss the truth of a matter you really need to go read Page Gardner's "apology" for being an idiot over at HuffPo, Confusion...Robo-calls. What the supposed deal is that they inadvertently robo-called voters in North Carolina telling them they would receive a registration packet that needed to be returned in order to be registered - well after the cut-off date in North Carolina. These calls seemed to hit African Americans particularly and included many registered voters. This organization is called Women Voices Women Votes.
Such a dropped ball could occur on an occasion, one has to wonder how it has happened in 11 different states. One has to wonder how political pros could get it so wrong, so many times. Political pros? The Institute for Southern Studies has a pretty definitive run down of this. Page Gardner, Maggie Williams (yes Clinton's manager), John Podesta, and Joe Goode are amongst the incompetents who managed to mess this up so spectacularly eleven times. A commenter alleges that they had $4.3 million in direct public contributions so there would not be an excuse about shoe string budgets that frequently afflict registration drives.
Oddly, these difficulties with dates don't seem to have bothered this organization enough to mark them down on a calendar. It might be important to register voters before the cut-off date if one were into that sort of thing. Secretaries of State have web sites with all this sort of information easily available and clearly indicated; because Secretaries of State think it is important. If one were attempting to increase voter participation getting people registered in time would accomplish that end. Speaking to unregistered women would as their target audience would reach that group. They did not get registration dates right and reached quite a few registered voters and male registered voters and confused them. Not registered them, confused them, repeatedly in separate states. Leading people to believe that they are not registered dissuades them from voting, not increases participation.
I'm not going to cut and paste other people's work here, I've given you two sources, including the offender and other links are available both on Southern Studies and Google. I want to be clear, that as one who has pounded the pavement to increase voter registration, I find this kind of behavior most offensive. The robo-calls in North Carolina appear to be felonious in nature and felonious in subject - the providing of inaccurate election information. The intent is not probably provable outside circumstantial without a direct testimony of a principle. Circumstantial evidence would certainly not seem to be on the side of ineptitude or incompetence with it's repeated occurrence. The presence of so many Clinton contributors and previous employees makes assertions of incompetence even more difficult to believe as a causation.
Hillary Clinton has stated that she's having fun now that the 'kitchen sink' approach is out there. We've seen that sink before, it was called Swiftboating and in Florida it was Bush campaign honcho K Harris gutting voter roles with faux felony accusations to depress African American turnout. I don't care if there is a (D) or (R) after the name of someone who engages in this kind of behavior, they are scum. They interfere with one of the most basic values of our country and I cannot sit still for it.
Such a dropped ball could occur on an occasion, one has to wonder how it has happened in 11 different states. One has to wonder how political pros could get it so wrong, so many times. Political pros? The Institute for Southern Studies has a pretty definitive run down of this. Page Gardner, Maggie Williams (yes Clinton's manager), John Podesta, and Joe Goode are amongst the incompetents who managed to mess this up so spectacularly eleven times. A commenter alleges that they had $4.3 million in direct public contributions so there would not be an excuse about shoe string budgets that frequently afflict registration drives.
Oddly, these difficulties with dates don't seem to have bothered this organization enough to mark them down on a calendar. It might be important to register voters before the cut-off date if one were into that sort of thing. Secretaries of State have web sites with all this sort of information easily available and clearly indicated; because Secretaries of State think it is important. If one were attempting to increase voter participation getting people registered in time would accomplish that end. Speaking to unregistered women would as their target audience would reach that group. They did not get registration dates right and reached quite a few registered voters and male registered voters and confused them. Not registered them, confused them, repeatedly in separate states. Leading people to believe that they are not registered dissuades them from voting, not increases participation.
I'm not going to cut and paste other people's work here, I've given you two sources, including the offender and other links are available both on Southern Studies and Google. I want to be clear, that as one who has pounded the pavement to increase voter registration, I find this kind of behavior most offensive. The robo-calls in North Carolina appear to be felonious in nature and felonious in subject - the providing of inaccurate election information. The intent is not probably provable outside circumstantial without a direct testimony of a principle. Circumstantial evidence would certainly not seem to be on the side of ineptitude or incompetence with it's repeated occurrence. The presence of so many Clinton contributors and previous employees makes assertions of incompetence even more difficult to believe as a causation.
Hillary Clinton has stated that she's having fun now that the 'kitchen sink' approach is out there. We've seen that sink before, it was called Swiftboating and in Florida it was Bush campaign honcho K Harris gutting voter roles with faux felony accusations to depress African American turnout. I don't care if there is a (D) or (R) after the name of someone who engages in this kind of behavior, they are scum. They interfere with one of the most basic values of our country and I cannot sit still for it.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Right To Vote And The Right To Political Speech
The Supreme Court is hearing the case regarding Indiana's voter ID law, and the NYT's Editorial Observer feels confused. Earlier this year the Supremes struck down the section of the McCain Feingold campaign financing bill that limited 527's attack ads in the last couple days of an election and shows signs of upholding Indiana's law. Adam Cohen notes that when it comes to corporate and wealth speech the Court rules the Constitution “requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it,” and yet in a case where no evident pattern of voter fraud exists John Roberts says it is no great concern since the trip is not “very far” to travel 17 miles by bus to a clerks office to fight over whether a vote is valid.
No, in John's world 17 miles isn't much, and anyhow, nobody would challenge his vote. The right to vote has been under sustained attack since 2000 in Republican dominated states and, once BushCo got the Justice Dept straightened out, at the Federal level. These are the same people who cheer lead foreign democracy, trying hard to eradicate it at home. Be under no illusion that I think restrictions on speech regarding money are in danger - or should be. But also understand that efforts to disenfranchise voters infuriate me no end. There is little doubt that as groups both the young and the poor have rotten rates of participation, any action to further discourage their participation means that this government will less reflect the reality of its citizenry than it does now.
The domination of political discourse by corporate interests and wealth is largely the fault of the citizenry, it takes a desperate level of poverty to not be able to afford a $20 political contribution. That $20-200 contribution made by the percentage who do not now contribute anything would equalize or overwhelm most other sources. It is the one way an ordinary citizen can make their political will felt - if they avail themselves of it. In Oregon you get a straight up tax credit matching up to $50 in political contributions. Even if you're pretty poor, and you pay at least $50 in state income taxes, you can send it to the political cause of you choice instead of the State, it's gone either way... The truly egalitarian part of it is that the number is that low, the state is encouraging lesser incomes to participate rather than rewarding participation by wealth. The point is that it is not an action of the government that creates speech primarily for the wealthy, it is abdication by the rest of us. Not so with voter disenfranchisement, that is a direct action of the state.
The idea that the state needs more power and reach is ludicrous. The citizen, minus great personal wealth, is already out gunned and over manned by the state. The citizen does not have fleets of lawyers and troops of investigators, he has himself. The mechanics of voting are already in the state's hands and the advantage lies with the state's incumbents, the citizen is at the lowest level of power, despite all the rhetoric denying it. There are - or were - some hamstringing qualifiers on the state, the BOR and following Amendments along with some Constitutional directives. For the Supreme Court to question the right to an unencumbered vote, much less rule against it is elitism at its very worst and contrary to the spirit of democracy of the latter half of the 20th Century. It is also counter to the need for a government reflective of its own citizenry, one of the overarching arguments for the Revolution. The tenor of the questions posed by the Court make me fearful for our State.
No, in John's world 17 miles isn't much, and anyhow, nobody would challenge his vote. The right to vote has been under sustained attack since 2000 in Republican dominated states and, once BushCo got the Justice Dept straightened out, at the Federal level. These are the same people who cheer lead foreign democracy, trying hard to eradicate it at home. Be under no illusion that I think restrictions on speech regarding money are in danger - or should be. But also understand that efforts to disenfranchise voters infuriate me no end. There is little doubt that as groups both the young and the poor have rotten rates of participation, any action to further discourage their participation means that this government will less reflect the reality of its citizenry than it does now.
The domination of political discourse by corporate interests and wealth is largely the fault of the citizenry, it takes a desperate level of poverty to not be able to afford a $20 political contribution. That $20-200 contribution made by the percentage who do not now contribute anything would equalize or overwhelm most other sources. It is the one way an ordinary citizen can make their political will felt - if they avail themselves of it. In Oregon you get a straight up tax credit matching up to $50 in political contributions. Even if you're pretty poor, and you pay at least $50 in state income taxes, you can send it to the political cause of you choice instead of the State, it's gone either way... The truly egalitarian part of it is that the number is that low, the state is encouraging lesser incomes to participate rather than rewarding participation by wealth. The point is that it is not an action of the government that creates speech primarily for the wealthy, it is abdication by the rest of us. Not so with voter disenfranchisement, that is a direct action of the state.
The idea that the state needs more power and reach is ludicrous. The citizen, minus great personal wealth, is already out gunned and over manned by the state. The citizen does not have fleets of lawyers and troops of investigators, he has himself. The mechanics of voting are already in the state's hands and the advantage lies with the state's incumbents, the citizen is at the lowest level of power, despite all the rhetoric denying it. There are - or were - some hamstringing qualifiers on the state, the BOR and following Amendments along with some Constitutional directives. For the Supreme Court to question the right to an unencumbered vote, much less rule against it is elitism at its very worst and contrary to the spirit of democracy of the latter half of the 20th Century. It is also counter to the need for a government reflective of its own citizenry, one of the overarching arguments for the Revolution. The tenor of the questions posed by the Court make me fearful for our State.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
You're Going to Feel Real Stupid
if the vote you didn't cast is the deciding vote for something you actually care about. Well sure, a 1 vote margin is pretty unlikely but the fact is that those uncast ballots are the deciding votes. For twenty years the minority of eligible voters have decided how things are going to be. Maybe in a democracy most of us ought to want it. If you're here, chances are you give a damn and have already voted or will, you're not off the hook. You have friends who don't and now you've got an argument to use.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Racist Vote Pandering and Illegal Immigration
If you've read me you will know that I am an opponent of people living and working in the United States illegally. I have repeatedly made myself clear that these are the problems:
Flooding a labor market and depressing wages
Creation of an underground society of disenfranchised workers
A drain on social and educational services
The encouragement of criminal behavior
Now that may seem to put me into the Conservative whacko Republican camp, but we are actually hardened enemies. This is exactly why:
The Republican response to this problem is to blame illegal aliens which is nonsense, people take the chance of illegally entering this country to work for better money than they can get at home. They cannot get that money unless someone hires them - illegally. The root of the problem is employers. The solution is employers, not a 700 mile un-funded fence. Republicans know this, but action in this regard would hurt their contribution base and scarcely stir their vote base. Instead they make a stink about Mexican flags, terrorists, crime, essentially RACE. And yes, the largest segment of illegal aliens are Mexican. And that makes not one bit of difference to the actual problems I listed above, the illegal hire of Russians is not one iota of an improvement. Know and understand that unless a politician who speaks about Illegal Immigration makes clear statements about employers, he's shilling for a vote.
Speaking of voting, I'm sure some handful of illegal aliens is stupid enough to try to vote while they are in the midst of a criminal activity, their numbers pale beside forged petition signatures, dead voters, unverifiable machines, and frankly, the outright lies of politicians.
The other "solution" to this mess is some form of amnesty - regardless of how "path to citizenship" is dressed up it is amnesty. That amnesty simply proves to employers and prospective illegal aliens that all that they need do is get here. The labor market is already flooded (don't kid yourself about the UE figures, bad pay trumps starvation), there is absolutely no incentive to declare one's self and pay fines for a crappy job and get hit with all the taxes. FICA is the biggest hit to low income wages. Current employers would be acknowleging illegal hires and tax avoidance (sure let's give them an amnesty also...).
Because the plutocrats have had their way on this issue for so long there is no "nice" solution. There are only hard questions and hard answers. Any incumbent politician that takes either of those two courses is a liar and cheat, because they know. I'll give challengers on the amnesty side the benefit of good will, but they are wrong.
Ron Saxton is a liar and cheat, Greg Walden is a liar and cheat, Gordon Smith is a liar and cheat (too bad nothing can be done about him this cycle), George W Bush is the liar and cheat in chief. Take a good look at your local State House and Senate in cumbents and know them for what they are.
When you propose to blame and denigrate and entire group for something that is not their doing you are a racist and bigot, Ron and Greg.
Flooding a labor market and depressing wages
Creation of an underground society of disenfranchised workers
A drain on social and educational services
The encouragement of criminal behavior
Now that may seem to put me into the Conservative whacko Republican camp, but we are actually hardened enemies. This is exactly why:
The Republican response to this problem is to blame illegal aliens which is nonsense, people take the chance of illegally entering this country to work for better money than they can get at home. They cannot get that money unless someone hires them - illegally. The root of the problem is employers. The solution is employers, not a 700 mile un-funded fence. Republicans know this, but action in this regard would hurt their contribution base and scarcely stir their vote base. Instead they make a stink about Mexican flags, terrorists, crime, essentially RACE. And yes, the largest segment of illegal aliens are Mexican. And that makes not one bit of difference to the actual problems I listed above, the illegal hire of Russians is not one iota of an improvement. Know and understand that unless a politician who speaks about Illegal Immigration makes clear statements about employers, he's shilling for a vote.
Speaking of voting, I'm sure some handful of illegal aliens is stupid enough to try to vote while they are in the midst of a criminal activity, their numbers pale beside forged petition signatures, dead voters, unverifiable machines, and frankly, the outright lies of politicians.
The other "solution" to this mess is some form of amnesty - regardless of how "path to citizenship" is dressed up it is amnesty. That amnesty simply proves to employers and prospective illegal aliens that all that they need do is get here. The labor market is already flooded (don't kid yourself about the UE figures, bad pay trumps starvation), there is absolutely no incentive to declare one's self and pay fines for a crappy job and get hit with all the taxes. FICA is the biggest hit to low income wages. Current employers would be acknowleging illegal hires and tax avoidance (sure let's give them an amnesty also...).
Because the plutocrats have had their way on this issue for so long there is no "nice" solution. There are only hard questions and hard answers. Any incumbent politician that takes either of those two courses is a liar and cheat, because they know. I'll give challengers on the amnesty side the benefit of good will, but they are wrong.
Ron Saxton is a liar and cheat, Greg Walden is a liar and cheat, Gordon Smith is a liar and cheat (too bad nothing can be done about him this cycle), George W Bush is the liar and cheat in chief. Take a good look at your local State House and Senate in cumbents and know them for what they are.
When you propose to blame and denigrate and entire group for something that is not their doing you are a racist and bigot, Ron and Greg.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Independents Arise !!!
Or wake up, anyhow. Tis the season of your discontent, it's almost time for you to get to pick the candidate you dislike the least. You know, one of the two picked by other people who didn't have you in mind when they marked their ballot in the Primary. ( I know, there are actually more than 2, sort of) I'm sure you find it rude and arrogant of the major Parties to leave you out. I know the Democrats actually discussed at length letting you in, decided that:
A) sabotage voting entered in the decision
B) it's really simple to put a "D" after your name if you want to play
C) if you can't be bothered (or are disinclined) to be Party affiliated, why should you help select
Rude? Scarcely in this society is it rude to not include people who think you suck so badly that their name can't have your party designation on their voter registration. Arrogant? We work pretty hard to elect people and to have some effect on their policies, you think we suck. I think the arrogance is on the other side.
Yes, the Democratic Party has disappointed me at various times, so, I try to get them to not disappoint me. I work with them and on them. I think that's fair, they know I'm doing what I'm doing and they know it's not against them. I am active, I give a rat's patoot about the Party. I make sure that I have some kind of effect, even if it's as small as a mark on an election ballot. I don't recommend my level of activism, that's some I do. But I do have a recommendation.
Register with a Party, I know some of you can't stomach Democrats, well, the Republicans would seriously benefit from your input. I know Democratic politics would benefit from the inclusion of people high minded enough to be offended by "politics as usual." The Democrats have a lot of room for varied opinions on policy - they let me play, hell, 4000 some of them voted for me in the 2nd Congressional District Primary. (that's about 3,940 more than I know - I live in and work in a Republican dominated area) There is no good reason in a 2 Party system to have the selection of candidates left to people who don't know what you want or why you want it. I'll even make this disclaimer - my candidacy would've benefited from your voting - and I voted against your inclusion at DPO. So why am I inviting you? I'm not inviting "I's" to vote in the Primaries, I'm inviting "I's" to be Democrats, to come on in and have an effect. There's no way in hell to get away from "politics as usual" if you don't have a say from the outset.
All the things that offend you about Party politics are addressable. But only if YOU address them. It only looks so damn hopeless because so many of you are out there not addressing the problems you perceive. Sure big business and big money have a disproportionate effect on election financing, well, you aren't contributing, are you? There is no Democratic machine, if there ever was one, it ain't now, so you are only fighting against inertia and lack of information if you want to play. Maybe you haven't noticed just how serious the political problems are now, I assert that they are an outcome of 2 electorate features, low voter turn out and large numbers of unaffiliated voters.
Be a part of change ... or ... hang onto your "moral superiority" and watch other people do things.
A) sabotage voting entered in the decision
B) it's really simple to put a "D" after your name if you want to play
C) if you can't be bothered (or are disinclined) to be Party affiliated, why should you help select
Rude? Scarcely in this society is it rude to not include people who think you suck so badly that their name can't have your party designation on their voter registration. Arrogant? We work pretty hard to elect people and to have some effect on their policies, you think we suck. I think the arrogance is on the other side.
Yes, the Democratic Party has disappointed me at various times, so, I try to get them to not disappoint me. I work with them and on them. I think that's fair, they know I'm doing what I'm doing and they know it's not against them. I am active, I give a rat's patoot about the Party. I make sure that I have some kind of effect, even if it's as small as a mark on an election ballot. I don't recommend my level of activism, that's some I do. But I do have a recommendation.
Register with a Party, I know some of you can't stomach Democrats, well, the Republicans would seriously benefit from your input. I know Democratic politics would benefit from the inclusion of people high minded enough to be offended by "politics as usual." The Democrats have a lot of room for varied opinions on policy - they let me play, hell, 4000 some of them voted for me in the 2nd Congressional District Primary. (that's about 3,940 more than I know - I live in and work in a Republican dominated area) There is no good reason in a 2 Party system to have the selection of candidates left to people who don't know what you want or why you want it. I'll even make this disclaimer - my candidacy would've benefited from your voting - and I voted against your inclusion at DPO. So why am I inviting you? I'm not inviting "I's" to vote in the Primaries, I'm inviting "I's" to be Democrats, to come on in and have an effect. There's no way in hell to get away from "politics as usual" if you don't have a say from the outset.
All the things that offend you about Party politics are addressable. But only if YOU address them. It only looks so damn hopeless because so many of you are out there not addressing the problems you perceive. Sure big business and big money have a disproportionate effect on election financing, well, you aren't contributing, are you? There is no Democratic machine, if there ever was one, it ain't now, so you are only fighting against inertia and lack of information if you want to play. Maybe you haven't noticed just how serious the political problems are now, I assert that they are an outcome of 2 electorate features, low voter turn out and large numbers of unaffiliated voters.
Be a part of change ... or ... hang onto your "moral superiority" and watch other people do things.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Illegal Immigration "Crap"
There are better adjectives than "crap" for the nonsense bandied about but they tend to very rude.
Ron Saxton would like to make you very afraid that "illegals" are going to vote. Keerist! This comes from the guy who made statements about trying to make his "migrant" camps legal. Now just who were these "migrants." Were they I'm-Migrants? Were they Legal I'm-Migrants? We're to suppose that the flood of Illegal Immigrants is happening because they just can't wait to get to use a ballot. Maybe, just maybe, it has to do with economics. Like the economics of bad pay and poor housing to pick cherries beats what's at home.
My "liberal" or "progressive" counterparts bemoan my stance that illegal immigration is a serious problem. I get to hear about xenophobia and closet racism. Illegal immigration is part and parcel of illegal hiring. It's got absolutely squat to do with country of origin, culture, race, or any other damned guilt trip. It is very simply a method of depressing wages engaged in by liars and cheats and encouraged by the plutocrats running this country.
Somehow I'm supposed to give a rat's patoot that racists, xenophobes, and vote pandering Republicans think it's a bad idea. It is a bad idea. Not for their reasons. It is a bad idea because legal hard working men and women have their wages depressed so that wealthy or near wealthy can profit. The mantra is that one should feel bad for those fleeing their economically unfair nations, that somehow making those just above poverty pay for the malfunctions in foreign nations or the crap trading agreements entered into by our elites is how it should be dealt with. If this argument gets torpedoed, the next is "what ever shall we do with (x) million illegals? I know, let's encourage even more to come so that argument will really hold water. "oh but we'll plug up the border," sure you will, just like it's already been done, big fences (ummm, tunnels??). Besides, the masters of rhetorical crap - Congress - won't fund a real barrier, war, torture, and domestic spying are much more fun - and for real fun, Gay Marriage Amendments.
This stops when employers have a method of verification and then are held to real and certain consequences, like fines that'll give them an appreciation for Food Stamps and jail if they can't get the idea. This stops when illegal entry has real and certain consequences, you're gone and your property is seized as income from criminal activity. You're gone and you can either take your anchor babies with you or leave them, not very good for children - either way - but also not an excuse for illegal behavior. You're gone if you haven't committed fraud with Social Security or other, then there's jail & you're gone. There are ways beyond draconian punishment to encourage an outflow, like first up for legal entry for voluntary repatriation or...
"You're awfully harsh, you must never have done anything against the law, like speeding," well, yes I have, and I've taken the consequences for it. So what? Since a lot of people speed, we should just forget about speed limits and enforcing them? 90 mph in a school zone will then make perfect sense. About 35% of illegal employment occurs in construction, construction wages have been flat or declining since Ronnie R did his Amnesty, odd? The gateway out of poverty is now poverty, but the top 1% is getting real fat. Raise the minimum wage, well sure do it, what's that got to do with construction wages and illegal hiring?
Here's the scoop, labor creates wealth, doesn't matter if it's grown, mined, or paper, if it's worth dollars there's labor underneath it. Labor is a commodity, like any commodity if you flood the market, its value goes in the toilet. The market is flooded and worse, much of that flood isn't paying taxes, getting minimum wage, or being subject to all the other legal costs.
The argument is made that Americans won't do the jobs, no, not for substandard wages they won't. "If real wages are paid nobody could afford (x)," nonsense, labor is a small part of the cost of items in the US. Housing costs might go up a few percent, materials costs are the vast majority of the cost of a house, rising mortgage rates add considerably more. Yes, your cherries would cost more, a matter of cents not dollars. You just buy into the plutocrat arguments without doing the math, without adding in the social costs and social program costs.
We have a growing percentage of society that is underground, disenfranchised, flatly illegal and prey for every liar and cheat who'd extort them. Somehow the "nice" thing to do is just make them "legal," so nobody has to deal with it. Then what do you do with those who'd follow their example, another "legalization" in ten years? What exactly do you propose to do with the labor that slides into poverty? Tell them "tough, we've got to help these poor illegals out?" Maybe they won't like being told "tough." Maybe they'll make their objections known. No, they won't burn the houses of the namby-pamby do nothing legislators, they'll go right after the ones who "stole" their jobs, the illegals. Then you'll have racism and xenophobia enough to suit your clapped out rhetoric and "nice guy" legislation.
There's about a snowball in hell's chance this will be dealt with, it suits the plutocrats and instead of inflaming the left, leaves them fumbling and thus, the tools of the George II winners. This never gets discussed on its merits, instead it's always race and guilt, race and guilt. Too bad, there's hell to pay on its way.
Ron Saxton would like to make you very afraid that "illegals" are going to vote. Keerist! This comes from the guy who made statements about trying to make his "migrant" camps legal. Now just who were these "migrants." Were they I'm-Migrants? Were they Legal I'm-Migrants? We're to suppose that the flood of Illegal Immigrants is happening because they just can't wait to get to use a ballot. Maybe, just maybe, it has to do with economics. Like the economics of bad pay and poor housing to pick cherries beats what's at home.
My "liberal" or "progressive" counterparts bemoan my stance that illegal immigration is a serious problem. I get to hear about xenophobia and closet racism. Illegal immigration is part and parcel of illegal hiring. It's got absolutely squat to do with country of origin, culture, race, or any other damned guilt trip. It is very simply a method of depressing wages engaged in by liars and cheats and encouraged by the plutocrats running this country.
Somehow I'm supposed to give a rat's patoot that racists, xenophobes, and vote pandering Republicans think it's a bad idea. It is a bad idea. Not for their reasons. It is a bad idea because legal hard working men and women have their wages depressed so that wealthy or near wealthy can profit. The mantra is that one should feel bad for those fleeing their economically unfair nations, that somehow making those just above poverty pay for the malfunctions in foreign nations or the crap trading agreements entered into by our elites is how it should be dealt with. If this argument gets torpedoed, the next is "what ever shall we do with (x) million illegals? I know, let's encourage even more to come so that argument will really hold water. "oh but we'll plug up the border," sure you will, just like it's already been done, big fences (ummm, tunnels??). Besides, the masters of rhetorical crap - Congress - won't fund a real barrier, war, torture, and domestic spying are much more fun - and for real fun, Gay Marriage Amendments.
This stops when employers have a method of verification and then are held to real and certain consequences, like fines that'll give them an appreciation for Food Stamps and jail if they can't get the idea. This stops when illegal entry has real and certain consequences, you're gone and your property is seized as income from criminal activity. You're gone and you can either take your anchor babies with you or leave them, not very good for children - either way - but also not an excuse for illegal behavior. You're gone if you haven't committed fraud with Social Security or other, then there's jail & you're gone. There are ways beyond draconian punishment to encourage an outflow, like first up for legal entry for voluntary repatriation or...
"You're awfully harsh, you must never have done anything against the law, like speeding," well, yes I have, and I've taken the consequences for it. So what? Since a lot of people speed, we should just forget about speed limits and enforcing them? 90 mph in a school zone will then make perfect sense. About 35% of illegal employment occurs in construction, construction wages have been flat or declining since Ronnie R did his Amnesty, odd? The gateway out of poverty is now poverty, but the top 1% is getting real fat. Raise the minimum wage, well sure do it, what's that got to do with construction wages and illegal hiring?
Here's the scoop, labor creates wealth, doesn't matter if it's grown, mined, or paper, if it's worth dollars there's labor underneath it. Labor is a commodity, like any commodity if you flood the market, its value goes in the toilet. The market is flooded and worse, much of that flood isn't paying taxes, getting minimum wage, or being subject to all the other legal costs.
The argument is made that Americans won't do the jobs, no, not for substandard wages they won't. "If real wages are paid nobody could afford (x)," nonsense, labor is a small part of the cost of items in the US. Housing costs might go up a few percent, materials costs are the vast majority of the cost of a house, rising mortgage rates add considerably more. Yes, your cherries would cost more, a matter of cents not dollars. You just buy into the plutocrat arguments without doing the math, without adding in the social costs and social program costs.
We have a growing percentage of society that is underground, disenfranchised, flatly illegal and prey for every liar and cheat who'd extort them. Somehow the "nice" thing to do is just make them "legal," so nobody has to deal with it. Then what do you do with those who'd follow their example, another "legalization" in ten years? What exactly do you propose to do with the labor that slides into poverty? Tell them "tough, we've got to help these poor illegals out?" Maybe they won't like being told "tough." Maybe they'll make their objections known. No, they won't burn the houses of the namby-pamby do nothing legislators, they'll go right after the ones who "stole" their jobs, the illegals. Then you'll have racism and xenophobia enough to suit your clapped out rhetoric and "nice guy" legislation.
There's about a snowball in hell's chance this will be dealt with, it suits the plutocrats and instead of inflaming the left, leaves them fumbling and thus, the tools of the George II winners. This never gets discussed on its merits, instead it's always race and guilt, race and guilt. Too bad, there's hell to pay on its way.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Ron Saxton for Dog-catcher
Ted Kulongoski is Governor of the State of Oregon and he's had to make some decisions that haven't pleased every one, or even most of his base. Well, gee, and you want what from your Governor, that he'll just go a long to get along as the State goes in the ashcan?
Well if that's what you'd like I have just the guy for you, Ron Saxton. This guy has taken all the stands, mutually exclusive though they might be. Cut your taxes, raise your services. Fix education by spending smarter, he's proven he can spend a lot and beg for more and then raise nothing. He can fix education for his kid, he'll just move and keep the previous address for his political convenience. He really likes George II, maximum donation likes him, but he's an independent thinker (George II and thinking in the same sentence??) Boy illegal immigrants are a problem for him (not because they depress wages, but they're furriners who might vote) but when them cherries need a pickin he knows how to build an immigrant camp. He'll give you ten seconds to come up with something the Governor has done, but won't spend ten seconds telling you what the Party he represents has done to obstruct the State's business or what he's actually done. He cares about kids, he's proved he cares about his, now his little work around cost some other kid but that don't count - they're probably poor and poor people don't vote. Speaking of vote, he's all worried about votes, but he sure hasn't had a negative word about the House Voting Security Bill that'll strip you of your vote if you can't manage their BS. It's definitely in the Republican Party's favor to depress the general vote, then their narrow ideological base counts for more. See Saxtonwatch for more details on why this guy would be a disaster as dog-catcher, much less Governor. (hey Ron, G - O - V - E - R - N - O - R, Mr Eddykashun) That's not nice, it's really hard to get good help, especially with that base to work from - maybe try an immigrant for spell checking.
By the way, Ted Kulongoski is a hell of a guy, that's a story that ought to be good fiction instead of fact, and you're damn right he cares, a lot. Too bad for Ron, it's tough to run against that kind of character with so little ammunition. Hell, my dog ain't even scared.
Well if that's what you'd like I have just the guy for you, Ron Saxton. This guy has taken all the stands, mutually exclusive though they might be. Cut your taxes, raise your services. Fix education by spending smarter, he's proven he can spend a lot and beg for more and then raise nothing. He can fix education for his kid, he'll just move and keep the previous address for his political convenience. He really likes George II, maximum donation likes him, but he's an independent thinker (George II and thinking in the same sentence??) Boy illegal immigrants are a problem for him (not because they depress wages, but they're furriners who might vote) but when them cherries need a pickin he knows how to build an immigrant camp. He'll give you ten seconds to come up with something the Governor has done, but won't spend ten seconds telling you what the Party he represents has done to obstruct the State's business or what he's actually done. He cares about kids, he's proved he cares about his, now his little work around cost some other kid but that don't count - they're probably poor and poor people don't vote. Speaking of vote, he's all worried about votes, but he sure hasn't had a negative word about the House Voting Security Bill that'll strip you of your vote if you can't manage their BS. It's definitely in the Republican Party's favor to depress the general vote, then their narrow ideological base counts for more. See Saxtonwatch for more details on why this guy would be a disaster as dog-catcher, much less Governor. (hey Ron, G - O - V - E - R - N - O - R, Mr Eddykashun) That's not nice, it's really hard to get good help, especially with that base to work from - maybe try an immigrant for spell checking.
By the way, Ted Kulongoski is a hell of a guy, that's a story that ought to be good fiction instead of fact, and you're damn right he cares, a lot. Too bad for Ron, it's tough to run against that kind of character with so little ammunition. Hell, my dog ain't even scared.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Election Day is Over
Well, it's 12:30 AM 5/17/2006 and my share of the vote has climbed to 11%, I'd say that's sufficiently bad enough to say, "Goodnight Gracie." I had no particular expectations about the outcome, but I sure hadn't foreseen a number that bad. Well, the voters (the few that bothered) have had their say and I'll surely go along with them. Carol Voisin seems a sure winner, by a large margin and she's a smart, thoughtful, nice woman that I like quite a bit. She, like any one of us, will have her work cut out for her, I sure hope the folks who've taken an interest in my little endeavor will help her out, I intend to.
Now it's a good time to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who've helped me out, with money, time, enthusiasm, and some votes. I'm horribly disappointed by the turnout, this was the Democrats opportunity to pick the direction of their Party and a whole bunch of them couldn't be bothered enough to take a few minutes fill out a simple form and spend $0.39 to take charge. Something needs to be done about that.
Thanks very much,
Chuck
Now it's a good time to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who've helped me out, with money, time, enthusiasm, and some votes. I'm horribly disappointed by the turnout, this was the Democrats opportunity to pick the direction of their Party and a whole bunch of them couldn't be bothered enough to take a few minutes fill out a simple form and spend $0.39 to take charge. Something needs to be done about that.
Thanks very much,
Chuck
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Are We Having Fun Yet?
I 'll try to get this in some kind of order:
Deficit ,Iraq, Ohio vote called into question, Iraq, Social Security privatization, Iraq, Harriet, Iraq, Medicaid, Iraq FEMA, Iraq, Scooter, Iraq, Warrantless wiretaps, Iraq, Right to Die, Iraq, Abromoff, Iraq, Ney, Iraq, Cheney, Iraq, Cunningham, Iraq, DeLay, Iraq, Iran, Iraq, Deficit, Iraq, Afghasnistan, Iraq, Gasoline, Iraq, Goss, Iraq, Fogo, Iraq, Phone mining, Iraq;
George Walker Bush, Republican Senate, Republican House, waldenbush, thank you so very much.
For Pete's sake VOTE
Deficit ,Iraq, Ohio vote called into question, Iraq, Social Security privatization, Iraq, Harriet, Iraq, Medicaid, Iraq FEMA, Iraq, Scooter, Iraq, Warrantless wiretaps, Iraq, Right to Die, Iraq, Abromoff, Iraq, Ney, Iraq, Cheney, Iraq, Cunningham, Iraq, DeLay, Iraq, Iran, Iraq, Deficit, Iraq, Afghasnistan, Iraq, Gasoline, Iraq, Goss, Iraq, Fogo, Iraq, Phone mining, Iraq;
George Walker Bush, Republican Senate, Republican House, waldenbush, thank you so very much.
For Pete's sake VOTE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)