http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/26/politics/main5116912.shtml
LMAO!!!!! Who didn't see this coming?!?!? Okeeee-dokeeee, then. What's next, Sanford, "The devil made me do it?"
Not only did this guy abandon his responsibilities as governor, cheat on his wife, and use taxpayer money to fund his little love trips, now he wants people to pity him and think of him as a fabled leader of equally dubious morality who supposedly turned out to be a great leader if you happen to believe that particular fairy tale.
So, somebody needs to get Markey some serious counseling and mental health treatment fast. They need to get him out of government even faster. Next thing you know he'll be walking the streets of Columbia in flowing robs and proclaiming himself to be the Second Coming.
I really feel bad for his wife and kids. How awful must it be to have a complete and total schmuck like this guy as your husband or father?!? He's embarrassed himself, his family, the state of South Carolina and, with my own personal and heartfelt congratulations, the Republican party.
Like you Rs needed a member of the self-righteous, ultra-conservative, Christian neo-con element of your party to come out of nowhere and shoot another foot off.
- Having a born-again moron like W leading your party and believing that his god told him to invade Iraq wasn't enough.
- Having Cheney come out of 8 years of hiding to try and protect his own ass and, by extension, admit that he violated the Constitution and everything this country stands for and is now trying to completely and totally alienate and remove any semblance of rational thinking in the party by siding with Limbaugh over Collin Powell wasn't enough.
- Having the Laurel and Hardy team of Rush and Beck as your new public relations guys wasn't enough.
Now you have your own reincarnation of King David governing a state which brought us such bastions of progressive thinking and inclusion as Strom Thurman (anyone know if they buried him in his Grand Dragon hood) and, until recently, was still flying that ultimate symbol of American racism, the Stars and Bars, over the very dome where Sanford stumbled all over himself trying to apologize for something that if done by a Democratic governor Limbaugh and Beck would have already whipped up enough outrage to motivate another shooting.
It's bad enough that Sanford cheated on his wife, but what kind of insanity leads the governor of a state to think he can disappear for days and no one will notice or care?!?? And has he never heard of airport security cameras? He's clearly not processing his thoughts and emotions on a rational level and needs serious help. The state legislature needs to remove him immediately. That would actually be the best thing, relatively speaking, that the Republican party could do for itself. At least it would show some amount of consistency between all the blow-hard self-righteousness and how the party actually behaves.
One last thing before anyone starts trotting out the tired, old Clinton and Kennedy stories - kudos again btw, Brucey, for at least updating to Edwards on Facebook!.
Check this related story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=7930748&page=3
At least the R's are winning - by my tally 7-1 - in something.....................Too bad it's the game of Moral Hypocrisy.
This blog has moved to www.didyoucheckfirst.wordpress.com. Hope to see you there.
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label neo con. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neo con. Show all posts
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cheney on Torture

I suggest listening to this news program and the Cheney interview video at:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/05/cheney-v-obama
Here's what I did as a result of hearing this. You can decide for yourself what you do.
When I listened to this, I started (and am still) thinking about the implications all of this has on our country.
It raised questions for me like....
....What does this say about a populace who elects - and even more painfully, about those who continue to support - leaders like Cheney?
....What does it say about a political party and, with apologies, about those who support that party if he's considered one of its leaders?
....What does his position on torture say about him and those who agree with him as human beings?
....What does this do to the legitimacy and aspirations of his political party as the self-proclaimed standard bearer of such noble ideals as family values and big tent politics?
....What affects will we see happen to our collective morals and on our laws from even having a debate about the merits of torture?
....What is all of this politicization of torture having on our self-image as a society, as well as the view the rest of the world has about our legitimacy as a global economic, social, moral and political power?
Here's how what I see as Cheney's strategy for now being front-and-center.
He wants to.....
....try to rewrite history in order to protect his own legacy and the legacy of the last 8 years
(I believe it's way too late for that.)
He wants to.....
....try to frame the current discussion in terms of some perverse return on investment for torture
(As if America can do whatever it likes, including torture, if that's what it was and even though it's illegal, because of what we supposedly learned and can learn in the future about threats to America.)
He wants to.....
....do what he can to try and protect himself from prosecution
(I think and hope that his actions now will actually serve just the opposite purpose and help to secure a conviction for a crime which I personally believe he's guilty of committing.)
He wants to.....
....move the Republican party even further to the extreme right by saying things like Rush represents the Republican party more so than Collin Powell
(I think anyone who is a Republican should be very concerned politically about this one. If you're not careful, the party is going to be left with nothing but angry Bible thumpers and fliers of the Stars and Bars being led around by their collective noses by the wealthy oligarchy, present company excluded, of course.)
All of Cheney's words and deeds just reinforce my belief that he's completely out of touch with thoughtful, ordinary citizens. Frankly, I think he's one of the most reprehensible human beings ever to have walked the planet and unquestionably walking the planet today. He is, in my opinion, totally absent of the slightest shred of legitimacy as a leader and is the absolute epitome - along with people like Limbaugh, Rove, and yes, bin Laden - of an ugly political creature intent on self-preservation and power usurpation based solely on the fomentation of hatred and division.
He and his junior running mate, W, tricked this country twice. (Well, "stole" elections by some accounts.) We really shouldn't let him or them trick us again.
I think it's time for us as a democratic citizenry to rise up and to admit that we made a mistake electing him and W to 2 terms (if you can call them elections) and that those elected leaders, intentionally or unintentionally, may have violated laws. (It's ok to admit mistakes were made. I was once totally pro-business and leaned to the right on economic and fiscal policy issues. Life has changed my mind about a great many things, and I regret the mistakes I have made in the past like voting twice for Ross Perot.)
When it comes to the question of the legalities of policy and torture we need to let - hell, demand - that Congress and the courts investigate and decide the matter.
Cheney has publicly admitted to authorizing procedures which, by many definitions, are torture. It's time for a sincere and complete investigation into what he and others in the Bush administration did when it came to policy decisions about interrogation techniques and if any of them can be considered to be torture.
My own personal opinion about the "ROI" arguments Cheney or anyone else thinks can be made are absolutely without merit. They are a dodge; a red herring; an attempt to reframe the discussion in order to obfuscate us about the fact that torture is illegal no matter what the outcome.
Certainly I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me the way our society determines guilt or innocence is to first determine if suspicions and facts warrant investigations. I think they do in this case. If the investigation leads somewhere, courts have to be petitioned to issue subpoenas. People are questioned. Warrants for arrest are issued if it appears someone has committed a crime. We assume innocence first and give the accused their day in court - something we as Americans I think like to call habeas corpus but which the Bush administration denied to citizen and non-citizen alike whenever it suited them. If the prosecution convinces a judge and/or jury of the guilt of the accused - and in this case, regrettably, that is likely to include a re-examination of the definition of torture, but so be it - then those who authorized and committed the crime need to be punished.
So, if Cheney is so convinced that he and the administration are innocent of the crime of torture, then he should embrace - even demand - that an investigation begin to clear him and his compatriots of even the slightest hint of guilt. This notion of releasing memos about the value of torture is just another dodge. He's trying to make the "torture ROI" argument. Go ahead and release them, I say. I expect that rational people will look at them and conclude that we did, indeed, commit torture and that torture can never be justified by a peaceful and civil society regardless of the intelligence that is claimed to have been extracted.
What we as human beings - and especially as Americans - cannot and should not condone or tolerate is whether the "torture ROI" justified any decisions or actions if they are determined to be torture. That's like saying I'm innocent of the crime of bank robbery because I used the money to feed my kids. Bank robbery is still a crime no matter how supposedly noble the intent or desired outcomes.
Now Cheney and his supporters want to have a debate about the MERITS of torture?!?!?
Talk about relativism!!! Watch out you Republicans - it's starting to look like you're losing your moral compass and abandoning the black-and-white-right-and-wrong view of the world! ;-)
-----
"For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."
John F. Kennedy, Yale Commencement address, 1962 (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03Yale06111962.htm)
Blog: http://didyoucheckfirst.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
International Tax Reform
A May 4, 2009 analysis titled "International Tax Reform" published by Credit Suisse came to me from my broker. Just in case your news source of choice is spending all of their effort on politicizing the issue instead of focusing on the facts, I thought I would worth offer a few tidbits as food for thought....
"If you had been expecting the Administration to try and completely eliminate a company’s ability to defer U.S. taxation on its overseas profits (subjecting worldwide profits to a 35% tax rate whether repatriated or not) the targeted nature of the proposals may come as a relief." (p.1)
"Three of the proposals are projected to generate $189.6 billion of additional tax revenue from Corporate America between 2011 and 2019." (p.1)
"So where does one go to get a rough idea as to which companies...the amount of earnings that have so far escaped U.S. taxation. We pulled together the undistributed foreign earnings for each company in the S&P 500 as disclosed in the 2008 10-K’s. It amounted to over $1 trillion. The amounts are highly concentrated among a few sectors, Health Care and Information Technology account for about 41% of the total." (p.1)
Reform deferral rules
"The Administration is proposing that companies could no longer get the best of both worlds; they would be required to defer the deduction of expenses (except R&D) on a U.S. tax return that are associated with foreign income until it’s repatriated."
Close foreign tax credit loopholes
"The Administration is proposing to change that, so companies could only use foreign tax credits from foreign taxes paid on income that is subject to U.S. tax." (p.2)
Eliminate loopholes for “disappearing” offshore subsidiaries.
"... the “check the box” rules allow the two subsidiaries to disappear (i.e., branch to branch transactions are ignored) and as a result the company avoids...taxation. (p.2)
"In addition to the concentration by industry, there are also a small group of companies that account for much of the undistributed foreign earnings. We found 145 companies with more than $1 billion of undistributed earnings, including the 10 companies in Exhibit 2 where undistributed earnings exceed $20 billion. Those 10 companies have $360 billion of undistributed earnings, more than one third of the total for the S&P 500 companies." (p.4)
Hmmmmm.
Wonder what can be inferred about "big business", "special interests" and the "richest 1%" from any of this?
Wonder if the politicization of the issue of tax reform might not be getting spurred on by those with the most to lose from the application of a little fairness? You know, that richest 1% that professes to be looking out for us, American business, for smaller government, family values, and all of that.
While it's no surprise to see big companies as the ones in the top 10 S&Ps who have the most undistributed foreign earnings, I wonder what conclusions might be drawn from a little speculation about the influence big oil, big drugs, and big banks have in our lives, our government, and through which party?
I wonder if there's room for discussion about which party has the average citizen's best interests in mind, which one concerns themselves primarily with the wealthiest among us, and with which party's constituents might each of us have the most in common - not so much on an ideological level but on a practical level?
At the risk of offending yet again - and believe me that's not what I'm trying to do, I'm only expressing my opinion - I want to compliment the Republican leadership. Huh? Yes, compliment.
Since the days of Reagan they have, in my humble opinion, done a masterful job of what I would describe in my own limited way as "hood-winking" Americans. The Republican leadership set a course back then and has had a measure of success in getting people to think that the party's core values and platforms are based on beliefs and ideas that benefit "Main Street Americans."
Again and only in my opinion, the platform of the Republican party is built on the reddest of herrings.
Issues like....
...the Constitutional right to bear arms includes things like semi-automatic assault weapons. (What's next, recreational RPGs?)
...a woman's right to have an abortion should be unlawful. (Why, so we can have our own version of Sharia law but with a Christian twist?)
...we need a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. (Why, so we can then make legal our own unique brand of religiously-based hatred and discrimination? Hey, it'll give us something in common with radical Islamists! Who knows, it could be the first step in a bridge to better understanding and acceptance between our cultures!)
...Christian creationism - now euphemistically called intelligent design and never ever, ever, even with the slightest consideration for what other religions and their beliefs have to say about creationism - should have a place in science curriculum in our schools. (Why, so we can raise a nation of god-fearing Christian xenophobes to the exclusion and peril of all non-believers?)
...the so-called "war on terror" gives us the right to invade sovereign nations at will and regardless of the justification (or lack thereof), and to then violate international law and any shred of decency by torturing people. (Why, because we're Americans, dammit, and you can love it or leave it!??)
...environmental protection laws and policies aren't warranted and only hold back American enterprise and energy independence. (Because, after all, climate change is a myth and, besides, we need that additional 3% of our domestic oil consumption hiding in pristine wildernesses like ANWR and the outer continental shelves so we're no longer dependent on foreign sources who, for some strange reason, seem to hate our guts. Crazy Islamo-facists that they are...)
...the way to feel more secure in the homeland is to do things that make us feel safe like taking off our shoes in airports and building walls on our borders....but only on our southern border. (Why? Isn't it obvious? All terrorists are Muslims from the Mideast, and everyone knows all those camel jockeys are from desert countries. The soles of their feet are rough from wearing sandals in the sand so they're easily recognized at airport security. Besides, everyone knows they hate the cold so they'll never come across the Canadian border.)
Alright, that's enough of that silliness.
Here's my opinion. None of this bullshit really matters to the true Republican leadership. It's a ruse. The neo-conservative-gun-toting-drill-baby-drill-you're-either-with-us-or-aginst-us-love-it-or-leave-it-mission-accomplished-Minuteman-faux-patriotism-bible-thumping-divisive-focus-on-the-family stuff is only window dressing meant to attract, seduce and lull people into believing that the Republican party has some kind of concern about average Americans.
Hey, it's just my opinion, but they don't. I'm not telling anyone what to believe; just expressing my opinion.
In my opinion, it is the oligarchy of the wealthiest 1% who run the Republican party. If they had their way, they'd run every aspect of our lives because of the obscene profit and power in it. They are the Orwellian 1984 force that we need to be worried about, not the supposedly big government-minded Democrats. We are, in my opinion, just another resource to the Republican oligarchy; another raw material from which they become even wealthier and more powerful.
This isn't, by the way, limited solely to Republicans. Sadly, too many people of power of every stripe exercise their will on others without real regard for their followers or the organization.
I just think that there's a whole lot more to fear from Republicans than from Democrats. Democrats can't seem to agree on enough, always seem to be getting each other's way, and aren't very good it seems at towing a simplistic party line that everyone in America can understand.
The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to have decided about 30 years ago that they would cast themselves as the ultra-conservative party on social, economic and political issues. Simple message: The party of good old fashioned American values - small government, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and church on Sunday - and leave the rest to us and to hell with anyone who doesn't conform to our beliefs.
Those ideas serve the interests of the wealthy extremely well. Republican dogma is better for a rich oligarchy than ideas and principles that...
....allow for different belief systems and cultural norms
....put restrictions (call them whatever you like; rules, laws, regulations, etc.) on what businesses can and can't do to make a profit
....keep and strengthen the separation of church and state
....create and fund social programs designed to help the poor and middle class.
Which is why I rail against the Republican party - not you the member of the Republican party - the party's leadership and the values they profess to stand for and perpetuate in the face of what I see as the reality of who I think they truly have as their core constituency - the ultra-wealthy.
Shit. I probably offended someone with that statement, too. I'm sorry if anyone reading this is a mega-rich member of the RNC leadership.
Believe me, I don't see the Democratic party as perfect by any stretch. It just seems to me to be more concerned about the average citizen and the issues with which I, on a practical level, have much more in common with than the richest 1%.
Anyone want to get into how the swine flu can be tied to unrestricted greed on the part of American pork producers moving production and jobs overseas because of a lack of regulation? ;-)
Signed,
The Straw That Stirs the Drink!
"If you had been expecting the Administration to try and completely eliminate a company’s ability to defer U.S. taxation on its overseas profits (subjecting worldwide profits to a 35% tax rate whether repatriated or not) the targeted nature of the proposals may come as a relief." (p.1)
"Three of the proposals are projected to generate $189.6 billion of additional tax revenue from Corporate America between 2011 and 2019." (p.1)
"So where does one go to get a rough idea as to which companies
Reform deferral rules
"The Administration is proposing that companies could no longer get the best of both worlds
Close foreign tax credit loopholes
"The Administration is proposing to change that
Eliminate loopholes for “disappearing” offshore subsidiaries.
"... the “check the box” rules allow the two subsidiaries to disappear (i.e., branch to branch transactions are ignored) and as a result the company avoids...taxation. (p.2)
"In addition to the concentration by industry, there are also a small group of companies that account for much of the undistributed foreign earnings. We found 145 companies with more than $1 billion of undistributed earnings, including the 10 companies in Exhibit 2 where undistributed earnings exceed $20 billion. Those 10 companies have $360 billion of undistributed earnings, more than one third of the total for the S&P 500 companies." (p.4)
Hmmmmm.
Wonder what can be inferred about "big business", "special interests" and the "richest 1%" from any of this?
Wonder if the politicization of the issue of tax reform might not be getting spurred on by those with the most to lose from the application of a little fairness? You know, that richest 1% that professes to be looking out for us, American business, for smaller government, family values, and all of that.
While it's no surprise to see big companies as the ones in the top 10 S&Ps who have the most undistributed foreign earnings, I wonder what conclusions might be drawn from a little speculation about the influence big oil, big drugs, and big banks have in our lives, our government, and through which party?
I wonder if there's room for discussion about which party has the average citizen's best interests in mind, which one concerns themselves primarily with the wealthiest among us, and with which party's constituents might each of us have the most in common - not so much on an ideological level but on a practical level?
At the risk of offending yet again - and believe me that's not what I'm trying to do, I'm only expressing my opinion - I want to compliment the Republican leadership. Huh? Yes, compliment.
Since the days of Reagan they have, in my humble opinion, done a masterful job of what I would describe in my own limited way as "hood-winking" Americans. The Republican leadership set a course back then and has had a measure of success in getting people to think that the party's core values and platforms are based on beliefs and ideas that benefit "Main Street Americans."
Again and only in my opinion, the platform of the Republican party is built on the reddest of herrings.
Issues like....
...the Constitutional right to bear arms includes things like semi-automatic assault weapons. (What's next, recreational RPGs?)
...a woman's right to have an abortion should be unlawful. (Why, so we can have our own version of Sharia law but with a Christian twist?)
...we need a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. (Why, so we can then make legal our own unique brand of religiously-based hatred and discrimination? Hey, it'll give us something in common with radical Islamists! Who knows, it could be the first step in a bridge to better understanding and acceptance between our cultures!)
...Christian creationism - now euphemistically called intelligent design and never ever, ever, even with the slightest consideration for what other religions and their beliefs have to say about creationism - should have a place in science curriculum in our schools. (Why, so we can raise a nation of god-fearing Christian xenophobes to the exclusion and peril of all non-believers?)
...the so-called "war on terror" gives us the right to invade sovereign nations at will and regardless of the justification (or lack thereof), and to then violate international law and any shred of decency by torturing people. (Why, because we're Americans, dammit, and you can love it or leave it!??)
...environmental protection laws and policies aren't warranted and only hold back American enterprise and energy independence. (Because, after all, climate change is a myth and, besides, we need that additional 3% of our domestic oil consumption hiding in pristine wildernesses like ANWR and the outer continental shelves so we're no longer dependent on foreign sources who, for some strange reason, seem to hate our guts. Crazy Islamo-facists that they are...)
...the way to feel more secure in the homeland is to do things that make us feel safe like taking off our shoes in airports and building walls on our borders....but only on our southern border. (Why? Isn't it obvious? All terrorists are Muslims from the Mideast, and everyone knows all those camel jockeys are from desert countries. The soles of their feet are rough from wearing sandals in the sand so they're easily recognized at airport security. Besides, everyone knows they hate the cold so they'll never come across the Canadian border.)
Alright, that's enough of that silliness.
Here's my opinion. None of this bullshit really matters to the true Republican leadership. It's a ruse. The neo-conservative-gun-toting-drill-baby-drill-you're-either-with-us-or-aginst-us-love-it-or-leave-it-mission-accomplished-Minuteman-faux-patriotism-bible-thumping-divisive-focus-on-the-family stuff is only window dressing meant to attract, seduce and lull people into believing that the Republican party has some kind of concern about average Americans.
Hey, it's just my opinion, but they don't. I'm not telling anyone what to believe; just expressing my opinion.
In my opinion, it is the oligarchy of the wealthiest 1% who run the Republican party. If they had their way, they'd run every aspect of our lives because of the obscene profit and power in it. They are the Orwellian 1984 force that we need to be worried about, not the supposedly big government-minded Democrats. We are, in my opinion, just another resource to the Republican oligarchy; another raw material from which they become even wealthier and more powerful.
This isn't, by the way, limited solely to Republicans. Sadly, too many people of power of every stripe exercise their will on others without real regard for their followers or the organization.
I just think that there's a whole lot more to fear from Republicans than from Democrats. Democrats can't seem to agree on enough, always seem to be getting each other's way, and aren't very good it seems at towing a simplistic party line that everyone in America can understand.
The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to have decided about 30 years ago that they would cast themselves as the ultra-conservative party on social, economic and political issues. Simple message: The party of good old fashioned American values - small government, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and church on Sunday - and leave the rest to us and to hell with anyone who doesn't conform to our beliefs.
Those ideas serve the interests of the wealthy extremely well. Republican dogma is better for a rich oligarchy than ideas and principles that...
....allow for different belief systems and cultural norms
....put restrictions (call them whatever you like; rules, laws, regulations, etc.) on what businesses can and can't do to make a profit
....keep and strengthen the separation of church and state
....create and fund social programs designed to help the poor and middle class.
Which is why I rail against the Republican party - not you the member of the Republican party - the party's leadership and the values they profess to stand for and perpetuate in the face of what I see as the reality of who I think they truly have as their core constituency - the ultra-wealthy.
Shit. I probably offended someone with that statement, too. I'm sorry if anyone reading this is a mega-rich member of the RNC leadership.
Believe me, I don't see the Democratic party as perfect by any stretch. It just seems to me to be more concerned about the average citizen and the issues with which I, on a practical level, have much more in common with than the richest 1%.
Anyone want to get into how the swine flu can be tied to unrestricted greed on the part of American pork producers moving production and jobs overseas because of a lack of regulation? ;-)
Signed,
The Straw That Stirs the Drink!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)