Although not a mainstream television watcher since pay television was mandated by Congressional decree throughout America, I have unfortunately been recently residing with relatives that unfortunately have become rather homebound in their declining years, and on and off been subject to some of the political entertainment shows carried on pay TV. Unfortunately also, it has affected somewhat my elderly relatives grasp of reality since this really is there primary contact with the real world.
Of course, those shows and all those crime dramas and unreal "reality" shows that are fed to the American public as a steady diet.
There have been so many debates at this point by the Republicans it seems there should have been a new reality series scheduled by the networks entitled "The Presidential GOP Debates: Run for the Roses," limiting them to 13 weeks. My eyes glazed over after the first one.
I spent my time during the second one imagining alternative occupations for those "candidates" after they leave office, if they ever do before retirement age. Few, I'm sure, will but here's what I came up with...
Mitt Romney - Used car salesman or croupier in Vegas
Newt Gingrich - Pilsbury doughboy stand-in or the new face on Monopoly for Mr. Moneybags, the banker. (Or Hallmark Card writer).
Rick Perry - Howdy Doody's new partner or calf roper and bull rider.
Michelle Bachman - New face for Oil of Olay or Cruise Line Director
Ron Paul - He's already an obstetrician and that fits, or Santa Claus (with padding)
As far as the other political party, we all know what Mr. Obama's true calling is: Motivational speaker or union organizer. I think most Americans know by now he is not nor was a Constitutional lawyer.
While all these people are traversing the country, spouting their political ideology, I wonder...just how did our political system get so very, very profitable for the cable entertainment news networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) and those candidates?
I mean, just how many staff members and assorted individuals affiliated with these continous elections can now list on their job resume "political strategist?"
I mean, do they give degrees in that now too?
Our elections are becoming mirror images of last week's finale of Survivor.
He who wins the game, wins the coveted rose.
Come hook or crook.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Iraq War Over? In Name Only, Perhaps
Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, and especially the left wing Democrats on CNN, MSNBC and even those on that British Conservative station, Fox, the Iraq War is hardly over - nor is its reported "end" the result of Mr. Obama's stated campaign promises (except to promise what Bush had already agreed to before leaving office).
It was reported four short years ago that George Bush, during his last three months in office, quietly met with the "new" Iraqi government and agreed to a massive troop withdrawal beginning in 2010 and winding down by the first two weeks in December, 2011.
Which is exactly what has occurred, as agreed.
Just prior, of course, to the next presidential election in this country.
The mainstream media reported it, however, it appears the politicians in Washington hope and pray that Americans will buy this troop withdrawal as ending the War in the Middle East and crediting Mr. Obama for this massive coup.
Until, of course, there is another tragedy involving the U.S. in Iran, Pakistan, or wherever else the military decides it needs to go to bomb, and then rebuild.
The government contractors, of course, are still in Iraq and probably will be there for quite some time.
With, of course, military personnel still there also in order to not leave Iraq totally without a U.S. presence, and keep those government contractors and their safety as their primary priority now that the war is "over." With the convenient capture also of Osama bin Laden this year too (buried at sea in the Muslim tradition?) This has been quite a year for both Mr. Obama's party, and Mr. Bush's.
The AP also reported today in another article regarding a 662 Billion Appropriations Bill, not carried on the front pages or web alert pages:
"Highlighting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon. The bill also authorizes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department.
Frustrated with delays and cost overruns with the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program, lawmakers planned to require the contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cover the expense of any extra costs on the next batch and future purchases of the aircraft. The Pentagon envisions buying 2,443 planes for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, but the price could make it the most expensive program in military history — $1 trillion.
The legislation freezes $700 million for Pakistan until the defense secretary provides Congress a report on how Islamabad is countering the threat of improvised explosive devices."
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5
It really shocked me that included in this article is a provision that in the event an American is involved in some terrorist plot (although it seems Washington's politicos are the greatest terrorists of all), they too can be detained indefinitely, and without bail or bond.
Isn't that fundamentally unconstitutional, since Mr. Obama has also consented to "allow" these type actions, with the exception of any actions instigated by al Qaida or its affiliates, to be heard in the civil courts, rather than military courts. So that terrorism and those individuals defense costs can be "privatized," I guess, against all that foreign oil money from the countries that these individuals really call their home.
I mean I could understand having "open" military trials for those so accused who are not Americans but somehow got a visa and entered from one of the more than 40 countries the Bush Administration afforded free pass visa waivers during his term of office, under those "free trade" agreements using foreigners as commerce now that "commerce" and "people" have been so ill defined progressively.
Not to mention "foreigners" or "foreign enemies."
But affording the civil courts for these trials when our national security was and is so poor that a 9-11 could have even happened here in the first place, knowing just how much ill will there is in that part of the world against America and the West due to our decade upon decade presence there, force feeding our Western ideas of "freedom" - a definition of freedom that those in this country doubt the founding fathers would recognize as the inherent freedoms they were speaking of when our Constitution was ratified.
Many of these Middle Eastern countries, it appears, have little formal military for defense of their country and its people, but rather seems they are instead personal armies for the protection of the various dictators who progressively have ruled many of those countries.
From reading most of the web comments on the reported story of the "end of the War in Iraq," I'm not the only American both skeptical, and also with a longer memory than most of the mainstream media types and politicos give Americans credit for.
I predict that there will be another huge national security incident during Mr. Obama's next term of office (you don't really believe that old Newt, or Mitt, or Ron Paul even will take the coveted presidential prize this election, do you?).
So then we can have a Republican win the next election, and the status quo will then continue simply under a "change of face and party."
Perhaps against all odds by Iran (we are again beating the drums over Iran and its development of nuclear weapons - apparently a gigantic threat to this country even given our massive military might, and all the money we have spent on national defense and toys, and Reagan's Star Wars program in the 1980's). Or Pakistan (still a threat to India, apparently, another former British possession).
I guess that is why today, "The End of the War in Iraq Day", there were no parades...
It was reported four short years ago that George Bush, during his last three months in office, quietly met with the "new" Iraqi government and agreed to a massive troop withdrawal beginning in 2010 and winding down by the first two weeks in December, 2011.
Which is exactly what has occurred, as agreed.
Just prior, of course, to the next presidential election in this country.
The mainstream media reported it, however, it appears the politicians in Washington hope and pray that Americans will buy this troop withdrawal as ending the War in the Middle East and crediting Mr. Obama for this massive coup.
Until, of course, there is another tragedy involving the U.S. in Iran, Pakistan, or wherever else the military decides it needs to go to bomb, and then rebuild.
The government contractors, of course, are still in Iraq and probably will be there for quite some time.
With, of course, military personnel still there also in order to not leave Iraq totally without a U.S. presence, and keep those government contractors and their safety as their primary priority now that the war is "over." With the convenient capture also of Osama bin Laden this year too (buried at sea in the Muslim tradition?) This has been quite a year for both Mr. Obama's party, and Mr. Bush's.
The AP also reported today in another article regarding a 662 Billion Appropriations Bill, not carried on the front pages or web alert pages:
"Highlighting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon. The bill also authorizes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department.
Frustrated with delays and cost overruns with the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program, lawmakers planned to require the contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cover the expense of any extra costs on the next batch and future purchases of the aircraft. The Pentagon envisions buying 2,443 planes for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, but the price could make it the most expensive program in military history — $1 trillion.
The legislation freezes $700 million for Pakistan until the defense secretary provides Congress a report on how Islamabad is countering the threat of improvised explosive devices."
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5
It really shocked me that included in this article is a provision that in the event an American is involved in some terrorist plot (although it seems Washington's politicos are the greatest terrorists of all), they too can be detained indefinitely, and without bail or bond.
Isn't that fundamentally unconstitutional, since Mr. Obama has also consented to "allow" these type actions, with the exception of any actions instigated by al Qaida or its affiliates, to be heard in the civil courts, rather than military courts. So that terrorism and those individuals defense costs can be "privatized," I guess, against all that foreign oil money from the countries that these individuals really call their home.
I mean I could understand having "open" military trials for those so accused who are not Americans but somehow got a visa and entered from one of the more than 40 countries the Bush Administration afforded free pass visa waivers during his term of office, under those "free trade" agreements using foreigners as commerce now that "commerce" and "people" have been so ill defined progressively.
Not to mention "foreigners" or "foreign enemies."
But affording the civil courts for these trials when our national security was and is so poor that a 9-11 could have even happened here in the first place, knowing just how much ill will there is in that part of the world against America and the West due to our decade upon decade presence there, force feeding our Western ideas of "freedom" - a definition of freedom that those in this country doubt the founding fathers would recognize as the inherent freedoms they were speaking of when our Constitution was ratified.
Many of these Middle Eastern countries, it appears, have little formal military for defense of their country and its people, but rather seems they are instead personal armies for the protection of the various dictators who progressively have ruled many of those countries.
From reading most of the web comments on the reported story of the "end of the War in Iraq," I'm not the only American both skeptical, and also with a longer memory than most of the mainstream media types and politicos give Americans credit for.
I predict that there will be another huge national security incident during Mr. Obama's next term of office (you don't really believe that old Newt, or Mitt, or Ron Paul even will take the coveted presidential prize this election, do you?).
So then we can have a Republican win the next election, and the status quo will then continue simply under a "change of face and party."
Perhaps against all odds by Iran (we are again beating the drums over Iran and its development of nuclear weapons - apparently a gigantic threat to this country even given our massive military might, and all the money we have spent on national defense and toys, and Reagan's Star Wars program in the 1980's). Or Pakistan (still a threat to India, apparently, another former British possession).
I guess that is why today, "The End of the War in Iraq Day", there were no parades...
Monday, December 12, 2011
Barack Obama's 60 Minutes Interview: Politics As Usual
Although I rarely watch television, due to my present circumstances I was unfortunately exposed to the recent 60 Minutes interview with Barack Obama on national television last evening...
As a boomer, I keep wondering why a President of this country now has the time to conduct such interviews.
Although 60 Minutes has been around for a long time, I don't remember former presidents using the network as a forum in order to promote their agendas, or defend their political positions other than seizing the airwaves for one of those addresses that seem to also be getting more and more frequent.
During this interview, Mr. Obama had the audacity to claim that the problems in the banking industry that have been facilitated by BOTH political parties' unholy alliances with Wall Street, which now has a global focus rather than a national one, prior to the "financial reform" undertaken by Congress was not in any way "illegal," and postured, in a roundabout way, that if it were not for all the steps this Administration has undertaken in order to get financial reform addressed by Congress, these loan shark rates and terms would still be continuing...
Say what?
As one who was progressively stripped of her home and any and all property rights she had over her titled property, I found this excuse to be absolutely untrue and also one of the most arrogant statements made by a president ever.
Banks in the West, especially, were marketing loans which were not even based on the U.S. prime or currency, but on British LIBOR rates, a currency which is one and a half times that of America's piss poor dollar at this point.
Those loans are still being marketed throughout the country, and also to our kids for those outrageous student loans, last time I checked. In fact, this Administration has continued to promote refinancing and also re-education in order to get more and more Americans into those bogus loans, it appears...
And to state that the banks in this country, without such legislation and steps taken by this Administration, were not operating in a fraudulent and illegal manner is just too incredible to believe.
After all, we were created as a sovereign nation, and marketing financial products throughout the country which were not even based on our currency is and was not only illegal, but actually treasonous - and do not see anywhere in our Constitution that provides that our federal government was and is to coin and print money, and "value" it, with a created U.S. Treasury that was charged to so do, how this could be.
Unless it is a "global" free market that is the focus of this Administration, and this Congress, rather than a domestic one, regulating foreign ownership of America's key industries, and also its economy to protect America and Americans is supposed to be our federal government's focus. Not facilitating and encouraging a massive global takeover of our banking industries, and Americans homes and land, which appears to be the case more and more.
These "addresses" conducted on mainstream television are getting better and better with each one progressively...
And Mr. Obama has held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer?
Just what IS going on at Harvard, I ask? And who is in charge of its law curriculum?
Are foreigners buying out our colleges and schools of higher learning even, at this point?
As a boomer, I keep wondering why a President of this country now has the time to conduct such interviews.
Although 60 Minutes has been around for a long time, I don't remember former presidents using the network as a forum in order to promote their agendas, or defend their political positions other than seizing the airwaves for one of those addresses that seem to also be getting more and more frequent.
During this interview, Mr. Obama had the audacity to claim that the problems in the banking industry that have been facilitated by BOTH political parties' unholy alliances with Wall Street, which now has a global focus rather than a national one, prior to the "financial reform" undertaken by Congress was not in any way "illegal," and postured, in a roundabout way, that if it were not for all the steps this Administration has undertaken in order to get financial reform addressed by Congress, these loan shark rates and terms would still be continuing...
Say what?
As one who was progressively stripped of her home and any and all property rights she had over her titled property, I found this excuse to be absolutely untrue and also one of the most arrogant statements made by a president ever.
Banks in the West, especially, were marketing loans which were not even based on the U.S. prime or currency, but on British LIBOR rates, a currency which is one and a half times that of America's piss poor dollar at this point.
Those loans are still being marketed throughout the country, and also to our kids for those outrageous student loans, last time I checked. In fact, this Administration has continued to promote refinancing and also re-education in order to get more and more Americans into those bogus loans, it appears...
And to state that the banks in this country, without such legislation and steps taken by this Administration, were not operating in a fraudulent and illegal manner is just too incredible to believe.
After all, we were created as a sovereign nation, and marketing financial products throughout the country which were not even based on our currency is and was not only illegal, but actually treasonous - and do not see anywhere in our Constitution that provides that our federal government was and is to coin and print money, and "value" it, with a created U.S. Treasury that was charged to so do, how this could be.
Unless it is a "global" free market that is the focus of this Administration, and this Congress, rather than a domestic one, regulating foreign ownership of America's key industries, and also its economy to protect America and Americans is supposed to be our federal government's focus. Not facilitating and encouraging a massive global takeover of our banking industries, and Americans homes and land, which appears to be the case more and more.
These "addresses" conducted on mainstream television are getting better and better with each one progressively...
And Mr. Obama has held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer?
Just what IS going on at Harvard, I ask? And who is in charge of its law curriculum?
Are foreigners buying out our colleges and schools of higher learning even, at this point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
