Romney disses veterans

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney found himself in a bit of bother after a video was leaked of him calling 47% of Americans leeches. Conveniently, he said there is also 47% who will vote for the president no matter what and who are dependent on government.

My dad is one of those 47% apparently. Retired, I doubt he earns enough to owe income taxes. He's also an Obama supporter. He also has eyesight thanks to the 'socialized medicine' of the veterans administration.

I guess that makes him one of those dependent on government parasites Romney referred to in his little ivory tower speech to his fellow superrich sponsors.
 
My dad spent his life working and paying taxes. He even spent a few year sin the military preserving Romney's freedom and privilege. He still works part-time, though I don't know if it's enough to owe taxes. And I mean he does actual work, not living a cushy life off investment and inheritance income like Romney. He probably pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the quarter billionaire Republican.my dad gets a little bit back of what he’s paid into the system now that he’s older, he has absolutely no reason to apologize for that to someone like Romney or his fellow superrich sponsors. If anything, Romney should apologize to my dad and others like him. I’ve never been an Obama supporter but Romney’s seriously making me reconsider.

So if my dad gets a little back of what he's put into the system now that he's older and his health isn't what it used to be, he has absolutely no reason to apologize to Romney and his fellow oligarchs. If anything, Romney should apologize to my dad and those like him.

Romney grants rights to foreigners that he denies to Americans

The juxtaposition of two stories on the front page of today's Oneonta Daily Star caught my eye: "Romney declares Jerusalem capital of Jewish state" and "Area gun enthusiasts take aim at critics."

The latter was the usual mainstream media story run in the aftermath of a mass shooting tragedy in which interviewees claimed that we didn't need more gun restrictions. It's shocking that the group interviewed, participants at a southern New York gun show, would come to that conclusion. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has agreed with this position.

The former was a story about Romney's visit to Israel. There, Romney said he would back an Israeli military aggression to knock out Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which played well with the militaristic government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Republican said that Israel had the 'right' to live next to a non-nuclear Iran.


At home, conservatives claim that everybody being armed makes things *more* safe.

Abroad, they claim that everybody being armed makes things *less* safe.

They need to pick a propaganda line and stick with it.

Additionally, Romney is claiming that Israelis have the 'rights' to live next to an unarmed neighbor and to aggressively disarm their neighbor to achieve that 'right.'

But he denies that Americans don't have any such rights.

Why does Romney claim a right for foreigners that he denies to Americans?

What country is Romney running to lead?

Update: One gun enthusiast interviewed in The Daily Star piece noted "In a free society, you are going to have crazies and there is no way to stop them." Can you imagine a conservative agreeing with that statement if the word 'crazies' was preceded by the word 'Islamist'?

Obamacare: like solving hunger by mandating everyone eat three meals a day

Today, the US Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called by critics ‘Obamacare.’

The simplistic dichotomy peddled by the mainstream media is that if you oppose Republicans/The Tea Party, you support Obamacare. If you oppose Democrats/Pres. Obama, you oppose Obamacare. Everything’s neat, simple and tidy. Anything that varies from that easy narrative is pretty much ignored. Frankly, MSM journalists should have read some of the discussions my friends and I participated in today. A progressive hating on the ACA, a libertarian praising it... the nuance would make their heads explode.

So here I am a progressive who is disappointed that the ACA is still the law of the land.

Obamacare is akin to solving the problem of hunger by mandating everyone eat three meals a day.

In its decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that health insurance (ACA has nothing to do with health care) is the only private commodity that all Americans are required by law to purchase as a condition of citizenship, as a condition of being.

The health insurance industry is surely sending a huge thank you to the corporate Supreme Court, for this greatly expanded and government-mandated (under penalty of fines) pool of buyers for their racket.

This is a huge step backwards for real health care reform. Liberals, who know in their brains that Medicare for All (single payer) is the real solution to the problem of access to affordable health care, will be neutered for at least the next 20 years. They think Obamacare is just fine. People who think the situation is just fine don’t agitate for something better, especially when it’s completely different.

The ACA also pre-empts further efforts real reform because it gives the private health insurance industry even more of an incentive to preserve the status quo at any cost.

This is what passes for ‘choice’ in America. Mitt Romney and the Republicans are running against a health insurance scheme he inspired. Obama and Democrats are defending a health insurance scheme their hated opponent inspired. This pathetic state of affairs illustrates so perfectly why America needs real multipartyism.

The arrogance of the power hungry

At times, the pomposity of some politicians is absolutely mind-boggling. Take the two front runners in the Republican presidential campaign.

Former Massachussetts governor Mitt Romney, an ardent supporter of the so-called war on terror, explained to town hall meeting audience why none of his adult children were serving in the military.

"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

I know you have to have a pretty big ego to run for president on a major party ticket, but usually the successful politicians are a little less overtly arrogant than Romney.

Not so for Romney's main rival at this point, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Mormonism aside, Romney is a pretty standard cardboard Republican. Giuliani is a bit different. He's a bit more moderate than most of rivals on many social issues, but he compensates by being significantly more fanatical on questions of militarism. His fanning of the populist flames led a Harper's magazine article to contend somewhat compellingly that a Rudy presidency risks being even worse than Bush's, a fear I've had for some time.

(Note: the Harper's piece is subscribers-only but Alternet talks about it too as does this essay in The Nation.)

Giuliani's national fame came simply by showing up in the aftermath of 9/11. He was our national reassurer-in-chief. This doesn't qualify him to fight terrorism, as a National Public Radio anchor (not a commentator) ridiculously stated, but it was not irrelevant at the time. While not unimportant, a mayor merely showing up and encouraging people in the aftermath of a tragedy hardly qualifies one to be president. Perhaps he benefited by comparison to the conduct of the actual president at the time.

Of course, Rudy's mayorship was quite controversial. He was a polarizing figure for 7 years, 9 1/2 months. But that seems to be lost in the group therapy of the last 10 weeks. He did a good job completing the work started by his Democratic predecessor in cleaning up the city, both physically and in terms of crime. But this also came with the cost of a police force running rampant. NYPD cops pumped 41 bullets into an unarmed African immigrant; I don't like to second guess cops in crime ridden areas and one can debate the actual fact of the shooting but pumping that many bullets into an unarmed person (who, oh by the way, was innocent of any crime) is unconscionable. That came a few years after the infamous Abner Louima torture case when cops used a toilet plunger to sexually brutalize a Haitian man being held in their custody. Incidents like this and others demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life. Given the Bush administration's similar mentality, this is the last thing we need to perpetuate in this country.

Woody Allen famously said that 80 percent of success is just showing up. And since Giuliani's presidential campaign success is due entirely to the fact that he just showed up after 9/11, it's not surprising that the famously ill-tempered politician overplayed his hand.

At a campaign stop in Ohio, he bragged, "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. ... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”

His comments were denounced by both New York's Bravest and New York's Finest.

The head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association in New York, said: “I have a real problem with that statement. I think he’s really grasping and trying to justify his previous attempts to portray himself as the hero of 9/11.”

Michael Palladino, head of the Detectives Endowment Association, the union of NYPD detectives, said the mayor’s record can’t compare to those who spent 12 months sifting through toxic debris for evidence and human remains.

“As a result of their hard work, many are sick and injured. The mayor, although he did a fine job with 9/11, I don’t think he rises to the level of being an equal with those men and women who were involved in the rescue, recovery and cleanup,” Palladino said.

Only in the Rudy's little mind/gigantic head does preening for the cameras from time to time equate to those who sifted through toxic debris or those who saved people from the stricken towers before they collapsed.

A colleague of Rudy's endorsed successor pointed out that '9/11 is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Rudy Giuliani.'

I'll have a criticism of Barak Obama in the next few days.