This is a short, quick note -- because that's all he rates, if that.
And since I've just written about another public figure making an
absurd statement, it brought to mind The Chubby Newt, who made news
twice this week.
Once in blathering about the Newtown tragedy. His opinion (or at least what he told the TV cameras): If we hadn't taken prayer out of schools, and if we let school principals be armed -- maybe these things wouldn't happen.
And yesterday, he said that he "would probably have done better than Romney against Obama" in the election.
OK. Let's put these both in the context that Newt is always wrong about whatever he says. So why do tv producers keep having him on to pontificate?
Why
am I writing this now and putting his name out there? The best way
to deal with Newt would be to ignore him; don't give him a mike or a
camera. Why can't we do that -- me included?
Ralph
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The NRA finally speaks about the Newtown massacre
Following the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, MA, there seems to be a more serious determination to do something about our culture of violence and the too easy access to weapons for multiple killings.
There have been calls for greater gun control following Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, CO, and others. But they usually pass in a week or so, and nothing changes.
This time -- it may accomplish something. President Obama, some Republicans in Congress, TV commentators, and even the judge who held the trial for Gabrielle Gifford's shooter have been calling for new control laws, at least on assault weapons. Some of them have even been speaking boldly about what the NRA really does -- which is to act as a lobbyist for the manufacturers and the retailers of these weapons.
Now the NRA has spoken. Executive VP Wayne LaPierre held a news conference yesterday. Did he offer the expected gesture toward a modicum of gun control -- or at least emphasize the need for safety training and preventing mentally ill persons from getting guns?
Absolutely not. He went the other way.
This is not even what the majority of NRA members would say. And it certainly is not what the nation needed to hear.
It's certainly arguable that no conceivably-passable regulatory laws could have prevented Adam Lanza from doing what he did. He used guns that had been legally purchased by his mother. And he killed her -- possibly because she was trying to prevent his taking her guns. She reportedly handled them properly and kept them secure. But Adam lived with her and he knew how to gain access to them.
That is not the point. The point is that there are too many guns, no one needs to have assault weapons designed only to kill many people quickly, and it's time we at least reinstate the ban on such weapons that we once had. If the emotions stirred by this tragedy serve to restore some sane regulations, let's do it while we can.
Ralph
There have been calls for greater gun control following Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, CO, and others. But they usually pass in a week or so, and nothing changes.
This time -- it may accomplish something. President Obama, some Republicans in Congress, TV commentators, and even the judge who held the trial for Gabrielle Gifford's shooter have been calling for new control laws, at least on assault weapons. Some of them have even been speaking boldly about what the NRA really does -- which is to act as a lobbyist for the manufacturers and the retailers of these weapons.
Now the NRA has spoken. Executive VP Wayne LaPierre held a news conference yesterday. Did he offer the expected gesture toward a modicum of gun control -- or at least emphasize the need for safety training and preventing mentally ill persons from getting guns?
Absolutely not. He went the other way.
The solution to our violence and gun problem is: MORE GUNS.Every school in this country should have armed guards; and the principals also should be armed. That's the NRA's solution.
This is not even what the majority of NRA members would say. And it certainly is not what the nation needed to hear.
It's certainly arguable that no conceivably-passable regulatory laws could have prevented Adam Lanza from doing what he did. He used guns that had been legally purchased by his mother. And he killed her -- possibly because she was trying to prevent his taking her guns. She reportedly handled them properly and kept them secure. But Adam lived with her and he knew how to gain access to them.
That is not the point. The point is that there are too many guns, no one needs to have assault weapons designed only to kill many people quickly, and it's time we at least reinstate the ban on such weapons that we once had. If the emotions stirred by this tragedy serve to restore some sane regulations, let's do it while we can.
Ralph
Friday, December 21, 2012
House Republicans gave up and went home
John Boehner couldn't get enough votes from his caucus to pass his Plan B, so the House adjourned and went home until after Christmas.
This is good news, I think. Ultra-conservative Republican Congressman Dan Burton (Indiana) said that if a fiscal deal isn't reached before the end of the year, President Obama will be in such a strong position that Republicans will be forced to accept the end of Bush tax cuts for those making above $250,000.
What this means for Boehner's future as Speaker remains to be seen. He gambled on getting his "compromise" bill through the House -- which meant they would break their pledges not to raise taxes at all.
And he lost. Which will likely add fuel to the talk of opposition to his re-election as Speaker, with Georgia's Tom Price as a more conservative, leading contender.
Others are making the obligatory "blame Obama" comments -- trying to paint him as the recalcitrant one. That's ridiculous -- and maybe why his offer on chained-CPI index for Social Security was a good tactical move. Same for going up to $400,000 on taxes. They can't really say he didn't give on anything -- not with any credibility.
Sounds really good to me. Let's go over the cliff, and then fix what needs to be fixed with a new congress and better Democratic numbers -- plus there will be greater pressure on the Republicans to give in.
Ralph
PS: Boehner's humiliating defeat by his own party now makes a mockery of his taunting President Obama yesterday, when he told a press conference that "the president is not willing to stand up to his own party."
This is good news, I think. Ultra-conservative Republican Congressman Dan Burton (Indiana) said that if a fiscal deal isn't reached before the end of the year, President Obama will be in such a strong position that Republicans will be forced to accept the end of Bush tax cuts for those making above $250,000.
What this means for Boehner's future as Speaker remains to be seen. He gambled on getting his "compromise" bill through the House -- which meant they would break their pledges not to raise taxes at all.
And he lost. Which will likely add fuel to the talk of opposition to his re-election as Speaker, with Georgia's Tom Price as a more conservative, leading contender.
Others are making the obligatory "blame Obama" comments -- trying to paint him as the recalcitrant one. That's ridiculous -- and maybe why his offer on chained-CPI index for Social Security was a good tactical move. Same for going up to $400,000 on taxes. They can't really say he didn't give on anything -- not with any credibility.
Sounds really good to me. Let's go over the cliff, and then fix what needs to be fixed with a new congress and better Democratic numbers -- plus there will be greater pressure on the Republicans to give in.
Ralph
PS: Boehner's humiliating defeat by his own party now makes a mockery of his taunting President Obama yesterday, when he told a press conference that "the president is not willing to stand up to his own party."
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Despicable perversion of religion #2
Some opponents are going after the Westboro Baptist Church in a new way -- hacking into their twitter accounts and changing their message. One 15 year old whiz kid, who goes by the online name of "Cosmo the God," managed to take over the twitter account of Shirley Lynn Phelps-Roper, daughter of Fred Phelps and spokesperson for the group.
Cosmo changed her background to a message that said "Pray for Newtown" and edited her profile information. Someone else tweeted out her telephone number and started an online petition to the White House to have the WBC declared a hate organization. Other cyberattack groups have also been active in causing mischief for other members of WBC.
The Westboro Baptist Church is listed as an anti-Semitic and homophobic hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and, I believe, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which exposes and works to counter-act hate groups.
Unfortunately for young Cosmo, this act of countering a hate group may cause him some trouble. He wound up in juvenile court for several other cyberattacks in 2012: taking down the NASDAQ site and some government site, including CIA.gov. His probated sentence banned him from the internet until he turns 21. So will probably be a probation violation for him.
Is this a good thing? I must admit that my moral position on it gets sort of fuzzy when the victim is such a despicable group in which I can find absolutely no redeeming features. So, I am torn. However, I also agree with the ACLU principle of defending freedom of speech, even when it's a message they deplore. But shouldn't there be some limits? -- like the funerals of innocent people who have absolutely nothing to do with what you're protesting, and the only rationale of the protesters is the publicity they will get?
Ralph
Cosmo changed her background to a message that said "Pray for Newtown" and edited her profile information. Someone else tweeted out her telephone number and started an online petition to the White House to have the WBC declared a hate organization. Other cyberattack groups have also been active in causing mischief for other members of WBC.
The Westboro Baptist Church is listed as an anti-Semitic and homophobic hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and, I believe, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which exposes and works to counter-act hate groups.
Unfortunately for young Cosmo, this act of countering a hate group may cause him some trouble. He wound up in juvenile court for several other cyberattacks in 2012: taking down the NASDAQ site and some government site, including CIA.gov. His probated sentence banned him from the internet until he turns 21. So will probably be a probation violation for him.
Is this a good thing? I must admit that my moral position on it gets sort of fuzzy when the victim is such a despicable group in which I can find absolutely no redeeming features. So, I am torn. However, I also agree with the ACLU principle of defending freedom of speech, even when it's a message they deplore. But shouldn't there be some limits? -- like the funerals of innocent people who have absolutely nothing to do with what you're protesting, and the only rationale of the protesters is the publicity they will get?
Ralph
Understanding the CPI
Now I know a little more about the Consumer Price Index and how this figures into the cuts that Obama is prepared to accept in Social Security cost of living increases.
The proposal is simply to use what's called the "chained-CPI index" instead of the simple "cost of living" index. Some economists say the chained-CPI index is more accurate of real spending cost increases. What it does is measure the increased prices of what is actually purchased, rather than simply on how prices have gone up.
Under the old way, if the price of beef goes up, the CPI goes up. Under the chained index: if the price of beef goes up, and if a significant number of shoppers then buy pork instead of beef, that is taken into consideration. So, in effect, it doesn't just compare the price of beef in 2011 with beef in 2012; it compares what people paid for groceries in 2011 with what they paid for groceries in 2012. Same with clothing, etc.
There are now some statistics on how much the change would affect SS checks. Over the past 26 years, on average, it would have been 0.28% a year less -- or 7.32% over the 22 years. A relatively small amount per year, but it does add up over time.
As of this writing, Nancy Pelosi says the House Democrats will accept it. One of the labor leaders says they oppose it, but they're not yet ready to say it should be the deal breaker in a fiscal cliff settlement.
And, remember this. It can always be increased later by a more Democratic-friendly Congress.
Ralph
The proposal is simply to use what's called the "chained-CPI index" instead of the simple "cost of living" index. Some economists say the chained-CPI index is more accurate of real spending cost increases. What it does is measure the increased prices of what is actually purchased, rather than simply on how prices have gone up.
Under the old way, if the price of beef goes up, the CPI goes up. Under the chained index: if the price of beef goes up, and if a significant number of shoppers then buy pork instead of beef, that is taken into consideration. So, in effect, it doesn't just compare the price of beef in 2011 with beef in 2012; it compares what people paid for groceries in 2011 with what they paid for groceries in 2012. Same with clothing, etc.
There are now some statistics on how much the change would affect SS checks. Over the past 26 years, on average, it would have been 0.28% a year less -- or 7.32% over the 22 years. A relatively small amount per year, but it does add up over time.
As of this writing, Nancy Pelosi says the House Democrats will accept it. One of the labor leaders says they oppose it, but they're not yet ready to say it should be the deal breaker in a fiscal cliff settlement.
And, remember this. It can always be increased later by a more Democratic-friendly Congress.
Ralph
Let's be practical
Who knows what is really going on behind the scenes in the negotiations about the fiscal problems -- how much of what we hear is negotiating tactics, how much is serious business?
The latest flap that has liberals up in arms is the report that Obama has offered to change how the annual cost of living (COL) increases are calculated. I'm not very knowledgeable about this. Some have said that old way of calculating it is not really realistic anyway. I think it boils down to this:
Yes, it would make a little difference over time in how much a senior's monthly SS check is. For example, mine will increase by 1.7% next year. With the change, it might rise by 1.5%. That's the magnitude we're talking about. So, say, in 5 years it might be a difference of 1%.
Not insignificant. But, as a negotiating tactice, it might be OK. The trouble is, it crosses that line in the sand, where Dems said "no cuts in entitlements" and Repubs said "no new taxes."
Boehner has already indicated a willingness to cross that line by allowing tax cuts to expire on those making over $400,000. So this is a comparable move, it seems to me.
But my initial response was: There he goes again. Obama is caving in on Social Security. So I understand the emotional reaction, too. But, if he doesn't concede any more than this, and he gets a deal out of it, that's not too bad.
Ralph
LATE ADDITION: An NBC/Wall St. Journal poll just released shows that 61% of Republicans would accept higher taxes on the wealthy to avoid the fiscal cliff. So, maybe a deal will be reached without any further concessions from Obama.
The latest flap that has liberals up in arms is the report that Obama has offered to change how the annual cost of living (COL) increases are calculated. I'm not very knowledgeable about this. Some have said that old way of calculating it is not really realistic anyway. I think it boils down to this:
Yes, it would make a little difference over time in how much a senior's monthly SS check is. For example, mine will increase by 1.7% next year. With the change, it might rise by 1.5%. That's the magnitude we're talking about. So, say, in 5 years it might be a difference of 1%.
Not insignificant. But, as a negotiating tactice, it might be OK. The trouble is, it crosses that line in the sand, where Dems said "no cuts in entitlements" and Repubs said "no new taxes."
Boehner has already indicated a willingness to cross that line by allowing tax cuts to expire on those making over $400,000. So this is a comparable move, it seems to me.
But my initial response was: There he goes again. Obama is caving in on Social Security. So I understand the emotional reaction, too. But, if he doesn't concede any more than this, and he gets a deal out of it, that's not too bad.
Ralph
LATE ADDITION: An NBC/Wall St. Journal poll just released shows that 61% of Republicans would accept higher taxes on the wealthy to avoid the fiscal cliff. So, maybe a deal will be reached without any further concessions from Obama.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Despicable perversion of religion
It was bad enough that the Westboro Baptist Church protestors picketed funerals of men who died from AIDS and men who had been killed in Iraq. It seems that, in their warped minds and perversion of Christianity, that they will take any occasion that gets TV cameras to cover their despicable circus.
But now they have sunk even lower -- announcing their plans to protest at the funerals of children killed in Newtown, CT. Their "excuse" this time was to blame Connecticutt's marriage equality legislation. Killing 20 children was God's punishment.
EXCEPT: Enter the calvary, just like in the old Westerns, when the good guys ride into town to save the day.
Motoclycists from the anti-Westboro group Patriot Guard Riders lined the streets to block them from access to the funeral mourners. Another group, Angel Action, was also ready to go to Newtown to help in this effort. And more than 100 bikers from New York and Massachusetts were in Connecticutt to show their support and be available if needed.
As last reported, the Westboro group left the area without picketing. This seems to be the most effective way to counter them. It all began in the early days with AIDS victims' funerals, where men dressed as angels with long, white-draped arm extensions -- which they held aloft as they lined the streets to block the views of the protestors.
There's something especially poignant, though, about motorcyclists showing their tender, protective side for victims of such bigotry and hatred.
Good for them.
Ralph
But now they have sunk even lower -- announcing their plans to protest at the funerals of children killed in Newtown, CT. Their "excuse" this time was to blame Connecticutt's marriage equality legislation. Killing 20 children was God's punishment.
EXCEPT: Enter the calvary, just like in the old Westerns, when the good guys ride into town to save the day.
Motoclycists from the anti-Westboro group Patriot Guard Riders lined the streets to block them from access to the funeral mourners. Another group, Angel Action, was also ready to go to Newtown to help in this effort. And more than 100 bikers from New York and Massachusetts were in Connecticutt to show their support and be available if needed.
As last reported, the Westboro group left the area without picketing. This seems to be the most effective way to counter them. It all began in the early days with AIDS victims' funerals, where men dressed as angels with long, white-draped arm extensions -- which they held aloft as they lined the streets to block the views of the protestors.
There's something especially poignant, though, about motorcyclists showing their tender, protective side for victims of such bigotry and hatred.
Good for them.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
