Monday, January 16, 2012

JON HUNTSMAN: Why did you quit?


Jon Huntsman, why did you leave?

With the South Carolina primary this week, Jon Huntsman decides to quit the race and throw his support to Romney, maybe hoping for a vice-presidential offer.

Yes, he came in third in New Hampshire but that was only because the voters there were sending a message to the rest of the country by voting for Ron Paul and his strict economic agenda; they would never have voted for Paul in the general election! Why did you not see this?

True, South Carolina would have given their votes to Romney and maybe a religious candidate like Santorum or Perry but hey, the biggest newspaper in S. Carolina endorsed you, Jon Huntsman and so did many other leading newspapers because they see you as the only viable candidate…so why did you quit?

I can understand the lack of donations and therefore funds to run the campaign but could you just hunker down and dot spend as much as hopeless states like S. Carolina and concentrated on states that you would have a good chance of winning in?

This is very disheartening to me because I truly believe he is the best man to oppose Obama. Romney maybe a good and smart man but people don’t like him and he will lose!



Enhanced by Zemanta

MLK DAY: In Detroit, some good, some bad...



Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (MLK Day) in the country. My wife has been working diligently these past few months, getting ready for the MLK Celebration & March down Woodward Avenue, which she and her committee put on every year in downtown Detroit.

I admire her commitment and dedication to this cause which she feels very deeply about. Organizing the celebration is no easy task as she has to bring in speakers from around the country, contract with chorales like Mosaic to perform during the ceremony, clean and decorate the Central United Methodist Church where the festivities take place among many, many other duties.

Many communities in Michigan and the nation have special events commemorating MLK Day; I have always found it slightly ironic that the celebrations in Detroit are spearheaded by a blond, white woman from the suburbs.

Today, the black leaders in Detroit are organizing to march in Governor Snyder’s neighborhood against the “Emergency Manager Law” which they feel disenfranchises Detroiters; making their votes invalid.

I have written about this issue at some length. Governor Snyder has consistently said that this is a financial crisis issue and not a racial issue but the organizers of the protest insist that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been with them if he were alive today…I don’t think so.

MLK had issues he felt strongly about but what the leaders in Detroit are saying and doing is not an issue at all; it is a last resort by the state to help Detroit stay out of bankruptcy court which will devastate Detroit and its residents; to not see that and to bring race into the issue, is to “play the race card”.

And why would you play the race card when the issue is obviously not about race? Well, as always, it is to get something for nothing.

Where a financial emergency manager would put the city on a solid financial footing by eliminating incompetence and corruption from city government, the leaders of Detroit would prefer to keep the incompetence and corruption where it is BUT would like the state and federal government (read taxpayers) to donate millions if not billions to the city to help pay its huge debts so that the leaders in Detroit can keep riding the gravy train like they have for decades.

I think what Detroit’s leaders are doing on MLK day is an embarrassment to the memory of Dr. King. Yes, Dr. King tried to shame government into doing the right thing because he had to but he would never use deception to falsely shame a government that IS DOING THE RIGHT THING for the people.

I guess I am disappointed that no black writers have come out and pointed out the scandalous way the race card is being played in Detroit and on MLK Day at that.






Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 12, 2012

FCC: What can we say or show on TV...



Here is a real doozie of an issue that is actually being debated before the Supreme Court as we speak: SWEARING AND PARTIAL NUDITY ON TV.

Well this is not as easy of an issue as it sounds.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been able to regulate the “public airwaves” by fining companies multi-million dollar sums for isolated expletives (like Cher saying “fuck” while accepting an award (other have done the same many times) as well as accidental nudity such as that of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during a Super Bowl half-time show.

It all started with my favorite comedian, the late George Carlin and his famous “Filthy Words” monologue that first aired on the radio. I still remember his “Seven Dirty Words you can never say on Television”. Anyway, some important twit heard that monologue while driving with his 15 year old son and from the resulting Supreme Court 1972 case “FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation”, the FCC has had the power to regulate what is uttered or shown on the public airwaves to protect America’s young and innocent children.

Today, we live in a world totally different than in 1972. We have cable and the internet, which is not regulated. We have movies shown on TV like “Saving Private Ryan” where soldiers say “fuck” many times as they invade the beaches of France and battle the Germans. The FCC allowed that but fined a Martin Scorsese documentary called “The Blues”…go figure!

Well, yes we have come a long way but I will agree that I don’t want kids exposed to constant swearing and nudity so we obviously have to reach a “common sense” agreement to be fair to all parties concerned and it is NOT fair for cable and internet to do what they wish while subjecting “regular” TV to such harsh and “arbitrary” standards.

First, parents have tools available to them to regulate what their kids watch or listen to. If the parents don’t give a shit or don’t want to trouble themselves to regulate what their kids watch and listen to (but want others to do the regulating for them), I say tough shit; your kids, your responsibility.

I don’t want to be limited in what I watch or listen to just because some kid “might” be watching and listening too!

Movies and TV Shows are “rated” for a reason and parents are privy to those ratings so they can control what they allow into their home.

Companies that want to attract a certain viewing audience (for advertising dollars / that’s how they make money) will broadcast programming that will be attractive to that viewing audience; that is common sense and good business sense…so let the market guide programming.

To fine networks for accidental and random occurrences of swearing or nudity is just plain stupid; if you invite someone to say a few words when they accept an award or something, how in the hell are you going to control what that person says.

And what if a kid hears the word FUCK accidentally; its not like they never hear that word and MORE just going to school and talking with their friends who may have parents that let Fuck fly all day long…what are you going to do about that…jail the offending parents?

I remember my son’s peer group which had one kid that just swore up a storm all the time, the rest of the kids did not. We found out later that the kid had a policeman as a father and learned all the words from him. That particular kid, has carried his behavior into adulthood, while the other kids, now doctors, nurses, managers, etc., probably know when and if swearing is appropriate.

We cannot live in a modern world and still abide by outmoded social mores; the new rules need to make sense in our world today.

I am not sure if today’s Supreme Court judges are capable of thinking modern and of our world as today and not yesterday. They are pretty Catholic and that may have a sway on their decision and that may be just too bad for us.

If they are true to their job description of upholding the Constitution, they will take the First Amendment literally which protects speech as a recognized freedom, within limits of course (no yelling fire in a crowded theater).

We shall see…


Enhanced by Zemanta

DRUG TESTING FOR PEOPLE WANTING AID?



Another issue that has arisen in our state is a proposal to administer drug tests to individuals applying for assistance (welfare, etc.).

I guess this has been tried before and defeated in the courts when the ACLU challenged the law. I am re-thinking my age-old support of the ACLU because more and more, I find myself disagreeing with them.

From a “common sense” perspective, you don’t want tax payer money going to an individual that uses that money to buy drugs; taxpayer supported drug addiction. Common sense also informs us that a person on drugs cannot use 100% of his or her faculties to get back on their financial feet and end public support.

Parents receiving aid through “family assistance” programs who test positive for drugs / alcohol also are hindered in their roles as parents, taking care of their children’s needs, when they are “high”.

There is absolutely no valid argument for allowing people on public assistance to use drugs; hell, I don’t think they should even be allowed to smoke cigarettes since they obviously cannot afford to do that either.

So if common sense guides us in a certain direction, what could possible be utilized to argue “for” allowing people on public assistance to use drugs or as in this case, what is the argument for not testing these people to determine if they ARE using drugs?

In a Detroit Free Press editorial on 1-9-2012, the title of the editorial was: DRUG-TESTING PROPOSAL DESCRIMINATES AGAINST POOR.

The courts in the past, have ruled against this testing because it discriminates against a specific group; the group receiving public assistance. I guess on the surface, this could be called discriminatory because it selects a specific group “only”…so I guess if the government is going to conduct drug testing, they need to conduct it on all people having something to do with the government?

I will admit that I do not know the laws governing discrimination in these matters so I will only use “common sense “arguments”.

One argument against testing says it costs too much; have the state pay for it.

Another states that if a positive drug test denies assistance to a person or family, they would suffer. True… so how about mandating a drug recovery program for those testing positive while allowing them to receive assistance?

I think if smart people put their heads together, they can come up with a plan that is fair to the taxpayers and is fair to the people requesting public assistance and in the meantime, may actually help those poor that need help ending their addiction and getting back on their own two feet and maybe even helping their kids break the poverty / drug cycle…win/win…common sense wins!



Enhanced by Zemanta

VOTER PHOTO ID: It is time...get over the past.



With all this emphasis on politics in this country there are some other issues that probably fall underneath the radar these days but still warrant some attention.

One that has caught my attention is legislation (in S. Carolina) requiring a VOTER PHOTO ID to vote. I have always thought that requiring a photo ID was a “reasonable” request to keep elections as honest as they can be but I guess some people do not consider this issue “reasonable” at all and call it racial discrimination.

Leonard Pitts, Jr., a black columnist from Miami, whom I greatly admire and respect but do not always agree with, wrote an article titled: POOR PEOPLE ARE MERE PAWNS IN VOTER ID FIGHTS in the Detroit Free Press (1-10-2012).

He was commenting about a recent ruling by the Federal Justice Department over-ruling South Carolina’s new law demanding photo IDs for voters. The Feds can do this in states (Southern) that have previously discriminated against black voters by instituting literacy tests, poll taxes, etc.

Pitts argues that poor people (majority black) do not have cars, do not drive, so they have no driver’s licenses or for that matter, passports since they don’t leave the country. If that was absolutely true, I could see where having a photo ID would be problematic for some people BUT…

And here I use my mother (89) who has never driven and had a passport which expired 15 years ago but still has a photo ID because she needs one for routine business matters and she votes in ALL elections.

In Michigan, you can go to a Secretary of State Office and request a photo ID. If there is a charge, it is very minimal and would not be an economic hardship on poor people. Getting to the Secretary of State’s office may be a challenge but I am sure, a way can be found for a once every 10 year trip.

I am pretty sure; most states have ways for people to obtain a photo ID that is not part of a driver’s license and if that is true, than there really is no sound argument for calling legislation demanding a photo ID to vote as somehow racially discriminatory.

I will agree with Pitts that, in the past, southern states did practice discrimination when they did everything in their power to prevent blacks from voting Democratic and possibly for a black candidate but I don’t believe that this racial environment exists today, even in southern states like South Carolina.

Time to move on…



Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 11, 2012



The New Hampshire primary is over and Romney came out definitely ahead in first place followed by Paul in second and HUNTSMAN in third with 17% of the vote.

Listening to “Java Joe in the morning” on MSNBC, some voters that were interviewed after they voted said that they voted for RON Paul to send a message and not because they wanted Paul to win. They wanted his hard Libertarian message about smaller and less government to get through to the public and to the candidates.

To me that means that those voting for Paul for the purpose of sending a message, may have been actual Huntsman voters so I will assume that Huntsman, in reality, probably would have come in second (2nd) after Romney, if not for the message voters.

As predicted, Perry did not even break 1% in New Hampshire and Santorum was booed since no one in this state goes for all that religion twaddle. Gingrich did not do well either.

Perry and Santorum hope to do very well in South Carolina; the next primary, mainly because S. Carolina buys into all that religious twaddle. Here I don’t think Huntsman really has a chance since he does not bullshit on his positions just to get a vote.

Florida is next and I will have to see what the population of Florida is made of. I know a lot of old people live there but are they conservative or maybe a little progressive in their old age. I also don’t know much how the Cubans and Latinos vote.

Will know more later…


Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Saturday's "Keeping the Faith Column"...

Cover of "Faith Alone: A Daily Devotional...
Cover of Faith Alone: A Daily Devotional
Martin Luther, author of the text of Christ la...
Image via Wikipedia
Karl Marx
Cover of Karl Marx




















I mentioned some time ago that I have a kind of “favorite” religion writer that I read every Saturday in the Detroit News. His spot in the News is called: KEEPING THE FAITH and in it, he talks religion but in a very new, non-doctrinal way that I find refreshing and hope that it becomes a new approach to Christianity; more humanist.

Ronnie McBrayer is a syndicated columnist, speaker and author and this week’s article was entitled TRANSFORMATION IS CENTRAL TO HAVING A HEALTHY FAITH which is from his new book, THE JESUS TRIBE.

What interested me in this particular article is his mention of a historical figure; Karl Marx. For those somewhat challenged by history, Marx was actually German who lived and died in London, England and wrote his Communist Manifesto at the height of the brutal industrial revolution. He had no connection to the revolution in Russia and subsequent Communist takeover except providing some of the ideology used by the Soviets.

Anyway, he famously said that RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE which, in the current article, McBrayer agrees with somewhat. Marx argues famously, that religion never “solves” problems, it just provides a “tranquilizing” affect to the person experiencing the problem or as McBrayer puts it: medicate our boo-boos and make us happy when we are sad.

He adds that many pulpits peddle this so called “sedative” for your real pain and suffering; and I agree.

McBrayer then offers another “historical” figure in the name of JAMES, the brother of Jesus who became the leader of the Apostles (Jesus community) after Jesus was killed. This is historically true as documented by evidence outside the Gospel accounts which tried to portray PETER as somehow the leader of the group.

Anyway, JAMES has a letter in the Bible that has been to some extent controversial throughout the centuries with Martin Luther actually calling for the letter to be thrown out of the Biblical canon as a “false” letter. The reason Luther was so against this letter was because, he felt, it contradicted his view that one can “only” be saved “by faith alone”.

James posits that “what good is it that you have faith, if your actions do not prove it?” In other words, what is good about believing (having faith) when you live your life like an uncaring twit?

I can’t really go into the misunderstanding between Luther’s belief and what James was saying because it would take too long but it was just a misunderstanding, at least according to me.

So what is McBrayer trying to say here? Well to him faith should not be just a “soothing salve” or a “spiritual tranquilizer” but a “transformative power” that can enable us to actually change our lives for the better.

Well I can kinda’ see where he is going with this BUT… I think Marx was right in his assessment of religion in our society as an “opiate” and James was right to say if you don’t practice your faith, your faith is dead so I guess what he is saying is don’t use your faith only when you are in trouble but practice it all the time?

Maybe I should read his book…





Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 06, 2012

NEW HAMPSHIRE & S. CAROLINA PRIMARIES

CONWAY, SC - JANUARY 06:  Republican president...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
English: Official photo of United States Ambas...
Image via Wikipedia

Just a quick word on the upcoming New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

New Hampshire, as I have said, is a state with people that could be considered main stream USA. They are educated and fiercely independent. Their motto is LIVE FREE OR DIE or something like that. They are not going to put up with religious nonsense or the spouting of a too conservative social agenda, remember live free is their motto not be bound by some Dark Ages horseshit.

On the other hand, South Carolina is the opposite of New Hampshire in that they are very conservative, still fly the Dixie flag, are all about god and religion and would rather bash gays than allow them to marry.

Now I love Charleston and the people that I met there and I cannot say that ALL of South Carolina is regressive; they did just allow liquor out of a bottle and not just in airplane bottles.
Let’s just say that they have a ways to go to joining mainstream USA.

Rick Perry who lost BADLY in Iowa, did not go home as I had thought but will give his brand of religious politics one last try in South Carolina; why not.

Rick Santorum should do well in South Carolina but was booed in New Hampshire when he started bashing gays and gay marriage.

Mitt Romney is heavily favored in New Hampshire BUT the Boston Globe came out for Jon Huntsman; remember him?...remember also that Romney was the governor of Massachusetts.

Jon Huntsman has been biding his time. He is a moderate Republican who does not preach religion and so called family values hypocrisy; he feels religion is a private matter, not to be politically exploited (he is a Mormon like Romney).

Anyway, Huntsman has staked his run on states that better reflect his own ideals which are relatively progressive so campaigning in Iowa and South Carolina would have been a waste of time and money. So even though Romney is favored in New Hampshire, I am hoping Huntsman comes in second which will automatically garner him the media coverage that he needs to go forward.









Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

IOWA RESULTS: We don't like any of them...

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...
Image via Wikipedia
, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.
Image via Wikipedia
English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA
Image via Wikipedia
Republican presidential candidates are picture...
Image via Wikipedia

Well the results from Iowa are in and as much derision as I have thrown at the whole Iowa process, the media is still making it into the biggest event in politics so far.

The morning news was all about the results which had Romney ahead of Santorum by 8 votes, that is correct, eight (8) votes. Ron Paul was close by at third and Gingrich was forth. Perry quit and went back to Texas and Bachmann hopefully will also quit and go home to tend her millions of adoptive children.

I found it odd that newscasters were congratulating Romney on the win (?) of the caucus when in fact he lost big time. How? Well he spent over $10 million in Iowa and Santorum just a fraction of that and Santorum basically beat him except for 8 stinkin’ votes.

I have said a long time ago that Romney is a good guy but people just don’t like him and there is nothing he can do about it; he would lose to Obama, no question about it.

Santorum, an Italian Catholic, presented himself as part of the 99% where Romney is the 1%. Santorum’s grandfather may have worked in a mine but his father and mother were in the medical field (clinical psychology) and hardly blue collar but hey, great spin against Romney.

All the Republican candidates ran first in the polls at one time or another, which means Iowans still have not decided who if anybody they like for president of the United States.

Santorum, the current leading star, cannot run for president. He is a Catholic but he is also an extreme social conservative even beyond what his Catholic faith preaches. An example is Intelligent Design vs. evolution; the pope believes in evolution and yet Santorum just can’t. His views on gays, etc. are just too radical for the majority of Americans to stomach so Santorum = flash in the pan = bye-bye.

New Hampshire is next and that vote will be interesting and actually somewhat meaningful because the people voting in that state resemble many voting Americans unlike the people in Iowa.

I am still of the belief that NONE of the candidates is appropriate for the office of president of the United States. I feel that this fact will become very evident in the next few months.

I still feel a dark horse will emerge.  Jon Huntsman, who I think got less than 1% in Iowa, will hopefully stay in the race. Palin may resurrect her political career and so may that fat guy in New Jersey…just wait and see!



Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

SICK AND TIRED OF IOWA CAUCUS NEWS...

Congressman Ron Paul at an event hosted in his...
Image via Wikipedia
Libertarian Party Logo
Image via Wikipedia
Iowa Caucus - Illustration
Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr



























I am betting that most of you are getting sick and tired of putting on the NEWS and getting nothing but IOWA Caucus crap.

It is a huge disservice to this nation and all Americans that IOWA gets all this media attention when their votes don’t even count; they are “straw votes” cast at a “caucus” and not “primary votes” which are usually cast at a real “election”; the Iowa votes are basically worthless in the whole scheme of things but the media makes such a big deal out of them that some candidates bow out of the race based solely on a popularity contest in, of all places, Iowa.

I have nothing against Iowa or Iowans but they hardly represent the majority of Americans who will vote in the presidential election. The presidential candidates “have to” cater to what Iowans believe and cannot express their “real” views; they have to be anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war, pro-religion,  pro-gun and all the other conservative positions as opposed to New Hampshire, the next to vote, who doesn’t give a shit about what the yahoos in Iowa think and like, BUT a “leader’ in the race will be declared after the Iowa caucus just the same and this “leadership” position will propel the candidate in the standings and in the amount of media attention that will be showered on him or her.

Iowans want to retain their “first to vote” position even though they are NOT really voting for anyone because of the media attention and the millions and millions of dollars showered on their state by the candidates and the media and the hell with the fact that Iowa is not representative of Americans in general, not even Republicans specifically…this needs to change.

I do have to say a few words about RON PAUL because he does not fit into the standard presidential candidate mold. He is a LIBERTARIAN and used the REPUBLICAN PARTY only to run in the election because to run as a Libertarian will get you nowhere fast.

As a Libertarian, he feels strongly that the federal government should not be involved in many things except to protect our freedoms. He will tell you he does not give a shit about abortion, gays, and the usual social conservative agenda because it is not the government’s business; it belongs to the state and the people in that state.

He also does not believe in any wars and would bring ALL our troops home from wherever they are. He would abolish many government departments like education, HUD, etc. and turn that over to the states to run.

He would have a flat tax with no deductions and he would cut trillions of dollars from our budget in the first year he would be in office and he ain’t kidding.

Paul is a doctor (MD) and is 76 years old. He is strange and unyielding in his views, which also means he is not flexible at all.

He cannot really be president but he does seem to resonate even with the Iowans because of his straight and strict economic ideas.

He may win the Iowa caucus because Iowans may want to send a signal to the rest of the country that we need someone in the White House that can kick-ass and get things back in order again; he is not beholding to anyone.

I personally hold many Libertarian views but I cannot abide by their strict “isolationist” views which would have Paul keep us out of WWII; he would not react until we were attacked.

The world is getting smaller and smaller every day and WE DO NEED TO ENGAGE THE WORLD and not just sit behind closed doors.

As usual, some of his ideas are good and should be considered but we live in complicated times and we need a president that is not so rigid in his ideology that he cannot think and react wisely when a situation arises that does not fit neatly into his rule book.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 02, 2012

EPISCOPAL PRIESTS = CATHOLIC PRIESTS

Portrait of Henry VIII, King of England
Image via Wikipedia
Royal Monogram of King Henry VIII of England
Image via Wikipedia

Here it is, the beginning of a New Year and we already have a Catholic topic to discuss.

The headlines are such: EX-EPISCOPAL BISHOP TO GUIDE NEW CATHOLICS and POPE TO U.S. ANGLICAN PRIESTS: JOIN US, KEEP YOUR JOB AND STAY MARRIED.

The pope first revealed his plan when he visited Great Britain last year and caused quite a stir when he appealed to British Anglicans and especially priests, who were dissatisfied with their church’s ordination of gays and women, to come on over to the Catholic side, where regressive and Dark Age rules and beliefs, still hold sway over the way the Church operates.

The Anglicans / Episcopalians, as we all know, come from the split between King Henry VIII and the pope at the time (1534) over a divorce matter. The Catholic Church in England became the Anglican Church just like that. King Henry changed the rules somewhat to allow priests to marry and have children among other changes but in essence, it was a name change.

The Episcopal Church in the US is not large with less than 2 million members and dropping so you will not see a slew of dues paying new Catholics all of a sudden but I think the pope’s aim is to fill the depleted priestly ranks with fresh priests.

The fact that these new priests will be married and many with children is, I think, somewhat confusing to us simple people.

If the US priesthood ranks are about to be inundated with 1,400 or so married priests, what does it say about the Vatican’s stubborn and unyielding insistence that priests be celibate and unmarried. If priestly celibacy is a sacred (from God) requirement that cannot be altered for any reason and not just a stupid historical tradition that makes no sense today, than why will some priests be exempt from the celibacy rule ( I assume the pope will not ask the married couple to live as brother and sister) and some not?

Why not allow former priests that left the priesthood to marry, back into the fold?

Why even have a celibacy requirement in the face of the rabid priestly pedophile scandal that occurred, in many minds, exactly because of the celibacy rules that attracted pedophilic and homosexual men to the priesthood.

It goes to show you that the Vatican will break and bend rules that it established to reach a desired goal. I guess you can say that the ends justify the means? Well it cannot be that easy when you are dealing with “sacred” rules unless, like I have said before, the Vatican admits that these rules are nothing more than a tradition and as well all know, traditions do not have to be binding and boy, this is the time to end all stupid traditions for the benefit of the Church and its decreasing membership.





Enhanced by Zemanta

CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS: Stay or Go...

Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...