One of the first items that the new House controlled by Democrats tackled was minimum wage and the long over-due need for an increase. This has been a sticking point in the Senate, as certain Republicans want to mire the passage with amendments and additions that would either make it impossible for the Democrats to vote to pass it, or pass it along with other laws that the Democrats don't want.
Fight nicely children.
First, we need to have legislation in this country that disallows the addition of amendments or additions to any bill unless they are specifically related to that legislation. The only amendments that should be included on a bill for minimum wage would be such amendments that actually amend that particular legislation, and not anything else.
One of the arguments that the right wing puts forward in their belief that the minimum wage does not need to be raised is that most of those people who earn the minimum wage are school-age young adults working part-time in after school jobs. We know that this is not true, however, I think we could add a few amendments to the minimum wage bill based on this.
Let's split the minimum wage law into two parts; Part A for adults (18 and over) and Part B for minors (under the age of 18). Part A goes forth exactly as stated, and any adult earning the minimum wage would have their salary raised based on the new legislation.
Part B would pertain only to those people under the age of 18, and would have additional laws attached to it. For example, these earners are high-school students, and the money they earn is probably not used to support a family, but goes to buying such things as CDs, iPods and clothing. In most cases, these earners are still living at home, and they just need a little spending money, and these earners, the Republicans argue, do not need an increase in their wages. Not raising their wages, however, allows them to be abused by their employers because of the low wages they earn.
So, to protect them, let's expand the law. Part B of the Minimum Wage Act of 2007 should include the following:
- The maximum number of hours a day a minor may work is eight.
- The maximum number of hours a week a minor may work is ten.
- For every four hour shift worked, a minor must receive one half hour paid break (work three and a half hours, take a thirty minute break).
- For every shift under four hours, a minor must receive a fifteen minute paid break for every two hours worked.
- Every minor who is still in school must maintain at least a C average in every subject, and any grade below a C will result in their immediate dismissal from employment until the next grading period when they can demonstrate that their grades have improved to at least a C in every subject.
- Minors may not begin work before 9:00 a.m.
- Minors may not end work after 9:00 p.m.
- Minors minimum wage would be $7.00 per hour.
These amendments would ensure that no one takes unfair advantage of minors in hiring, and would keep employers from hiring minors over adults. These restrictions on minors would certainly make sense to add as amendments to the Minimum Wage Law, and would allow fair wages to be paid to those adults in America who are currently making minimum wage. Those people (represented in Part A) would make a higher wage, be allowed to work over-time, and have a better chance of supporting their families.
Part B employees (minors) would still be able to work, without working so many hours to cut into their school life, would not interfere with their time to do homework, and would give them a little spending money and the chance to earn that money themselves, without risk of being taken advantage of based on their age.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
-- George W. Bush's Lamest Speech Yet
The following are excerpts from tonight’s speech by the President-select of the United States, along with my comments:
Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home.
The “global war on terror” that he's referring to is actually limited to Iraq, which is hardly global. Iraq, whether historically or currently was never a threat to us here at home. Typical for W; he has used the word “terror” in some form or other in every speech he has given since the attack on the World Trade Center. It’s his way of keeping America afraid, which he used to his advantage to attack an innocent nation.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
Who is “we” exactly? Most of the world felt that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Much of America did too, for that matter, but one person refused to listen. This was never “our” mission, this was George W. Bush’s mission, and it’s been a huge failure. Own up to the miserable mess you've made, George. Three messes, if you include your drunken daughters.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
Finally, an ounce of truth.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. ... Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
No, failure in Iraq would be a disaster for George W. Bush. This is your mess, not America’s. Own up to your own disgrace and stop trying to put it on the rest of America. By the way, the majority of us didn't elect you. Keep that in mind.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
Of course he had to bring in 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with that. As always, he tries to obfuscate the truth and mislead the American public by throwing his 9/11 red herring across the path.
So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.
This in spite of the fact that twice in the past year we have sent additional troops into Baghdad, only to be shown that it won’t work. The time to send in a large army is at the start of a war, not when you’re trying to end one. According to some experts, even 20,000 troops won’t be enough. We would need over 100,000 troops, and to get that many additional soldiers would require a draft.
America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.
Right, and we got bin Laden too, didn’t we?
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. ... We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.
And if that doesn’t work, we’ll just attack Iran and Syria, just like we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. We have the troops, don't we? George seems to think we have an unlimited supply.
We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.
We don’t do “intelligence sharing” within our own government, but we’re going to do it with other nations?
On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
Just as we destroyed theirs.
The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
And look at how successful W’s track record is so far. And who is he referring to when he says “our” new strategy? This is his strategy, and there isn’t anything new about it.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.
In other words, we won’t be the winners.
We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
I suggest we send Barbara Bush for starters. She really is the one who created this mess in the White House. Oh, and George H. W. Bush too. Send him with her. He has new hips now, so he doesn't have an excuse not to go and work to improve his country. W. can join him in two years, when he'll be out of the White House and will need something to do.
These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.
Our cause in Iraq has neither been noble nor necessary. There were better ways to deal with Saddam than attacking his country, but George W. Bush refused to listen to any voice of reason who tried to tell him this. George was out for blood, and no one could stop him. In that, he has succeeded.
And what did the Republicans have to say about George’s speech?
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina: "President Bush made a very persuasive case for strategy change. I appreciate his willingness to acknowledge past mistakes and chart a new course to achieve victory in Iraq."
Wipe that brown off your nose, Lindsey.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas: "Simply abandoning Iraq now, as some would have us do, would ensure failure and put America's national security at risk. The strategy presented tonight represents a real opportunity for peace and stability in Iraq."
In the first place, how would America’s national security be at risk? Iraq never attacked us, and certainly does not have the weaponry to attack us now, so this doesn’t put us at risk, it puts the credibility of the Republican party at risk, and in case you haven’t been paying attention, the nation has already caught on to you guys. This strategy does nothing to ensure peace in Iraq.
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: "Iraqis need to be their own street cops, not U.S. forces. This is the president's Hail Mary pass. Now it is up to the Iraqi Army to catch the ball.”
Because if you want to make your point, use a sports analogy!
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona: "We are paying a very heavy price for it, but I do believe we can win."
Write this down, everyone, so when McCain is running for President in ’08 you can remember why you should NOT vote for him.
Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich: "At this point I am skeptical that a surge in troops alone will bring an end to sectarian violence and the insurgency. What we need first is a political solution between Sunni Arabs and Shia militias that are adding to the violence."
Wow, a Republican with common sense. There is a God!
Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home.
The “global war on terror” that he's referring to is actually limited to Iraq, which is hardly global. Iraq, whether historically or currently was never a threat to us here at home. Typical for W; he has used the word “terror” in some form or other in every speech he has given since the attack on the World Trade Center. It’s his way of keeping America afraid, which he used to his advantage to attack an innocent nation.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
Who is “we” exactly? Most of the world felt that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Much of America did too, for that matter, but one person refused to listen. This was never “our” mission, this was George W. Bush’s mission, and it’s been a huge failure. Own up to the miserable mess you've made, George. Three messes, if you include your drunken daughters.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
Finally, an ounce of truth.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. ... Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
No, failure in Iraq would be a disaster for George W. Bush. This is your mess, not America’s. Own up to your own disgrace and stop trying to put it on the rest of America. By the way, the majority of us didn't elect you. Keep that in mind.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
Of course he had to bring in 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with that. As always, he tries to obfuscate the truth and mislead the American public by throwing his 9/11 red herring across the path.
So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.
This in spite of the fact that twice in the past year we have sent additional troops into Baghdad, only to be shown that it won’t work. The time to send in a large army is at the start of a war, not when you’re trying to end one. According to some experts, even 20,000 troops won’t be enough. We would need over 100,000 troops, and to get that many additional soldiers would require a draft.
America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.
Right, and we got bin Laden too, didn’t we?
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. ... We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.
And if that doesn’t work, we’ll just attack Iran and Syria, just like we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. We have the troops, don't we? George seems to think we have an unlimited supply.
We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.
We don’t do “intelligence sharing” within our own government, but we’re going to do it with other nations?
On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
Just as we destroyed theirs.
The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
And look at how successful W’s track record is so far. And who is he referring to when he says “our” new strategy? This is his strategy, and there isn’t anything new about it.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.
In other words, we won’t be the winners.
We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
I suggest we send Barbara Bush for starters. She really is the one who created this mess in the White House. Oh, and George H. W. Bush too. Send him with her. He has new hips now, so he doesn't have an excuse not to go and work to improve his country. W. can join him in two years, when he'll be out of the White House and will need something to do.
These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.
Our cause in Iraq has neither been noble nor necessary. There were better ways to deal with Saddam than attacking his country, but George W. Bush refused to listen to any voice of reason who tried to tell him this. George was out for blood, and no one could stop him. In that, he has succeeded.
And what did the Republicans have to say about George’s speech?
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina: "President Bush made a very persuasive case for strategy change. I appreciate his willingness to acknowledge past mistakes and chart a new course to achieve victory in Iraq."
Wipe that brown off your nose, Lindsey.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas: "Simply abandoning Iraq now, as some would have us do, would ensure failure and put America's national security at risk. The strategy presented tonight represents a real opportunity for peace and stability in Iraq."
In the first place, how would America’s national security be at risk? Iraq never attacked us, and certainly does not have the weaponry to attack us now, so this doesn’t put us at risk, it puts the credibility of the Republican party at risk, and in case you haven’t been paying attention, the nation has already caught on to you guys. This strategy does nothing to ensure peace in Iraq.
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: "Iraqis need to be their own street cops, not U.S. forces. This is the president's Hail Mary pass. Now it is up to the Iraqi Army to catch the ball.”
Because if you want to make your point, use a sports analogy!
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona: "We are paying a very heavy price for it, but I do believe we can win."
Write this down, everyone, so when McCain is running for President in ’08 you can remember why you should NOT vote for him.
Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich: "At this point I am skeptical that a surge in troops alone will bring an end to sectarian violence and the insurgency. What we need first is a political solution between Sunni Arabs and Shia militias that are adding to the violence."
Wow, a Republican with common sense. There is a God!
Saturday, January 6, 2007
-- Ethics in our Government
I spent the last eleven years working for a major accounting firm, and one of the things that I dealt with was independence. In accounting, independence means remaining distant from the client, as in not holding stock in the company. Independence isn't just a good idea, it's the law, and is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). With the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (possibly the most useless piece of legislation ever to disgrace our nation), accountants are now even more independent of their clients in that they are not allowed to work for those clients whose audits they worked on without a one year cooling off period.
Doesn't it seem that our elected officials and those people who they appoint to government jobs should be held to the same standard? If accountants in the private sector must maintain independence from their clients, why doesn't the government follow the same practice?
Doesn't it seem that our elected officials and those people who they appoint to government jobs should be held to the same standard? If accountants in the private sector must maintain independence from their clients, why doesn't the government follow the same practice?
Why is John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General now heading up his own company that represents clients seeking to do business with the government? The following is from Wikipedia:
In May 2005, Ashcroft laid the groundwork for a strategic consulting firm which bears his name. The Ashcroft Group, LLC officially opened its doors in the Fall of 2005 and as of March 2006 had lined up 21 clients, turning down two for every one accepted.
In 2005 year-end filings, Ashcroft's firm reported collecting $269,000, including $220,000 from Oracle Corporation, which won Department of Justice approval of a multibillion-dollar acquisition less than a month after hiring Ashcroft. The income totals that Ashcroft has reported so far represent in some cases only initial payments.
In 2005 year-end filings, Ashcroft's firm reported collecting $269,000, including $220,000 from Oracle Corporation, which won Department of Justice approval of a multibillion-dollar acquisition less than a month after hiring Ashcroft. The income totals that Ashcroft has reported so far represent in some cases only initial payments.
According to government filings, Oracle is one of the Ashcroft Group’s five clients which seek his help in selling data or software with homeland security applications. Another client, Israel Aircraft Industries International, is competing with Chicago's Boeing Company to sell the government of South Korea a billion-dollar airborne radar system. The Ashcroft Group is also registered to represent Choicepoint, eBay, Exegy, Alanco Technologies, LTU Technologies and Trafficland, Inc.
In March 2006, the New York Times reported that Ashcroft was setting himself up as something of an "anti-Abramoff", and that in an hour long interview, Ashcroft used the word integrity scores of times. In May 2006, based on conversations with members of Congress, key aides and lobbyists, The Hill magazine listed Ashcroft as one of top 50 "hired guns" that K Street had to offer. In August 2006, the Washington Post reported that Ashcroft's firm had 30 clients, many of which made products or technology aimed at homeland security, and about a third of which the firm has not disclosed, to protect client confidentiality. The firm also had equity stakes in eight client companies. It reported receiving $1.4 million in lobbying fees in the past six months, a small fraction of its total earnings.
If an accountant must maintain independence, why not a government employee? While Ashcroft was not an elected official (he was appointed), shouldn't he be under the same standards as those in the private sector? Why don't we have legislation stating that former employees of the government are forbidden from becoming lobbyists, or otherwise representing clients to the government?
Gale Norton is another example. In 2001 she was sworn in as the first female Secretary of the Interior, a job she held for the next five years. Now she has taken a job with the largest oil company in Europe, Royal Dutch Shell. As Secretary of the Interior her responsibility was supposed to be to the land of this nation, and now she works for a company that can easily destroy that land. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of interest?
Why are people working in the private sector held to a higher standard than our elected officials and those appointed by them? It seems to me that we need fair legislation in this country that would ensure that all people follow a simple code of ethics, and one item in the code must certainly be an elimination of any conflicts of interest.
Monday, December 11, 2006
--Ann Coulter's December 6, 2006 Article
You have to enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns, if you enjoy reading fiction. If you're looking for facts, then you might want to look elsewhere. Take, for example, her December 6 article where she says:
Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism.
Ann is actually looking at two different things here, so let's clarify them; the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Note that these are not the same thing. The war in Iraq is a war that was started by the Bush administration against an innocent country based on phony intelligence that Iraq was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It is important to state here that in over three years of the war, no such weaponry has been found.
The war on terrorism culminated on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center was attacked by Muslim extremists in a plot largely supported by Osama bin Laden. Since she includes this in the same paragraph as the war in Iraq, I must assume that she is referring to terrorism in that country, as opposed to terrorism here.
In Iraq, the terrorists we're fighting are ones we created by attacking their country, but are these all truly terrorists? Consider, for example, the same situation reversed. If Iraq were to attack and occupy the United States, and U.S. citizens armed themselves and began fighting back, would we be terrorists? No. We would be freedom fighters, therefore those Iraqis who are fighting against the occupying forces are not terrorists. Those Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis, however, ARE terrorists, but they are terrorists whom we created.
Now to get back to Ann's ridiculous comments. First she says that Democrats will concentrte on losing the war. This, apparently, in opposition to the Republicans who are already losing the war, they simply refuse to admit it. The Republicans had the silly idea that capturing Saddam Hussein (a deposed leader) would somehow end the war. This didn't happen, of course. Saddam was captured, but the war didn't end.
Let me take an aside here to say that Saddam's capture probably did not happen as we have been lead to believe. Long before American's heard the "We got him" speech, the following was already released in the Kurdish media:
Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!
So, the Democrats are not concentrating on losing the war, we're facing the reality of a war that we've already lost. We're looking at ways of getting out of this conflict with the minimum amount of damage, and possibly some shred of dignity, something the Republicans have completely stripped this country of for far too long.
The rest of her article deals with terrorism, and the idea of waterboarding terror suspects, something she is obviously in favor of, as opposed to most human beings who see that as torture and don't see a need for torture. Ann lives in a different world. She mentions September 11 five times in her article, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nine times, yet she never mentions Osama bin Laden at all. This seems odd in an article that deals with September 11 and terrorism against the United States, until you remember that Ann is not interested in facts. What Ann is trying to do is obfuscate the truth to further her own thwarted agenda.
So, Ann, let me put this simply so that even you can understand it. We, the American people, do not believe in torture. Period. To say that it's okay to torture those who would torture us goes against our sensibilities. As a professed Christian, I'm suprised at that hypocrisy coming from you. Jesus did not allow an eye for an eye, yet you support it. Interesting. We, the American people, do not see a need to torture anyone, even our enemies.
We, as a people, also realize that the mastermind behind 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, but you don't mention him because he's still at large, and that would be admitting to the world that the Republicans failed to get their man. Such an admission would be a show of honesty, and that's not something we've come to expect from Ann Coulter.
Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism.
Ann is actually looking at two different things here, so let's clarify them; the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Note that these are not the same thing. The war in Iraq is a war that was started by the Bush administration against an innocent country based on phony intelligence that Iraq was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It is important to state here that in over three years of the war, no such weaponry has been found.
The war on terrorism culminated on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center was attacked by Muslim extremists in a plot largely supported by Osama bin Laden. Since she includes this in the same paragraph as the war in Iraq, I must assume that she is referring to terrorism in that country, as opposed to terrorism here.
In Iraq, the terrorists we're fighting are ones we created by attacking their country, but are these all truly terrorists? Consider, for example, the same situation reversed. If Iraq were to attack and occupy the United States, and U.S. citizens armed themselves and began fighting back, would we be terrorists? No. We would be freedom fighters, therefore those Iraqis who are fighting against the occupying forces are not terrorists. Those Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis, however, ARE terrorists, but they are terrorists whom we created.
Now to get back to Ann's ridiculous comments. First she says that Democrats will concentrte on losing the war. This, apparently, in opposition to the Republicans who are already losing the war, they simply refuse to admit it. The Republicans had the silly idea that capturing Saddam Hussein (a deposed leader) would somehow end the war. This didn't happen, of course. Saddam was captured, but the war didn't end.
Let me take an aside here to say that Saddam's capture probably did not happen as we have been lead to believe. Long before American's heard the "We got him" speech, the following was already released in the Kurdish media:
Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!
So, the Democrats are not concentrating on losing the war, we're facing the reality of a war that we've already lost. We're looking at ways of getting out of this conflict with the minimum amount of damage, and possibly some shred of dignity, something the Republicans have completely stripped this country of for far too long.
The rest of her article deals with terrorism, and the idea of waterboarding terror suspects, something she is obviously in favor of, as opposed to most human beings who see that as torture and don't see a need for torture. Ann lives in a different world. She mentions September 11 five times in her article, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nine times, yet she never mentions Osama bin Laden at all. This seems odd in an article that deals with September 11 and terrorism against the United States, until you remember that Ann is not interested in facts. What Ann is trying to do is obfuscate the truth to further her own thwarted agenda.
So, Ann, let me put this simply so that even you can understand it. We, the American people, do not believe in torture. Period. To say that it's okay to torture those who would torture us goes against our sensibilities. As a professed Christian, I'm suprised at that hypocrisy coming from you. Jesus did not allow an eye for an eye, yet you support it. Interesting. We, the American people, do not see a need to torture anyone, even our enemies.
We, as a people, also realize that the mastermind behind 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, but you don't mention him because he's still at large, and that would be admitting to the world that the Republicans failed to get their man. Such an admission would be a show of honesty, and that's not something we've come to expect from Ann Coulter.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
--Michael Moore's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives
I wish I had written this, but I didn't. This comes from the pen of Michael Moore, and I have to say, I agree with it, so much so that I signed it. If you agree with the petition, click the link at the end to sign it yourself, and pass it along to your progressive friends.
Patt
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge)
www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.
Patt
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge)
www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
-- Wal-Mart; Not a Friend of Progressives
I just finished watching a very good documentary on Wal-Mart titled, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. It's from 2005 and most of the data is from 2004, but I haven't seen anything in the news that would lead me to believe that anything at Wal-Mart's corporate culture has changed.
The documentary has created a website that houses much of the information from the video, which can be viewed here http://www.walmartmovie.com/. According to the site, the taxpayers wind up paying much for Wal-Mart's employees:
In 2004, a study released the UC Berkeley Labor Center (sic) found that "reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance."
Why are Wal-Mart workers signing up for public assistance? Simply put, the wages that Wal-Mart pays to its employees are too low, and the cost of premiums for insurance that it offers is too high.
In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
The average full-time employee electing for family coverage would have to spend between 22 and 40 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles. These costs do not include other health-related expenses such as medical co-pays, prescription coverage, emergency room deductibles, and ambulance deductibles. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide and UFCW Analysis].
Wal-Mart trumps the affordability of its new health care plan. According to Wal-Mart, “In January [2006], …Coverage will be available for as little as $22 per month for individuals” [www.walmartfacts.com]
What Wal-Mart’s website leaves out: Coverage is affordable, but using it will bankrupt many employees. Wal-Mart’s most affordable plan for 2006 includes a $1,000 deductible for single coverage and a $3,000 deductible for family coverage ($1,000 deductible per person covered up to $3,000). [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide]
The documentary has created a website that houses much of the information from the video, which can be viewed here http://www.walmartmovie.com/. According to the site, the taxpayers wind up paying much for Wal-Mart's employees:
In 2004, a study released the UC Berkeley Labor Center (sic) found that "reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance."
Why are Wal-Mart workers signing up for public assistance? Simply put, the wages that Wal-Mart pays to its employees are too low, and the cost of premiums for insurance that it offers is too high.
In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
Since the average full-time Wal-Mart employee earned $17,114 in 2005, he or she would have to spend between 7 and 25 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles, if electing for single coverage. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide and UFCW analysis]
The average full-time employee electing for family coverage would have to spend between 22 and 40 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles. These costs do not include other health-related expenses such as medical co-pays, prescription coverage, emergency room deductibles, and ambulance deductibles. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide and UFCW Analysis].
Wal-Mart trumps the affordability of its new health care plan. According to Wal-Mart, “In January [2006], …Coverage will be available for as little as $22 per month for individuals” [www.walmartfacts.com]
What Wal-Mart’s website leaves out: Coverage is affordable, but using it will bankrupt many employees. Wal-Mart’s most affordable plan for 2006 includes a $1,000 deductible for single coverage and a $3,000 deductible for family coverage ($1,000 deductible per person covered up to $3,000). [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide]
So, Wal-Mart pays too little and charges too much, resulting in huge profits. And what does it do with those profits? One of the things it does is support Republican candidates. According to Open Secrets, a website that tracks political contributions, during the 2006 cycle Wal-Mart's PAC donated $944,350 to political campaigns. Of that, $641,000 went to Republicans ($556,500 for House races, $84,500 for Senate) while only $303,350 went to Democrats ($275,800 for House and $27,550 for Senate). 68% of the political contributions from Wal-Mart's PAC went to Republican candidates, while only 32% went to Democrats.
What can be done? First, letters need to be sent to Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters demanding more equitable distribution of campaign funds, as well as higher wages and better healthcare for its employees. Their mailing address is:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
702 SW 8th St.
Bentonville, AR 72716
702 SW 8th St.
Bentonville, AR 72716
Second, until policies change, stop shopping at Wal-Mart and encourage your friends, family and associates to do likewise. This can be done by sending out an email, or by simply sending a copy of the letter you send to Wal-Mart to your local paper's editor for publication. Boycotts work, but only if they are followed by a large number of people. As Wal-Mart's profits shrink, they will be forced to change their policies.
Lastly, divest your investments of any Wal-Mart stock. It doesn't help any progressive causes to continue investing in a company that is against us. With any and all of these moves, it is imperative that Wal-Mart's corporate office understand what you're doing and why, which is why sending them a letter is a must.
Corporations can and do change, but only if they can see that such change is for their benefit. Working together, we can make that change.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
-- Ann Coulter's November 22, 2006 Article
Ann Coulter is at it again. In her November 22 article she starts off with,
Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.
Notice she doesn't say anything about terrorists, only about Muslims. She uses the terms interchangeably, as if all Muslims are terrorists, and all terrorists are Muslims. Apparently, the Timothy McVeigh incident escaped Ann's attention. Hint, Ann, he was neither Muslim nor Arab.
Whether or not the Imams should have been removed from the flight I can't say as I wasn't there and I don't know exactly what they did. Some of the actions described certainly sound a bit odd, but I haven't seen anything that made them look threatening. Not according to Ann, however:
Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" — coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died. Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments. After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
Also they were Muslims.
So, they were praying, which makes them suspect. Would they have been suspect if they had been praying the Our Father? Probably not, but because they were praying a Muslim prayer, they must be terrorists. They were denouncing the war in Iraq. I guess that makes me a terrorist as well, because I've been denouncing the war since before we attacked an innocent country. And oh yes, as Ann points out, they were Muslim.
When will we stop allowing hate speech in this country? There are millions of Muslims in the world who do not support the actions of the terrorists on 9/11, yet people like Ann Coulter would have us believe that all Muslims are hate-filled people whose only goal is the eradication of the United States. This is simply not true.
I would like to know how many mosques Ann has visited since 9/11. How many times have you gone to the Muslims who live in this country and talked to them? How many have you interviewed? How many have you sat and broken bread with? And lest Ann feel that I'm giving her instructions that I wouldn't do myself, I'd like to point out that I've done all of these things. I know a good number of Muslims who are beautiful, loving AMERICANS. They don't want to see people die any more than I do, but they do see that there are problems in this nation and that someone needs to work to change them.
Something Ann might notice if she'd get the hate out of her eyes.
Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.
Notice she doesn't say anything about terrorists, only about Muslims. She uses the terms interchangeably, as if all Muslims are terrorists, and all terrorists are Muslims. Apparently, the Timothy McVeigh incident escaped Ann's attention. Hint, Ann, he was neither Muslim nor Arab.
Whether or not the Imams should have been removed from the flight I can't say as I wasn't there and I don't know exactly what they did. Some of the actions described certainly sound a bit odd, but I haven't seen anything that made them look threatening. Not according to Ann, however:
Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" — coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died. Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments. After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
Also they were Muslims.
So, they were praying, which makes them suspect. Would they have been suspect if they had been praying the Our Father? Probably not, but because they were praying a Muslim prayer, they must be terrorists. They were denouncing the war in Iraq. I guess that makes me a terrorist as well, because I've been denouncing the war since before we attacked an innocent country. And oh yes, as Ann points out, they were Muslim.
When will we stop allowing hate speech in this country? There are millions of Muslims in the world who do not support the actions of the terrorists on 9/11, yet people like Ann Coulter would have us believe that all Muslims are hate-filled people whose only goal is the eradication of the United States. This is simply not true.
I would like to know how many mosques Ann has visited since 9/11. How many times have you gone to the Muslims who live in this country and talked to them? How many have you interviewed? How many have you sat and broken bread with? And lest Ann feel that I'm giving her instructions that I wouldn't do myself, I'd like to point out that I've done all of these things. I know a good number of Muslims who are beautiful, loving AMERICANS. They don't want to see people die any more than I do, but they do see that there are problems in this nation and that someone needs to work to change them.
Something Ann might notice if she'd get the hate out of her eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
