Bunning to the rescue of big money interests -- "Screw you little guys!"

For the Republicans, Jim Bunning has created a mess with his principled, but seriously impolitic timing for declaring his fiscal conservatism.

The stakes are high.  An outgoing Senator with nothing to lose can afford to be principled even if it underscores sensibilities akin to Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake."

Jim Bunning is not above using his power to award government money to his friends through the earmark process.  When you see his sponsorship of unfunded allocations of our money to private contractors, his stand against government spending benefiting hundreds of thousands of workers in a time of great need becomes a study in hypocrisy. 

I have a thought...if Bunning is so concerned about paying for the benefits that he claims to support, then why don't we rescind every earmark he's placed into law as a down payment?  Check his earmark record; that'll be a good start.

Democrats can't believe their luck.  Neither can I.

Health Care Reform - Negotiating 101

The President is playing the Republicans masterfully with his proposed Health Care Summit.  Here's a Summary of Obama's Plan.

For too long the Republicans have complained about the lack of bipartisanship in the Health Care Reform business.  Bipartisanship for those ideological windbags means nothing more than giving them everything they want and getting nothing for yourself.  In my book that's not bipartisanship but being spoiled.

With the Health Care Summit looming, the Republicans, who've been nothing but obstructionist since the beginning of Obama's term, have everything to lose and nothing to gain.  Here's why:

If they refuse to participate in the summit, then the accusation that they are the "Party of NO" begins to stick in an election year.  The American People don't want obstruction, they demand real work get finished.  Refusing to play ball makes the Republicans look more partisan than ever; that will not help in an election where the best way to get elected is to look more moderate.

Secondly, if the Republicans do participate, then their role of lobbing bombs is taken from them and they must contribute to a solution.  This mean compromise is the order of the day.  Unfortunately, this batch of Republicans is the most extreme bunch we've seen in a long time, so their ability to compromise is handicapped ab initio.

The net result:  Obama and his team look reasonable and industrious while working for the greater good.  The Republicans look like partisan hacks who are only in it for advantage, but really offer nothing substantive to the debate.

Fascinating and brilliant tactic if you ask me.

Congress, Senate, and the President should waive all health care insurance until they pass health care reform--it shows solidarity with America.

I've watched the health care drama with close scrutiny.

As a working, middle class, American priced out of medical insurance, you can damn well bet I have an interest in reform.

As with most Americans, I think we need reform.

Insurance has failed in its appointed task: To spread the risk by covering as many people as possible. In fact, insurance companies reduce costly beneficiaries that cost them profits. In the short-term, their bottom line benefits, but it defeats the central premise of good insurance practice, viz., spreading the risk.

Policy makers have a conflict of interest. All of them... ALL OF THEM have coverage paid for with tax dollars. Their judgment is skewed since the sword of Damocles doesn't hang over their heads.

In order for the health care legislation to reach a suitable and equitable conclusion, I suggest a change for our policy makers.

All of them. Every last elected official with the power to vote for or against health care reform must waive any insurance coverage for themselves and for their dependents until every working American has access--real access-- to affordable health insurance.

I suspect that none of them will take my suggestion. That underscores the real point. None of them has a clue about the struggles and the fears that real Americans live with daily due to our current system of insurance and health care.

This isn't surprising though. My Congressman and Senator both come from money and have never done without, so they haven't a clue about the rest of us.

The Law is the Law: No one is above it.

Before people begin taking sides in the whole "failing to disclose to Congress" matter, perhaps we should examine the obligations imposed by law n the Executive Branch.

Specifically, 50 U.S.C. Section 413 reads in paragraph (a):

The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter.

I think the statute is pretty clear that the Executive Branch has an affirmative obligation to keep Congress informed.

I'm sure we can all agree that the Executive Branch is NOT above the law since it derives its power from said law.

For Dick Cheney to argue that his failure to disclose such activities was in furtherance of ostensibly protecting our national security is bullshit, plain and simple. This is an either/or situation: Either the Executive Branch followed the law OR they failed to do so. Where's the middle ground?

The Executive Branch lacks Constitutional and statutory authority to ignore this law. It does so at its peril to the law. Every good, law-abiding, citizen should demand prosecution for this illegal conduct.

Apparently, too many place party loyalty above the Constitution and the law, since they argue against prosecution.

Patriotism is not merely for our convenience.

AG Holder should prosecute.

Pelosi dust-up is tacit admission that Bush administration engaged in torture.

In a display of "gotcha" politics," the Republicans have pounced on Nanci Pelosi's allegation that the CIA lied to her about torture.

I don't know who to believe in this dust-up. I'm inclined to think Speaker Pelosi was informed of the torture. Thinking back on my general complaint of the Democrats during the time in question, I suspect she was. Democrats displayed such spinelessness just prior to the mid-term elections in 2004, so it's in keeping with their character at that time.

What should result from this?

If the Speaker was informed, then she should admit her complicity in the torture for failing to act. On the other hand, if she was misinformed, then those responsible must account for their omissions.

In my opinion, the best approach to resolving this matter--the ENTIRE matter--is to seat a Truth Commission to evaluate and report on everyone involved in the torture issue--including Nanci Pelosi.

The Republicans, by attacking Pelosi, tacitly admit torture occurred by the Bush-led government. Owning up to their part in these sordid events instead relying on a logical fallacy (Tu quoque - "you did it too") to score political points would begin the process.

I don't expect that to happen.

Now's the time for the Obama administration to show some leadership and jettison the impunity granted by their "looking to the future" agenda. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, but one of justice and criminal activity going unpunished.

The current administration shirks their responsibility by ignoring the criminality of those aligned with the previous administration. Looking to the future doesn't mean ignoring the crimes of the past; it means we must properly resolve issues of the past in order to move into the future.

Letting previous malefactors slide as a courtesy scarcely qualifies as responsible governance.

AIG can't seem to learn its lesson.

AIG really screwed the pooch. They can't seem to learn.

Not only did they help create the mess that is our economy, but through their government allies, they managed to profit from it at the expense of taxpayers.

The public is understandably upset. In days of yore, this would be a tarring and feathering event.

I am utterly stunned at the audacity of AIG. They have little concept of the political nightmare they've created--and for what? Money.

What astounds me more is the political response. Republicans are blocking the political backlash against AIG's stupidity and greed. In essence, Republicans are advocating stupidity and greed at the taxpayers' expense.

My suspicion: Republicans are guarding their Wall Street constituents. If the previous administration and its cronies in the legislative branch had not set the environment for this greed and de-regulation, AIG might never have gotten away with this. Besides, those on Wall Street are notoriously Republican-leaning and to hurt them would cause campaign coffers to dwindle, despite any pretexts offered to the contrary.

Arguing that failing to pay these bonuses will be bad for the economy is what most of us clearly see as bullshit clothed in fearmongering. It's nothing more than a bunch of greedy bastards using that old Bush tactic of scaring us out of wits so they can sneak up and screw us when we're not paying attention.

I got a news flash: The economy is already screwed so these bozos need to come down to reality.

The public outrage is justified. The rapid Congressional response is exactly what the founders had in mind when they created the House, viz., a body to reflect the passions of the electorate.

Making matters worse: The previous administration orchestrated this with the complicity of Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. Can anyone please explain why Bernanke neglected to mention these bonuses months ago when he learned of them? He should be fired over such a colossal blunder, since he is touted as the wizard of our economy.

AIG should be forced into bankruptcy. Every entity getting paid by AIG needs disclosed.

Until all the greedy cockroaches see the light of day, this mess won't be clean and our economy won't heal.

We can either drag this out to our detriment or we can make it quick and clean.

I opt for Robespierre's method: Off with their heads.

Survey highlights the fall of religion in America due in large part to the Religious Right--Ironic isn't it?

The results of this recent survey underscore the same trend that has happened in Europe. It also highlights the founding father's warning in the Establishment Clause to the Constitution.

When politics and religion mix, religion loses.

The Germans have a state supported church and few Germans identify themselves as Christian or even attend service anymore.

In our country, the Religious Right have driven many people from religion altogether with their emphasis on prosaic matters above that of the spirit. Their striving for worldly power leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Even the bible says not to cast your pearls before swine, but that's exactly what happens in the marriage of politics and religion.

Personally, I welcome the decline. I've predicted it for years. You can't push a religious political agenda in a country with a long history of separation between church and state and expect faith to come out ahead.

Science regains its rightful place--being unmolested by politicians.

Obama is undoing the anti-intellectual crap spewed all over science by the Bush administration.

All I can say is: "Thank God!"

Irony is intended.

My problem with the whole selling out to the Religious Right boils down to this:

Insecure faith is the cause of the anti-intellectualism and fear of knowledge that governed such policies.

There, I said it.

Those intolerant of conflict with their world view are the last people to consult when making science policy. Bush screwed the pooch big time with that policy and it's time for the Galileo's of the world to be set free from the yoke of faith.

Despite what the faithful might think, the world isn't constrained to one particular worldview.

The rest of us adults realize this and accept that forcing others into our own circumscribed reality might just be the worst "tyranny over the minds of men" that Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he said it two centuries ago.

Reason has returned and the idiots are being shown the door. Our forefathers saw the dangers of mixing religion and politics, but for the past eight years we've had to endure the result they warned against.

High time for secular society to return to American politics and government.

Caroline Kennedy for Senator.

I'm in no position to have anything to say that could either hurt or help Caroline Kennedy in her bid to assume the interim appointment to New York's senate seat.

What I will say has more to do with personal attributes Ms. Kennedy possesses. I would also like to shine a light on the attitude of some in the press and in politics that is highlighted by this article questioning Ms. Kennedy's qualifications.

I'll do the latter first: Where do all these idiots get off thinking that they are somehow entitled to the Senate seat? Can someone please point out to me where it says in the Constitution that one must have paid dues in politics in order to receive the award of an interim appointment? I have serious concerns about such an attitude in a Democracy where an expectation is encouraged that one gets a political position based solely on time put in. It's contrary to American politics and this notion should be shed or at least pointed out as anathema to the American polity.

That being said: Ms. Kennedy has every qualification necessary for the office she seeks. With many of the idiots who get elected I think she'd bring a dose of idealism and integrity to the office. She would not owe anyone for her position, save the governor.

On to the former issue of her qualifications: Ms. Kennedy is smart, down to earth, and capable. After meeting her once, I can say from personal experience that she's without artifice and exactly the type of personality we need in elected office. She's honest and without hidden agenda. I don't think anyone can top her when it comes to being the ideal personality for the job. Unlike other senators, she carries herself with a modest self-assurance instead of an in-your-face narcissism.

I think Caroline Kennedy is the best choice because she is seeking the office for the good of our country.

Corporate executives possibly liable for breaching fiduciary duty by causing corporations to support political candidates

Here's a story showing that some corporate executives of large retailers are actually subordinating their fiduciary duty to their shareholder to their own personal political interests.

In the legal industry, we call this a breach of fiduciary duty Such a breach is grounds for immediate termination. On top of that, they can be held personally liable to the shareholders in a shareholder derivative lawsuit for such bad decisions. The boards of these companies have a duty to investigate and immediately terminate those executives found guilty of a breach. That's the law.

Why is this important?

A personal political decision is fully protected by the 1st Amendment. When personal political choices become the basis of an executive decision, IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THAT PARTICULAR DECISION, then said choice becomes a form of defalcation.

Defalcation occurs where a fiduciary takes advantage of their executive position for personal gain at the expense of shareholders, the corporation and ultimately the market.

I note this so corporate shareholders will exercise their power to hold executives and corporate boards accountable for their corporate decisions...especially when those corporate decisions are made for the personal gain of the corporate executive at the expense of the shareholders.

Get the facts, learn the truth, and remove your heads from your backsides.

Study shows people persist in believing lies even when faced with the truth. Scary

I came across a study performed last year with dire implications.

The study tells us that when people are lied to by a politician they support people persist in believing the lie--even when presented with evidence of the deceit from credible sources. In fact, the truth reinforces the belief in the lie.

That's a mouthful, but here's the gist: If you believe a lie told by your favored politician, you are less apt to trust someone that points it out and provides evidence of the deceit. You will even go so far as to continue believing the lie rather than be disloyal. (I think back to the Bush administration's claim that Iraq has WMDs...)

This is part of the media's problem. The more holes they poke in the candidates' lies, the less likely the truth will be believed.

This scares me.