Sarah Palin: Obama 'Inexperienced' In Private Sector & Government (VIDEO)

The powers-tha­t-be want Palin to be the Republican nominee.  Obama wants her to be the Republican nominee.  The media wants her in the race.  And apparently­, Arrrr-eeee­-anna (and now AOL) want her to be the Republican nominee.  That's all that matters.

Day after day there's a new article of some burp of a thought out of Palin's brain which the Associated Press or some other rag publishes.  If they're not reposting her Twittering­s (you would think that those interested would follow Palin on Twitter themselves­), they're writing op-eds about her Twittering­s.  Two weeks ago, AP's Liz Sidoti wrote a piece of puff journalism speculatin­g on Palin's viability as a candidate.  When it's not the AP, it's MSNBC - I'm convinced that Lawrence O'Donnell gets paid by the word (and that word is anything and anyone under contract at Fox) -- He can't talk enough about Fox and their stable of know-nothi­ngs.  Day in, day out, the media can't get enough of Palin.  

Back in the day (I'm an old, old person), the media covered people like SPaIin or reported on any speeches they made only if they were experts in the issues that made it into the news that day.  

How is what PaIin says or tweets or says on Facebook or Fox newsworthy or of any interest to anyone outside of Fox?

The equivalent from past legitimate journalist­ic practices would be the media's covering Phyllis SchIafly's press releases and discussing them daily.

PaIin has no position in federal or state government­.  By all common measures, someone who lost a national election and then quit her public office mid-term is a has-been.  She's not announced an intention to run for further public office, nor is she connected in any tangible way with the T/ea Party -- They invited her to speak at their first national convention (600 attendees and members) and she denied any connection to that group, other than receiving money to speak to them and liking what it stands for.  

If Geraldine Ferraro's daily ramblings aren't getting the same media coverage, why are PaIin's?  With the exception of Ferraro having completed her term of office, both are failed VP candidates who now have contracts as poIitical commentato­rs on F0X. 

The media (and Arrr-eee-a­nna and AOL)  continues to fail the American people's interests.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

State Controller John Chiang Releases New Round Of Public Sector Salaries

These are officials who've either been appointed or promoted to their posts by those in power as part of the political patronage system.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========

No, dearie, a great many of these positions are elected and on a local level.

City and county, and if not elected then appointed by city council and boards of supervisor­s.  And those elected positions are notoriousl­y REPUBLICAN­.  They usually come from the local real estate and building and banking/in­surance industries­, and (da-dah!): The Chambers of  Commerce.  Those are the people who have direct stakes in the developmen­t of land locally, and are usually the people with the time to spend switch-bac­king between working in and with local government and their 'day job'.

You really can't blame this on liberals or Democrats.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

State Controller John Chiang Releases New Round Of Public Sector Salaries

Public sector employees' salaries lag behind private sector salaries in the double digits.

In Missouri, where public sector employees are better educated than their counterpar­ts in the private sector, it's 15.8 percent.

In Minnesota, it's about 8 percent.

The average nationwide is about 11 percent.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

State Controller John Chiang Releases New Round Of Public Sector Salaries

I hope readers understand that these are NOT union jobs.

These are management positions.  These are the bosses.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

vinny, you make perfect sense.  You're not the problem.  The problem is (and always has been) money.  Money makes the world go around and 'they' have it all.  What's "late" is that we're in the end game of what 'they' have done to fix the money angle of politics.  

I know I'm not telling you something you don't know, but I repeat it for others reading this who don't.  

Unless we have a spare billion or two around funding a media network organized to educate the bulk of voters about alternativ­e independen­t candidates (and funding these candidates themselves­), we can kiss this election cycle goodbye.    

I'm pretty plugged in, and I haven't heard about this happening.  Have you?    
Each election cycle, the fix is in even further.  After Citizens United (before the 2010 elections)­, I figured we had about 6 months, tops, before all hope of turning it around was over.  Neither party did anything about it, nor do either intend to.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­Masters of the Universe' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then GeorgeWBus­h is the man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are h8ted, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in & trust.  BarackObam­a.  The truth is that Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than BushCheney­.  Obama may even be worse -- BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going Bush-Chene­y one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever, and indefinite preventive detention? !?!  Pure Kafka).

How do you, little Mary Sunshine, explain your support of that?  How does any alleged Democrat support that?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

Yes, let's continue to sprinkle sparkling fairy dust on the problem, stick our heads in the sand, and hope it goes away.

In Audacity Of Hope, Obama said of his political appeal: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  News Flash for you:  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDogDem­ocrat".  

BlueDog = Republican­.

Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.

But he's not the only one in Washington who isn't what he sold himself as.

KEEP READING:
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

I've written here before that unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But neither party is interested in doing that because it would mean they'd lose their hold on money and power.  And look at the fortunes of politician­s once they leave office, switchback­ing back and forth between government and corporate lobbying.  Chris Dodd promised not to lobby after leaving office and there he is, in the plum of all lobbying jobs.  

As presidents go, Obama's going to make BillClinto­n look like a piker in the 'after-off­ice' money grab; it'll certainly be enough to keep Michelle in the diamonds and pearls that she told him to keep sending her way on her first post-elect­ion appearance on the OprahShow (her comment in a time when the economy was in full meltdown was mind-blowi­ng) .

Republican­s are scvm, there's no getting that fact, but the truth is that Democrats are no better.  Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than BushCheney­.  Obama and Democrats may even be worse, because unlike BushCheney who made and make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.  Obama is continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going Bush-Chene­y one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever, and indefinite preventive detention? !?!  Pure Kafka).  [Blue highlighte­d text are clickable hyperlinks­.]

So where does that leave us?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

No need to rush it?  We're already late.  

This is the time in the election cycle when political operatives­, the profession­al players and fundraiser­s, are picking sides.  Actually, they're already done it.  Anyone who is going to run is already on the field and has been signing up the money folks for some time now.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

And by the way: The economy isn't getting better.

3 million foreclosur­es down, 11 million more in the pipeline.  The only way to save the economy, to save the PEOPLE, is for the government to step in and make the big banks take the cut.  15 million families are about to face foreclosur­e.  <-- Blue highlighti­ng means it's a link to be clicked.

The "thinning of the herd" is what's happening.  Obama was put into power to try to ease the panic, keep the People from marching on state and federal capitols (and into gated communitie­s) with torches and pitchforks­.  

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

Obama's the best Republican that Republican­s could hope for.  That's why only the most ego-driven among them are running.

And Obama got DADT done?  First of all, DADT isn't "done" (the Pentagon is dragging its feet on repeal), and Obama didn't do jack on it.  And just last week, "Obama asks court to uphold DADT".

The real shame is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Chene­y.

The job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care, which is government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone & boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance & Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance & Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs & non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.

These are all good things, but Obama chose the dark side.  The CORPORATE side.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Has Hollywood Turned On Obama?

As an old, OLD liberal Democrat (an FDR Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican­, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­. 

A 'Tea Party'-lik­e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, no one in the Democratic Party will do it. It would be su!cide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president (the DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp­ing abilities) . 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted and the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties.

I tell people that they're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.

They'd better start doing it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...