Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)

Agness, let's communicate.

I was speaking in terms of western values ('New World Order', and all that rot), and while I'm not a Brit, I am an Anglo-phile.  

In an effort to try to build bridges, I looked at some of your other comments to find somewhere we might connect.  You said this about an article on HP about a Vancouver man sought in dog beating death: "Well, I can't read this, but I can say that I once saw my step-father beat a dog and I've never forgotten it. Crimes like this demand jail time and a permanent registry, like the one for sex-offenders."

Do you see any parallels and why, as an American, commenting on people who make fortunes doing what is extremely enjoyable and luxurious instead of compensating laborers well who actually labor doing loathsome and difficult work and that really is more important to all of our survival, it might be my business?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)

What a life.

How we compensate people is completely backwards.  In this case, we're talking about a family of people who are, essentially, models.  They pose in front of cameras in expensive clothing and jewels (which they get to keep), play games, go to top notch entertainment venues and eat and drink the finest vittles in the world.  

And those who perform back-breaking work picking vegetables in the hot sun we pay below minimum wage or lock them up indefinitely before deporting them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Business Owners Disapprove Of Obama's Job Performance: Poll

Neither were Reagan or Clinton or JFK or Eisenhower or Roosevelt businessmen.  Or GHWBush for that matter.  And W was as failed a businessman as it gets.  

To be fair, Obama worked both as a corporate employee (Business International Corporation) and for a law firm (Sidley & Austin).

Government is run by people who, overwhelmingly, have no business experience.  And that's not a bad thing.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

It was Regan that eliminated the fairness doctrine in the media, and allowed concentration and monopolies over news casts.

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

Yes, it was Reagan who eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, which Clinton could have reinstated.

But not only didn't Clinton reinstate it, he consolidated conservatives' gain and hold on media with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

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 CorporateM­asters.  

Think of Democratic and Republican politician­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. Or like at 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, and 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, the People 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".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 1percent.  No protesting­, rallying, marching, begging, imploring, wishing, pleading with Obama is going to move him off of that.  If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe, and he'll be handsomely rewarded with paid seats on corporate boards for the rest of his life.  He'll just hand the baton off to a Republican for the fleecing to continue.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

One example of failure on women's economic conditions - Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' lists of his "accomplishments" and has gone unchallenged  because to explain the ridiculousness of it as an "Obama accomplishment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.  

To begin with, claiming Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievement is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfeller) picking up a hitch-hiking Obama right before he crossed the finish line and saying Obama won the Le Mans.  It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.

Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:

By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislation, the problem the legislation is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislation would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressional efforts. Or, something else.

With Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislature address a problem (statute of limitations for filing equal pay discrimination lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should've been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex discrimination". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For the filing of an equal-pay lawsuit.

And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporations to women, and Democrats work for corporations just as Republicans do).

If you want to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter then you're going to have to take the blame for not following it up immediately with legislation for transparency in pay.  Being able to find out what everyone else is getting paid.  It's a joke without it.  It's like taking you to a Michelin star restaurant, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in your face, but not letting you eat anything at all.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

And women's issues?  

Obama and Democrats have done a horrible job as women's advocates.  Let's look at three of the most important issues affecting women - Reproductive choice, economics and children/families.

'Kids Count' Report: Child Poverty On The Rise - And it's not just in the past decade, but for the past 30 years children have been losing ground, more living in poverty, not getting educated, job training, and more.

 Census figures for 2011 show poverty rate jumping to highest level since 1960s.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point.  One example would be Barbara Boxer.  

In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticut against newly independent JoeLieberman.  Privately, working behind-the-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinton were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchlesinger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman.  She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contraceptives to r@pe victims, and instead of dodging Lieberman, dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.  

During the Bush-Cheney administration, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."  

In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorically, "If Republicans win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republicans' agenda as Republicans have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/Democrats' 2008 agenda?"  If what Democratic politicians did during the BushCheney years is any indication, no.  Let's look at some of the alleged champions of liberals' issues.

BarbaraBoxer has been a terrible champion of liberal issues, but only those paying attention know this. 

For example, as a member of Congress, you can't just be for or against something (like abortion) when it comes up for a vote. You have to be meticulous and actively work to set up the conditions surrounding your vote, to make sure it counts. Your 'yes' vote means nothing if there are more 'no' votes to cancel your vote/voice out. 

Knowing that, what did Boxer do the entire 8 years of the BushAdministration? She effectively went on sabbatical. She wrote murder mysteries ("Something I always wanted to do, if I ever had the time"). She, of course, took her senatorial salary all those years.

Boxer's support of JoeLieberman in 2006 exposed Boxer's very 'conditional' support of a woman's right to choose (and her general level of ignorance) 
http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/24/the-boxer-meltdown/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...