The main point of this message is that every American must exercise great caution when s/he casts aspersions on another American’s patriotism. Therefore, it is quite disappointing to read a rather reckless opinion on the GOP presidential nominee’s love of country in one of its leading newspapers, of which I am regular reader.
I am NOT a Trump supporter, primarily because of his and his party’s policy positions and statements on important issues (to me, anyway) such as health care (replace “Obamacare” with what?), economics (based on the failed trickle down theory), environment (that global warming is a myth) and immigration (a religious test for entry into this country appears unconstitutional). As for my personal thoughts, Mr. Trump’s actions and words are, or appear to be, unethical, narcissistic, bigoted, misogynistic, clueless of solutions to serious issues that currently plague this nation, quite crude in language and style, . . .
But, is Trump unpatriotic? In the absence of concrete “unpatriotic” deeds by Mr. Trump, and given that I have no access to inner thoughts of people, I am obliged to at least give Mr. Trump (and, for that matter, Mr. Bruni) the benefit of the doubt. To rebut just one of his reason’s for doubting Mr. Trump’s love of country, i.e., the unpatriotic act of draft-dodging, it is important to note that two of our recent past presidents conveniently managed to avoid going to Vietnam.
When did, given our country’s history, being bigoted or controversial raise doubts of one’s patriotism? In conclusion, “Is casting unfounded aspersions on the patriotism of a politically conservative candidate the last refuge of a liberal journalist?” (adapting lexicographer Samuel Johnson’s statement “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” for the occasion)
To be fair, I do believe that ALL Americans – rich, poor, and those in between – should bear the economic burden of running this country. However, these days, one major focus appears to be on balancing the budget on the back of the middle class, e.g., reducing Medicare benefits. Not so fast. First, let us cut CORPORATE welfare. For now, here are just 2 such cuts:
1. Dividend/investment income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. For example, people like Mitt Romney now pay at a rate of about 15%. They should be paying a much higher rate.
2. The Government should change the law so that it can negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Guess what, those growing drug costs are part of Medicare (Part D).
Write your Senator/Representative.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2012
1. Two candidates who do not wish to present a clear vision for America’s future.
2. A press corps that do not adequately challenge the candidates’ statements, answers and/or political ads.
3. A confused electorate.
Thanks, Mr Buffet.
Let me first define “We”. It means one or all of the three: the middle class, the electorate that matters, the suckers. Political pundits tell us we vote our pocket books. How long will we have a pocket of our own? Read on…
Stop Coddling the Super Rich”
Scrutinizing the Elite, Whether They Like It or Not
About 2 decades ago (reported in Science, I think), MIT wanted to improve their curriculum because it felt that its graduates were not finding their rightful places in society. It was funny, because the real lament was that too many MIT grads ended up working for Harvard grads. I wondered then, as I do now: This ain’t a curricular matter. Doesn’t the real solution lie in MIT recruiting from the top 1% elite as opposed to the run of the mill top 10%?
Here is a myth, perpetuated by the rich:
“If we lose this truly American thing — that you can become anything if you just work at it — then you’re really going to lose what makes America America. . . ”. Yeah, right: mailroom to boardroom in a week. Or even better, English-language impaired Yale student elected President of the United States – solely by the sweat of his brow. Party on, America.
The Mood of Voters: Men Are Fuming, Women Despairing
“. . . women . . . , the poll suggests . . may stay home this year. . . giving more of the decision-making to men by default. . . “:
Two thoughts came to mind as I read this: (1) For all these years, I thought women wanted to get out of the house. (2) Referring to people who would not exercise their authority, my mother’s favourite saying was: If you do not sit in your chair, a dog will. Got that ladies, about giving default authority to men.
Just think of pocket-book (“economy” for the educated types) issues. You may conclude that the Democratic party might be better. What sayeth, all you’all?
By way of full disclosure, I am a rationalist -for now it means a liberal independent with Democratic party leanings.
Poverty Rate Rose Sharply in 2009, Says Census Bureau
Yes, I am sure the “haves” will brush it off and gives us reasons: Like, we had a bad few years, blah, blah, blah . . . . But, does explanation matter much?. I am not sure what the tea party is all about. But, if it is anti-incumbent, then I say: Right on! Let us be an equal opportunity “firer”,and clean up the whole mess. If people is/are “boss”, let us show it by firing a whole lot of them in November. The newbies will remember what happened to the last group.
In Ad Wars, Democrats Shy From Ties to Own Party
These three instant thoughts crossed my mind, when I read the “. . . Shy[ing] . . .” headline:
1. “Your greatest strength is the weakness of your convictions” (line from the TV sitcom The Golden Girls)
2. Cowards die a thousand deaths . . . (from Indian stories on Rajput bravery)
3. It is such Democratic wimping that gave us 8 years of George W. Bush and 2 wars (based on my 40+ years as an American observer)
Obama appears to have lost his “fire”. I agree he should have done more for Main Street than for Wall Street, but he is our best bet, compared to the Republicans -especially the “ideas-bankrupt-John -A.- Boehner” types who are gleefully looking for an American train wreck. Come this November, if he becomes the Speaker of the House, then we Americans would have spoken quite unwisely.
[By way of full disclosure, I am an independent (I prefer “rationalist”, but that would require a lengthy explanation) who is more sympathetic to the current Democratic administration/Congress and think that, at least, they are weakly trying/trying weakly to help the declining middle class and the growing poor.
FDA is taking a tougher stance on misleading drug
On second thoughts, why not just ban these ads, as in the past. I challenge anybody: Show me a TV drug ad that is not misleading.
Once a Dynamo, the Tech Sector Is Slow to Hire
Corporations are there for one and only one reason: To make money for their stockholders. If Americans understand this simple truth, then they will understand why the tech sector is not hiring though they are making gobs of money, or why BP did what it did in the Gulf. I do not blame corporations. We need corporations. “They do not have bodies you can kick or souls you can damn”, as I heard somewhere. I blame our government for lack of proper regulatory control. The electorate should be pressing state and federal government law makers to strengthen regulations for economic equity for the worker. But, how can they: They need corporate donations to run and remain in office. An activist and informed electorate are vital to select and elect candidates who will work for the people. The challenge for the American voter can be found in the Declaration of Independence: “. . . . That to secure these rights [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . “[emphasis added]