HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » calimary » Journal

calimary

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Current location: Oregon
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 72,779

About Me

Female. Retired. Wife-Mom-Grandma. Approx. 30 years in broadcasting, at least 20 of those in news biz. Taurus. Loves chocolate - preferably without nuts or cocoanut. Animal lover. Rock-hound from pre-school age. Proud Democrat for life. Ardent environmentalist and pro-choicer. Hoping to use my skills set for the greater good. Still married to the same guy for 40+ years. Probably because he's a proud Democrat, too. Penmanship absolutely stinks, so I'm glad I'm a fast typist! I will always love Hillary and she will always be my President.

Journal Archives

A most elegant post, sir.

Can't say I disagree.

"I am on one side of this, the only side a person who opposes the most reactionary elements of our political culture can be on in the present situation."

GREAT quote!

I hope this post will stand. Because there's some information that I want to know.

Today's the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Connecticut Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty ( https://www.facebook.com/EstyforCongress ) was on Rachel Maddow's show, and stated that there were 70-some-odd colleagues of hers in the House of Reps who REFUSED to meet with the Sandy Hook families.

I want to know who they are. I want their names. I want their districts. I want to know who these cowardly weasels are. Democratic reps or GOP. Don't care. I want to know who they are. I want them unmasked and forced out into the sunlight in the open, in the public square.

Not sure how to find out, so I figure maybe I should start it up - here. I posted on her Facebook page, asking. I just called her office in DC and asked, too. And the staffer didn't know - and also had not heard a request like this before, at least not today.

I'm wondering if anyone here is interested? If we could start a drumbeat about this? Anyone else want to know who these cowards are, who refuse to meet with or face these families and hear them out? Or have most of us just moved on to something else and forgotten?

I STILL think MY right - AND YOURS - not to be massacred by these hand-held weapons of mass destruction, or the people who use them, FAR OUTWEIGHS their right to own and use them. I'm not completely convinced that "right" even covers these Devil-weapons and mow-down machines. Still do. Probably stronger now than even immediately after it happened.

Okay. Done. Thank you for hearing me out. Now flame away.

Definitely. "Holy crap, look at the dough those guys made!"

That's EXACTLY what they thought, followed immediately by "and look how they got away with it. Come. Let us study, and learn, and follow suit!"

"The NSA has been spying on Americans for the last sixty years..."

Consider (from Wikipedia):
Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States, the first African American to hold the office. Wikipedia
Born: August 4, 1961 (age 51), Honolulu, HI

The NSA has been spying on Americans for longer than Barack Obama has even existed.

Yeah, I know - I know - somehow it's still his fault ...

Funny - Randi Rhodes was talking about this today. How the lines between big business and government are so blurred as to be non-existent by now. How it's rarely mentioned while everyone is fulminating about the NSA - the distressing scope of those allowed access to all this classified and highly-sensitive info - are, invariably, CONTRACTORS. Business. Corporations. The private sector. Over and over in the coverage of this I've heard references to these jobs have been outsourced. Privatized. Probably with a contract bid so low it's like taking a big piece of Swiss cheese with you to wrap around you for warmth as you go climbing Mt. McKinley. No accountability - it's once-removed into private industry. If the government were running this directly, there'd ostensibly be SOME public accountability (although bush/cheney certainly left that one in shreds with their no-bid contract orgy to their friends in banking and business and industry).

This is what happens when you cut back government services - and therefore capabillities, and accountabilities - in order to let the unfettered free market rule. When you say "gummnt BAAAAAAD! NO gummnt!" Then you have no oversight, no curbing or checking of - or restrictions on - rapacious, marauder, robber-baron behavior. You get Pirates on Parade. It's not "privatizing," it's more like "PIRATIZING." Unrestrained. And look what can happen. Did ANYBODY have any sort of leash on these reckless thieving corporate vultures and vampires or were they left to run amok without ANY supervision? And we should just trust 'em to do the "right thing"? Leave 'em on the "honor system" - when in actuality, they have none, and their only "honor" is how much money they can make, or steal? After all, who oversees this, if government contracts out all these government jobs? Are the contractors beholden to the taxpayers then? Answerable to us taxpayers then? Have any of them been questioned or investigated for the laissez-faire piracy and free-wheeling highway robbery during bush/cheney?

As my late mother-in-law used to say: "they don't suck it out of their thumbs."

That kid evidently heard the toxic talk in a laissez-faire environment, where it wasn't an outrage, wasn't objected to, wasn't corrected, no penalties imposed for having done so, no effort to discourage. Something he was used to hearing, perhaps? Seems as though the kid learned to be comfortable with it. Perhaps it occurred a LOT in that household. Just speculation, mind you.

But it seems to me when you use offensive terms so flagrantly (it's one of the names he uses in his frickin' games??????), either you're accustomed to hearing it around you that you're inured to it and you're used to not giving it a second thought, or you're just an asshole who likes to stir things up and you're going for shock value. Either way, it's indicative of how he was brought up, at least to me.

Very disappointing. We can already see how well the status quo has worked out.

And there he is, not wanting to rock the boat.

Well, then, how will things ever change or improve or evolve? Have we, in effect, given the military brass a get-out-of-jail-free card because we have to protect their precious chain-of-command at all costs? Especially considering just how frickin' LONG this has been 100% male-dominated?

Mighty uncomfortable with this.

Well, then, I guess he'd know how I feel about him. In no uncertain terms.

When I first heard the statistics for gun-related killings - "like a 9/11 every month"

I was just dumbfounded! But yeah. The numbers worked out to an average 3,000 gun-related killings per month. Approximately the number of victims in the 2001 World Trade Center attack. Stunning.

Unfortunate but true. There are WAY too many problems that come with a GOP presidency.

WAY too many!
- How 'bout the Supreme Court nominations that will come, and who will retire to create those openings in the first place, one of ours or one of theirs?
- How 'bout the appointees and nominees that will come, and the mindset that would take over? Surely you don't want to see the PNAC having The Big Access again, do you? They were all over the romney campaign in the foreign policy department. These same wannabe warriors are in mid-life or later, and never served when they were younger and had a chance to go to Vietnam or maybe Desert Storm, so they have no concept about the real costs of war. They want to lead the way in a great crusade, from the safety of their well-appointed offices, of course. When a Dem is in the White House, their access becomes more difficult, because the Democratic world view is a lot less welcoming to these wild and totally failing notions of the imposition of an American Empire upon the world. It's the republi-CONS who are into that juvenile, unrealistic, self-absorbed shit. Dems not so much, and when they're in power, the PNAC is not exactly in with that in-crowd.
- How 'bout the "advisors" who'd come in with a republi-CON president? Consider: who are their campaign chieftains, their head fund-raisers, their debate coaches and sparring partners, their activist business pals, their big-ass donors who all see this as an investment. ALL THOSE PEOPLE would come flooding in with their pal, the GOP president.
- How 'bout energy policy? We'd have NO hope whatsoever of combatting Keystone XL, protecting the ecosystem, developing and promoting sustainable energy sources, or cracking down on polluters, dumpers, manufacturers of toxins and toxic byproducts, and more. All the polluters would be given free passes to the Fast-Track lane because their pal who also hates regulations just grabbed the ultimate brass ring.
- How 'bout civil liberties. Okay there is shit going on, on Obama's watch. But it started and came to full flower under bush/cheney, and they never bothered getting warrants.
- How 'bout other civil liberties? Do you think for one minute any kind of worker protections, women's rights, voting rights, marriage equality, reproductive freedom, consumer protections, universal health care coverage, immigration issues, gun safety issues, issues involving the poor and homeless and elderly, the addressing of climate change, or any number of other issues that we care about - would figure anywhere in a republi-CON adminstration's agenda? Anywhere at all? How 'bout all those Congressional panels discussing women's reproductive rights or violence against women, and all the panelists are male? At least when the Dems get in, those things do go onto the "to do" list. Those are issues Dems talk about and are far more likely to try to accomplish things. Back it up from Election Night and consider the dramatically differing manifestos and mission statements of the party platforms of the Dems and the GOP. Look at all the planks in those platforms. THAT is the mindset that would come in with the winning ticket, and which would govern all decisions and policy directives. Which do YOU prefer?
- How 'bout the kinds of visitors they have, the kinds of events they attend and who they hang with? In other words, just who is getting regular and friendly access to the Oval Office & Co.? Who is it who's whispering in the ear of the (GOP) president? reagan's so-called "Kitchen Cabinet" exerted tremendous under-the-radar influence over his presidency. The members included a number of industrialists and California business tycoons. They were neither formally appointed as advisors nor nominated for Senate approval, so there was no accountability whatsoever. They operated in the shadows, out of public view and indifferent to public opinion. Is it gonna be another "Millionaires on Parade" as reagan's years were nicknamed? Exclusively the 1%, invitation-only, thank you? Just the have's and the have-more's?
- And you know there's more.

You're actually electing a mindset. How they lean, what they believe, where they stand, and all their like-minded friends, benefactors, associates, and advisors.

I'm gonna stay with the Democrats for awhile. There really isn't another option - any genuinely realistic one, that is.

That concerns me as well. One thing that's struck me in this whole affair is

that people on CNN and elsewhere sure are going apeshit over the Guardian.

WHERE THE FUCK WERE THEY IN 2002 and 2003???? The Guardian was all over the lies about the run-up to the Iraq War. They had it all. That paper was pretty much the only mainstream news outlet throughout that published the truth about what bush/cheney was up to. THEY had the voices and sources and quotes and interviews with people who brought up the OTHER side than what we were getting here in the US, being force-fed that drum-beat for war, with the "9-11," "9-11," "9-11" and "WMD!" "WMD!" WMD!" mantras being jammed up our asses every damn day. They actually covered the opposing view, thoroughly and richly, and gave it many a column inch. Continuing after 2003, too. The Guardian kept up the coverage throughout. It was the ONE place where you could reliably go to get to the bottom of what was going on, because the Guardian was talking to the people who were muzzled, ignored, frozen out, or demonized, and giving them full attention, exposure, and the legitimacy their views deserved.

There was almost none of that anywhere here - except for the low-profile and much-ignored McClatchy papers, the alternative press, and of course on sites like this one. None of the majors. Shit, people got fired for trying to report on coffins coming home from the Iraq War, or even take photos. It was years before one shot of multiple flag-draped coffins loaded inside some transport plane actually made it to print on a mass public scale. It was like the details of actual warfare were taboo and not to be spoken. Here and there you'd hear about some reporter getting sidelined or even fired for trying to cover the opposition to the war. Highest-profile case, I think - Phil Donahue was fired by MSNBC no less, because he was a lone voice against our invading Iraq, and oh gracious me, we certainly couldn't have that on the air now, could we?! Typical panels discussing Iraq on cable news would consist of a republi-CON representative or senator, a conservative columnist, a reporter or critic with a known conservative slant, and Donna Brazile: one of the most infuriating milquetoasts I'd ever screeched at when she was making yet another anemic "defense" of Democrats or conceding how wrong the Democratic/liberal/progressive take on things was. NO ONE paid any attention to what the Guardian was reporting, day after day, as it proved there was VERY much indeed another side to consider besides the non-stop war-cheerleading from every media .

But man, on this story, the Guardian is being referenced or quoted seemingly every minute on the minute. Almost as though somebody woke up somewhere in some back news office a couple of weeks ago and realized there was this news outlet in the UK called the Guardian that was reporting all kinds of stuff worth noticing.