Category: Politics

By on

In an incredibly weird tirade, Charlie Kirk, conservative political activist, spoke strongly against the Birth Control Pill. The pill is horrible for single women. It makes them unhappy and unmarriageable. The single woman who uses birth control pill will die lonely and childless. Worst of all, she will be ugly too. He skips trying to persuade young women, I guess they are too frivolous to understand the horrors of the Pill, and goes directly to their parents who should stop their daughters from making this terrible mistake.

Aside from a decidedly low opinion of women’s intelligence and their right to manage their own bodies, I am not sure what Kirk is prattling on about. His focus is single women but married women use birth control as well. Does the Pill make married women the ugly unhappy mess that it does to single women? He seems to be talking just about the Pill, are other means of contraception acceptable or do they have the same terrifying results? What is his endgame here? Does he want to make Birth Control illegal? He never says so but it seems to be the subtext here.

This antagonism towards birth control marries well with another increasingly heard concern for conservatives — the declining birth rate among women. Glenn Reynolds worries that the earth is depopulating because women all over the world are no longer giving birth at replacement levels. This is particularly irksome as these same conservatives oppose pro-environment actions that are based on scientific data that suggests environmental doom in the future. They claim that these scientists are often wrong, that human beings will discover some scientific feat that will address these worries and to far into the future to demand sacrifices based on data that may never come into play.

Well, all right then, why should I worry about scientific speculations about a declining population particularly since the world’s population will still continue to grow and an actual decline in population won’t occur until the end of this century. Just like the scientists predicting environmental disaster, could these baby bust scientists be wrong about their interpretation of the data? Could people decide to have more children as the population declines and this problem will solve itself? But, no, this is an urgent matter for Reynolds and needs to be addressed now before it is too late and no human being is left alive.

What is worrisome about these opinions is that this manufactured crisis is giving some religious zealots a reason to make birth control illegal. Which is all rather perplexing. Women make up over half of the voting population. Most of these women want to have some control over how often they get pregnant. Not to mention their husbands and boyfriends who want to continue having sex without the worry of new children to support. Forcing people to have more children now to prevent a crisis in the 22nd Century seems like political suicide. Why anyone would think this is an attractive political is beyond me.

But it will be fun to watch.

By on

“I don’t care what they call me as long as they mention my name.”

George M. Cohan

“There is no such thing as bad publicity. “

P.T. Barnum

Missouri state Senator Bill Eigel worries that the vague writing of an Abortion Bill would allow one year olds to get abortions. Why he is worried is a bit of a mystery. One year olds are incapable of pregnancy, so their need for abortions isn’t really an issue here. It won’t happen so it is nothing to be worried about. But, anyway, when has that stopped politicians from making an issue out of nothing.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a one year old girl needing an abortion. She is unable to give her consent in the first place, so she was raped. the very people who would be protected by passage of the bill — victims of incest and rape. Furthermore, and the most important point to consider here, it is impossible for a one year old girl to carry a full term pregnancy to birth. She would need an abortion to save her life. So, if anyone should get an abortion, a pregnant one year old absolutely should.

If it were biologically possible which it isn’t.

On the other hand, Eigel generated a lot of pro-Life points fighting the scourge of one year olds seeking abortions. He also was able to get it without really having to take a stand on anything important. There won’t be any stories about one year olds dying from botched abortions or doctors debating whether to give a one year old an abortion because it will never happen. This, however important it is to you and me, is irrelevant to Eigel and his supporters. Eigel still gets pro-Life points for opposing abortion and, particularly important, defending babies from abortion clinics who would think nothing of aborting non-existent fetuses from one year olds.

The press dutifully reported Eigel’s concerns. The press will report any outrageous statement from any elected official because it might tempt shocked readers into reading their paper. Who wants to read about actual mature women needing an abortion when they can debate endlessly about one year old who will never need one. The only thing that happened here was Eigel got his name in the paper an his reputation enhanced with his voters.

You will all be relieved to know, pro-Choice or pro-Life, that one year olds will not have access to legal abortion. Absolutely nothing was learned from this nor was any debate furthered in discussing it. Why this was a newsworthy event is still a mystery but I am certain that the press would only use their limited space to report on truly important issues. Right?

By on

Democracy is at stake or so we are told. America’s two largest political parties are going to nominate aging unpopular candidates as their nominees. The Republicans because they think they were cheated and want revenge and the Democrats because, well, I don’t know why. I am told there is no one better. For many voters, this means, it could come down to flip of the coin which is frightening when you consider the very close races that decided the elections in both 2016 and 2020.

But not to worry, Trump will be a convicted felon by election day. Or not. I don’t know why people think the courts would save the day. Have these people ever dealt with courts? I know it has been loads of fun watching Trump getting frustrated by these court appearances but this is the type of ordeal that Trump was made for.

Trump has been using the courts his entire adult life to gain advantage and he understands the key to winning is delay. He knows how to wear people down until his nemesis surrenders and makes a deal. Now Trump has even a better option than a deal. If he delays long enough and wins the presidency, he can pardon himself.

The Democrats argue that the best response to Trump is Joe Biden. I wish I shared their confidence because Biden trails Trump in the polls. Biden is in trouble because many people think he is too old to be president. This could be handled easily by putting the old boy out there on the campaign trail. But someone is keeping him off and this would be fine if it helped. But it doesn’t. It’s a no win position. If Biden makes public appearances he looks old and if he doesn’t make appearances people think he is hiding because he is too old.

Don’t worry. Joe is saving it for the Fall. I am not sure why Biden will be better in the Fall because his problem is a perception of being old. He isn’t recovering from an illness and can expect to be in better shape after a short rest, he will, in fact, be even older in the Fall. Unfortunately, while Biden is comfortably resting,Trump is grabbing all the press — good, bad, or indifferent. Trump may be crazy but he is certainly visible and Trump likes being visible. He thrives on it. So, perhaps the Democrats nominating a candidate who has to save it for the fall isn’t the appropriate choice for such a rigorous undertaking as running for president.

People are saying that Trump is cornered now and has nowhere to run. This seems to be wishful thinking by the powers that be and a continual mistake that people make when dealing with Trump. In 2016, the Republican Establishment assured us that there is no way Trump could be nominated. Well, he was. The Democrats gave us Hillary Clinton who they assured us was the candidate who could defeat Trump. She wasn’t. Trump was impeached once. He laughed that one off. He slyly instigated violence on January 6. He denied everything and told us that we got it all wrong and began rewriting the history of the day. His supporters backed him. He was impeached again. Almost the entire Republican party got in line to say that nothing actually happened despite what they said to the contrary on January 6.

Trump has survived some very heavy fire and is relatively unscathed. At this point, I have more confidence that Trump has a better understanding about what is going on than the doyens in the press and government. Trump is constantly being underestimated which is sad for a man so dangerous. Just because they think a man is an uncouth idiot doesn’t mean everyone else agrees with them. This continual confidence that Trump is finally on the ropes displays a stunning amnesia of recent history. Trump has beaten his betters time and again and they don’t seem to realize it. Which is more than a little disconcerting.

By on

I try to ignore the Trump family as much as humanly possible but they just are too difficult to ignore. They are always out there doing something, saying things and making people crazy. Sometimes you just have to break down and comment on what they are doing, knowing full well that they love every moment of attention they are getting. Good or bad, attention is attention and, for some reason, the Trump family love getting it and I apologize now for giving it to them. Forgive me but I must comment about something Trumpish.

The Trump men love to appraise women’s looks and then give their usually unflattering appraisal particularly if the woman is a political opponent (see Donald Trumps thoughts on Rosie O’Donnell and Carly Fiorina if you need some examples). Trump’s namesake Donald jr. got into the act recently with his unkind comparison of Michelle Obama to a football linebacker.

Oddly, he comments that this is a joke which was a lame way of trying to protect himself from criticism that he knew would be heading his way. He was joking. Ha ha. Right. Got it. Though I have to wonder would if his wife or sister would think it was funny to be compared to a linebacker? If he is just being funny that is. I am sure they would get the joke, right? They know his sense of humor best after all.

It’s the type of joke you would expect from a 12 year old boy trying to impress his friends by making fun of the smartest girl in the class. It is mean-spirited joke. The interesting thing for me, is that it was more important for Donald jr. to amuse his juvenile friends than to be a decent human being. He relishes in the hurtful nature of the joke.

You would think that the son of man who is running for president would understand this and not post this type of joke on social media. Of course, he is free to post whatever he damn well pleases, that he can’t discern what is appropriate and inappropriate is the problem. In Donald jr.’s mind, it is perfectly OK to publicly demean a woman’s looks.

That neither Trump seems worried about that is concerning.

By on

The two parties seem intent on nominating incredibly unpopular people as their candidates for president. For the Trump Republicans, this is at least understandable. They want revenge and there is some passion there to get it. The Democrats, on the other hand, just can’t be bothered to come up with someone better than Biden. It’s too dangerous. Let’s stick with a known winner. Don’t rock the boat, everything is fine. Shut up and get in line seems to be the campaign slogan.

It’s not even that I dislike Biden. I don’t. I just don’t think he is the leader for this particular moment and, to say, we don’t have anything better is depressing. In this whole vast country of 330 million plus people, we can’t come up with an alternate to Joe Biden? If this is true, then the Democrats are in deep trouble. If all you got is Joe Biden, then well, the future is rather bleak.

And, I really hate to have to say this, because it should be obvious but, for some reason, no one seems to care, Biden is polling badly against Trump. Let’s think about this for a moment. Between two very unpopular candidates, Biden is getting out polled by Donald Trump. Millions of people, forced with a terrible choice between two candidates they don’t like, are choosing Trump. Trump the insurrectionist, the serial liar, the hawker of tennis shoes, the butt of comedians jokes for all the stupid things he says, this man is out polling Joe Biden.

If Biden was polling better against Trump, I would say right Joe is the answer. But he isn’t. Then I think, who am I to argue with the experts who gave us President Hillary Clinton. They have a proven record of success, maybe they are seeing something that I just can’t see. I should just relax, leave it to the experts. They know what they are doing. Right?

By on

Republicans are spreading the rumor that Barack Obama is actually running the country while old Joe Biden is sitting on the White House veranda drooling and soaking up the sun under a pile of warm blankets waiting to die. While there is no evidence that this is true, and I am convinced that Biden is presently up to the duties of his office and infinitely better president than that wastrel Donald Trump, I find Biden’s age worrisome. So when I hear these whispers about Obama being in charge, it comforts me.

Not because I believe it to be true but because it reminds me that the American system of government prevents the most powerful person in the world from having too much power. As we have witnessed in the past 20 years of partisan warfare, the President can do very little without the support of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. Biden doesn’t have either and thus little is being done right now. The only unchecked power he has, and it is mighty, is to send missiles flying in the event of a sneak attack. So who are the Republicans trying to scare here?

Not me. I like Obama and he also is popular with a large segment of the American Electorate. He is a young man particularly in comparison to both Biden and Trump. He is a recent president so he is up on the latest issues. Obama is a Democrat, Biden is a Democrat — is there much of a chance that Obama would be doing anything differently from Biden? Why should this concern me?

The Republicans spread this lie as if this should be upsetting. All I can say is good then. There is someone stable at the helm. And, if given the choice between a senile old man that is being manipulated by a younger known politician and a mad man who doesn’t take anyone’s advice but his own and who’s understanding of the bigger world stopped somewhere in middle school. I am going with the senior citizen.

The Republicans can continue to spread this vicious piece of gossip for however long they want to but I don’t think many people are gasping from the shock. They are undermining their strongest argument against Biden for no good reason. The only thing I can come up with is that they think the general public hates Obama as much as they do. They must have forgotten that Obama handily defeated the Republicans twice. I am happy to see them fumble around with this issue as I think a stronger and potentially more damaging case can be made regarding Biden’s age. Fortunately the Republicans aren’t able to grasp what that is.

By on

Mark Tapscott at the Epoch Times reports that, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), Unions spent $25 billion dollars on 2022 election. Which is really kind of remarkable because Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reported that the total amount of money spent on political campaigns was 8.9 billion dollars. You might have spotted a glaring difference between the two organization’s figures. I certainly did.

Why the difference? First, and this is pretty important, the NILRR is anti-union. They want to demonize the union movement so they fiddled with the figures to make the actual 54 million labor spent on 2022 campaigns $25 billion. After this little switcheroo, the relative modest spending becomes outrageously large, especially with the untampered figures from corporations. $25 billion says unions are this powerful behemoth who have an endless supply of money to force their collectivist ways on the poor employers of America.

How did $54 million become $25 billion? NILRR’s much broader interpretation of union political spending can be found here: “the bulk of unreported political power is wielded by government union officials. They’re armed with the monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions, and hiring practices for entire swaths of federal, state, and local government workers. This makes monopoly bargaining in the public sector, by its very nature, political.” So, everything a union does is political and, therefore, must be included in political spending. Voila, you now have a rich monster with billions to spend facing those poor corporations who are just trying to run their business.

It’s a blatantly unfair comparison. Why isn’t the same standard applied to corporate spending? In non-union shops, which is close to 90% of all American worker’s experiences, the companies have this same monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions and hiring practices. When there are no unions, the worker is on his own and the company has all the power. Does the NILRR consider the money spent on Union Busting as political spending? Technically, I am sure it isn’t but by the NILRR broad definition of political spending, it definitely should be.

I am confident that when you add up all the Corporate Spending on salaries, benefits, HR policies and union busting, there would be a much higher amount of money for corporate political spending. Then we can talk political spending for both Corporations and Labor. Until then I think the FEC’s figures on money spent directly on political campaigns is the only fair way to appraise political spending. It gives a much different story about who is spending more money than Tapscott and NILRR.