You get what you vote for...

This is a quote from our future disastrous Governor: "The most terrifying words you can hear are, 'I'm from Lansing, and I'm here to help.' " While I understand it's popular these days to blame the government for everything (all evidence to the contrary--it's corporate America who's to blame), what exactly are we to make of this statement? Rick Snyder will soon be living in Lansing--does this mean he doesn't intend to help? If so, why would anyone consider voting for him? Does this mean he's already signalling that he's an incompent boob (what a fucking surprise coming from a republican) and won't be able to help? If so, why would anyone vote for him? Why would the Free Press deign to publish such a quote? To be cute? To continue their quest to appeal to scared, old, white people--the only ones left who may still think their newspaper is relevant? Can I be the only person in Michigan who finds this quote from a candidate for Governor of Michigan incredibly disturbing? Just wondering.... Peace, emaycee

One Nation

From USA Today: "We're fired up, and we're fighting for jobs and justice," said Cheryl Albright.... "We believe this is the real America. Look at all this diversity," she said. "This is not like the tea party. They call themselves the real America; we're the real America, too." Not "too." We're the real American period. The tea party is not the real America in any way. It's scared, old, white people, period. Nice of the Free Press to run a blurb on the One Nation rally--and an entire article on the recent tea party rally in D. C. Also like the "thousands" marched for One Nation in D.C. and "tens of thousands" marched for the tea party. By whose fucking count? The Free Press fails yet again. And for the record, the sky is blue.... Peace, emaycee

Where were you when we needed you?

Where the fuck was this poll when we were going through the whole Healthcare reform debacle? A full 40% of Americans think the new healthcare law didn't go far enough, while a mere 20% doesn't want the government involved in healthcare. This is a massive case of media and polling failure--in short, a large majority of Americans (factoring in the 30% who approve of the new law) want a greater government involvement in our healthcare system. How much better of a chance would the public option have had with these numbers (though with the jellyfish spinal columns of too many Dems it is hard to judge)?

Special thanks to the Free Press for publishing their article on page 18A--one can see that their readers' needs and opinions are obviously not a priority (or they must really need the revenue from the healthcare industry ads).

Note to republicans: good luck keeping the House in 2012 with the strategy of repealing healthcare reform....

Peace,
emaycee

Just a little bit more

A short while ago I wrote a blog about the motion before the Michigan Supreme Court on setting a time limit on submitting new evidence. There were a couple of interesting articles in the Free Press this week discussing said amendment--which I mention only because both are excellent examples of why this piss poor motion should be dismissed.

One is by Jeff Gerritt--who has the admirable job of being the Free Press' ombudsmen for prisoners (and what a fun job that must be in our current tea party hate-filled nation). He points out the case of one Dwayne Provience, who was convicted in 2001 of murder, but thanks to the Michigan Innocence Clinic, his wrongful conviction was overturned. Had the current motion for time limits been in effect, Mr. Provience would still be in prison for a crime he did not commit. Mr. Gerritt is exactly right when he explains that keeping innocent people out of prison is a far more compelling moral claim than the expense of "frivolous" (bet Mr. Provience doesn't think his new evidence was frivolous) new evidence claims.

The second was a piece by the always thoughtful Leonard Pitts (if any op-ed writer is writing finer pieces than Mr. Pitts in America today, I've yet to find him)--on the plight of one Anthony Graves, who recently won a new trial in what may be another in an unfortunate cycle of convicting innocent people of murder. Mr. Pitts aptly points out that outraged citizens demanding the death penalty for outrageous crimes may be a compelling case for abolishing the death penalty--emotion gets in the way of reason, logic, and fairness. And I might add, even worse, putting innocent people to death.

Just sayin'....

Peace,
emaycee

Ain't it funny how time slips away...

My Lord, it's October already...

The Free Press ran your basic puff piece on Bob King, the new President of the UAW. Overall the article was fair, and, to my mind, points out King's strong points (namely, tying all workers across the globe together, making social justice a key platform)--there's never anything wrong with a puff piece on the good guys.

No, what I wanted to point out from the piece is this comment by Paul Kersey, director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (i.e., conservative think tank) concerning King's push for the union to have a bigger share of the auto industry's success: "Companies ought to be profitable. Bob King seems to want to treat this as a rainbow to prosperity now that the storm is over...and I think it is very premature."

What the fuck? No argument from me that companies need to be profitable. But you know what? So do employees--there aren't many of us who do the shit we do for free. And when exactly would be the right time? A year? Two years? My guess is that Paul Kersey, being the corporate fellator he is, would suggest never. Certainly haven't seen a lot of CEOs in the auto industry waiting for their share--when they wait, so should the UAW. When the execs don't, neither should the UAW. Bob King is right on the money (so to speak here): the time is now.

Peace,
emaycee