Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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
Friday, October 1, 2010
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
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
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
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
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Questions, I Got Questions
Some depressing news--the poverty rate in the U.S. is at its highest in 16 years. Ummmm.....why do you suppose it is that for as much as republicans are hammering Democrats on the economy, they're not mentioning this fact? Don't you think the Dems would be pounding the republicans on this were the shoe on the other foot? Don't you think this speaks volumes about where the republicans' interest lies?
The Free Press occasionally runs a pair of pieces on their op-ed page(s), called "Opposing points of view" which are sometimes interesting (and sometimes not). This week's dealt with a proposal to limit appeals of conviction to one year (with our shoddy justice system, I didn't even have to read the opposing views to know where I stood--against!). The first piece, by David A. Moran of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, is a well written and compelling argument against setting a time limit. The opposing piece, by Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy, argues in favor of the time limit because, of all things, justice demands finality. While I have no doubt that some sort of finality is important, shouldn't the real goal of our justice system be to make sure we aren't incarcerating innocent people? Or how about not wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars incarcerating innocent people? Or, hell, even making sure that we have the actual guilty criminals behind bars and not continuing their crimes on our streets? Why is it that it sure as hell seems prosecutors are a lot more interested in adding another victory notch to their belt on their way to running for higher office than justice?
I've read this piece by Brian Dickerson and I'm honestly not sure what point he's making about the tea party--I'm not even sure it's necessarily your usual mainstream media goop about the tea party. Outwardly, he is discussing the success of the tea party and its seeming lack of leaders, but is he subtly questioning this assumption? How come he never made mention of the New Yorker's Jane Mayer's piece about the Koch brothers' stealth financial support of the tea party? How come there was no mention of Dick Armey's Freedomworks and their behind the scenes structuring of the tea party? No idea, but I have a feeling he missed a good opportunity to educate his readers.
Quote of the week: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Often attributed to the first American Literature Nobel Laureate, Sinclair Lewis (interesting discussion of the source of the quote here), has anyone seen or heard a quote that better sums up the tea party ("Fucking idiots!" doesn't count)? Check this out for its "newfound" ties to the religious right....
Peace,
emaycee
The Free Press occasionally runs a pair of pieces on their op-ed page(s), called "Opposing points of view" which are sometimes interesting (and sometimes not). This week's dealt with a proposal to limit appeals of conviction to one year (with our shoddy justice system, I didn't even have to read the opposing views to know where I stood--against!). The first piece, by David A. Moran of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, is a well written and compelling argument against setting a time limit. The opposing piece, by Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy, argues in favor of the time limit because, of all things, justice demands finality. While I have no doubt that some sort of finality is important, shouldn't the real goal of our justice system be to make sure we aren't incarcerating innocent people? Or how about not wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars incarcerating innocent people? Or, hell, even making sure that we have the actual guilty criminals behind bars and not continuing their crimes on our streets? Why is it that it sure as hell seems prosecutors are a lot more interested in adding another victory notch to their belt on their way to running for higher office than justice?
I've read this piece by Brian Dickerson and I'm honestly not sure what point he's making about the tea party--I'm not even sure it's necessarily your usual mainstream media goop about the tea party. Outwardly, he is discussing the success of the tea party and its seeming lack of leaders, but is he subtly questioning this assumption? How come he never made mention of the New Yorker's Jane Mayer's piece about the Koch brothers' stealth financial support of the tea party? How come there was no mention of Dick Armey's Freedomworks and their behind the scenes structuring of the tea party? No idea, but I have a feeling he missed a good opportunity to educate his readers.
Quote of the week: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Often attributed to the first American Literature Nobel Laureate, Sinclair Lewis (interesting discussion of the source of the quote here), has anyone seen or heard a quote that better sums up the tea party ("Fucking idiots!" doesn't count)? Check this out for its "newfound" ties to the religious right....
Peace,
emaycee
Woo-Hoo!
A very beautiful thing happened today--despite its flaws, despite our disappointment, some very good pieces of the Affordable Care Act went into effect today, including one that benefits my family personally: if I choose to leave my shit job tomorrow, whatever company hires me will not be able to have its health insurance company deny coverage to the Beautiful Boy because he has a pre-existing condition. To which I have one thought: biiiitttttccccchhhhhinnnnnnn'.
Oh, and one other short thought: fuck the health insurance industry!
Peace,
emaycee
Oh, and one other short thought: fuck the health insurance industry!
Peace,
emaycee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
