Daily Archives: January 26, 2010

Seriously fucked-up national priorities

Yahoo! News reports today:

With the president’s State of the Union address coming up on Wednesday, the White House appears to be struggling to find its feet. Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory in liberal Massachusetts has dominated the national conversation in the last week and made Obama’s goal of signing health care reform impossible before the big speech.

Now, even Obama’s apparent attempt to soothe voters’ budget-deficit concerns by proposing a three-year freeze on some federal spending is being met with ridicule from both the right and the left.

The plan Obama will propose breaks down as follows:

  • Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition and national parks.
  • Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and foreign aid.

The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3 percent of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.

Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country’s economic problems…. Liberals aren’t happy either, arguing that less government spending will slow economic growth, and that cutting government services will harm those in need.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the freeze “a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for.” … 

Agreed. The Obama administration is so beholden to the military-industrial complex — of which the Israel-first lobby is a huge part* — that it would be exempt from a federal spending freeze.

Make no mistake: the Repugnicans are fine with taxing and spending — as long as those tax revenues goes to the war profiteers (most of whom are stupid rich white men) and not to the things that the American people actually need.

The federal budget deficit hit a record fucking high under George W. Bush because of the unelected Bush regime’s looting of the U.S. Treasury via its bogus war in Vietraq. The wingnuts made not a peep of this reckless spending that put the nation’s economy in the toilet.

But when the Obama admininistration wants to give some poor schoolkids some free or reduced-cost school lunches, that’sgasp! — socialism! Because slaughtering children abroad (nip those little “Islamofascist” “terrorists” in the bud!) is a much higher national priority than is taking care of our children here at home, obviously.

So successful has the military-industrial complex’s self-perpetuating propaganda been that Obama is afraid to take the complex on, although he has claimed that he didn’t become president just to kick our most pressing problems into the future.

Well, some U.S. president sometime — and sooner rather than later — needs to confront the bloated military-industrial complex and say: Enough!

Yes, we need national security. I’m all for national security.

But I vehemently oppose bombing and occupying foreign nations that not only never did anything to the United States but couldn’t even have done anything to the United States only in order to inflame anti-American hatred — only in order to ensure that we have plenty of enemies to ensure bullshit justification for the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex’s mega-budget.

These traitors of the military-industrial complex make us more unsafe by unnecessarily creating even more enemies abroad and then screaming about all of our enemies abroad from whom they have to save us. This is what Big Brother did in George Orwell’s 1984: ensure a constant supply of enemies, fake or real, to justify stealing the people’s resources from them, induce them to tolerate going without because supposedly their government was using the lion’s share of its — of their — resources to protect them from imagined or real harm from without.

(The wingnuts’ propaganda has been so successful that many Americans are terrified of things that would help them — such as health care reform — but don’t think twice about the fact that the nation’s wealth is being funneled to a bloated military-industrial complex, since the thieves can’t empty the U.S. Treasury outright.)

If you are as pissed off about our woefully misplaced national spending priorities as I am, you can go to TrueMajority.org to “tell Congress not to clap when Obama proposes [during his State of the Union speech] spending $100 billion on the war in Afghanistan while freezing spending on everything else.”

Maybe, if Obama says during his speech that we need to put these additional billions and billions of our dollars into bogus wars for the war profiteers, some sane member of Congress will yell: “You lie!”

*Israel is the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid; apparently the Repugnicans want the Israeli children, not American children, to get those free or reduced-cost school lunches…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Social Darwinism does NOT apply to the poor CHILDREN among us

FILE - In a Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 file photo, S.C. Lt. Gov.Andre ...

Associated Press photo

Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer apparently is a believer in eugenics for the poor among us. You know, just like Jesus was. Jesus always said about the poor: “You gotta nip ’em in the bud!” (Look it up. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere...)

Memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: Zac Efron wants his face back.

Second memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: WTF?

No, really. Everyone is focusing on your recently having compared the poor to “stray animals” that, if we feed them, only “breed.” That kind of talk from a Repugnican doesn’t shock me. It’s from the Nazi playbook: First relegate a group of human beings to subhuman status, and then you can justify oppressing them.

And I myself believe that we have an overpopulation problem. However, I don’t single out any certain class of human beings for extinction by starvation, like you do. Not even the Repugnicans do I single out for such treatment, although I’m confident that the species and the planet — and hell, the universe — would be much better off without them.

What really gets me, Loooootenant, is your apparent “logic” that poor children have lower academic performance because they get free or reduced-cost meals at school.

You said this:

“I can show you a bar graph where the free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina. You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.”

Unless I cannot understand simple English, Zac, your “argument” seems to be that if we give schoolkids free or reduced lunches, their test scores will go down. Don’t feed ’em, and their test scores will go up! Duh! It’s a no-brainer! Gotta make those lazy kids work for it! Kids these days! They have no work ethic! They think there’s such a thing as a free lunch!

This is the comment of yours, Zac, that is getting people riled up:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem. If you give an animal or a person ample food supply, they will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that….”

But I find your comment apparently correlating the availability of free or reduced-cost school lunches to low school test scores to be even more ludicrous.

To be fair, and not to be a hypocrite, I don’t give the homeless adults in my neighborhood any money because I know — I know — that they’ll only use it for alcohol or cigarettes or drugs. I even have instructed people visiting me in my ’hood not to “feed the bears.”

Truth be told, I don’t want alcoholic or junkie homeless people in my ’hood. And by giving them even pocket change I don’t want to give them incentive to stay in my ’hood and continue to panhandle.

I do blame their lot largely for the fact that our tax dollars go to human greed — to such traitors as the war profiteers like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton — instead of to human needs. I’ve lived where I live since 2001, and every year that the unelected BushCheneyCorp was in office, the numbers of homeless people I’ve seen in my neighborhood climbed annually.

Still, these homeless people — like the one alcoholic guy who kept sleeping on my porch (thanks, BushCheneyCorp!) — can be problematic, and no, truthfully, I don’t want them in my neighborhood; what I want is for my tax dollars to go toward helping them instead of to bogus wars for the military-industrial complex. 

But these homeless people are adults.

You, Lt. Gov. Efron, are against aiding poor children. Children.

No matter how good a child’s parent or parents may or may not be, you don’t punish the child for the child’s parent(s).

Zac, I understand your Repugnicans’ love of social Darwinism. You don’t want the masses to correctly conclude that it is because of the greed of the rich and the super-rich and the exploitation of the working class and the poor by the rich and the super-rich that we have so many poor people in the United States of America.

The rich and the super-rich fear an uprising of the have-nots. (They look at places like Venezuela, which has had a real revolution, with sheer terror.) Therefore, the rich and the super-rich blame the poor for being poor.

And they pay their spokesnakes, such as Glenn Asscrack and Rush Blowhard and Sarah Palin-Quayle, to put the message out there that it’s the poor people’s own damned fault that they’re poor. Even the poor children, too, according to you, Zac.

Lt. Gov. Efron, to clarify: Children don’t do poorly in school because they get free or reduced-cost lunches, if that is the point that you were trying to make. They tend to do poorly in school if they come from poverty-striken households, however. Their parents may not have had the education to be able to help their children very much, and their parents may not be able to afford things like books or other educational materials for the home. Working single parents may have little time and energy with which to help their children with school. 

Our mission — as Americans and as Christians, if we call ourselves Christians — is to help poor children, not to deny them free or reduced-cost school lunches, a la Ebenezer Scrooge.  

To suggest otherwise is unAmerican and unChristian.

I wholeheartedly support birth control. Abstinence clearly isn’t doing the trick. We get all of these immaculate conceptions even with abstinence. As I said, we need to reduce our population (by attrition; down, boy!). I’ve even used the term “breeder” myself to describe someone who irresponsibly brings a child into this already-overpopulated world.

But I don’t discriminate based upon socioeconomic class. Everyone needs to think twice about reproducing these days. Everyone.

But those children who already are here: We need to take care of them. Regardless of how we might judge their parents.

Only a Repugnican would assert otherwise.

I hope that your political career is over, Zac. Really, you deserve it.

P.S. The Associated Press notes that Bauer, age 40, was “a child of divorce who benefited from free [school] lunches himself.” That’s precious.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized