The anti-gun Republicans continue to make Indy residents sitting ducks for criminals by denying the citizens their right to keep and bear arms.
Dave Clark, a 60-year old Indy resident, was attacked on the Monon Trail, near Kessler, on Tuesday. As is well known to criminals, Republican Mayor Greg Ballard prevents people from carrying guns on the Monon, making the citizens easy prey for the criminal thugs.
It's time we all stopped thinking of Republicans as pro gun. They're not. They only pander to us when they want our vote. Being "pro-gun" means not voting Republican. All gun owners must send a message to anti-gun Ballard by not reelecting him in 2011.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Our Runaway Military
Good article by David Hoppe at Nuvo. He accurately notes that the military has become a parallel government.
David closes by quickly pondering what Americans most want the role of President to be, chief executive of the government or commander-in-chief of the military. David has bumped into a tremendously important question that deserves its own exposition.
For so many of the phony Conservatives, it seems the primary role of the President is to be in charge of the military, a task denied any peacetime President. For our extensive legions, whether serving or retired, glory comes through combat, and without combat, their particular form of government employment loses its bragging rights.
If David listens closely to what today's Conservative says in private, he'll get an answer to his question, an answer that will terrify all those who believe in civilian control of the military and use of the military only for those rare moments when America is attacked.
David closes by quickly pondering what Americans most want the role of President to be, chief executive of the government or commander-in-chief of the military. David has bumped into a tremendously important question that deserves its own exposition.
For so many of the phony Conservatives, it seems the primary role of the President is to be in charge of the military, a task denied any peacetime President. For our extensive legions, whether serving or retired, glory comes through combat, and without combat, their particular form of government employment loses its bragging rights.
If David listens closely to what today's Conservative says in private, he'll get an answer to his question, an answer that will terrify all those who believe in civilian control of the military and use of the military only for those rare moments when America is attacked.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The War Party Spreads More Evil
Liz Cheney, the current nepotistic darling of the big-government Republicans, has been sent on a mission to spread disinformation about Michael Steele's honest and accurate conclusion that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.
Cheney is calling for Steele's resignation because Steele dared to speak the truth to the world about the raison d'etre of the War Party. The great Ron Paul has come to Steele's defense, and Paul should be joined by all people who appreciate the truly destructive nature of war. Steele should also be assured that the Republicans are not a monolithic bloc of hateful troglodytes who cheer the latest episode of war to quench their bloodlust.
Of course, Steele is correct in his analysis. When was the last time you received a clear definition of "winning" from the politicians? When they come anywhere near such a definition, do their objectives strike you as attainable? Of course, not. As a basic political fact, Afghanis want no governmental export from the United States. Our governance is foreign to them and will ultimately be rejected by them. As our attempts to force our government on them are foolish and will never take, America has a convenient reason to stay in Afghanistan, forever, as we press our futile attempt to get them to accept the political system we'd wish they'd have.
America is now engaged in perpetual war for perpetual peace, as Vidal cautioned. We should all be more demanding of her politicians. We deserve answers to some basic questions: When can we stop the loss of American and Afghani life, and when can we stop the pointless expenditure of billions of dollars we squander to prosecute this exercise in futlity? In a more prickly question, do Americans value the loss of an Afghan life as equal to the loss of an American life?
This adoration of a standing military and perpetual war makes the Republican Party absolutely intolerable to those who advocate limited government and fiscal austerity and want to have America be thought of favorably in the world. At the close of WWII, America couldn't have been more revered in the world. Currently, however, we're a thug country, a dangerous bully, a country with a short temper that engages in wars for resources.
The Republican Party used to be a strongly anti-war party who counseled war only when the country was under attack. These pro-war advocates are not, in any way, "conservative." They're social meddlers on a global scale who preach limited government only toward domestic spending programs such as public transportation and welfare which are quite cheap, as government programs go, certainly as compared to war.
It's O.K. to be Republican and anti-war. If more Republicans demanded the end of the war and an end to our stationing of troops around the world, we'd make some progress toward reducing the deficit and debt. Further, the party that advertises itself as the champion of "limited government" might reclaim a bit of credibility on the subject.
Cheney is calling for Steele's resignation because Steele dared to speak the truth to the world about the raison d'etre of the War Party. The great Ron Paul has come to Steele's defense, and Paul should be joined by all people who appreciate the truly destructive nature of war. Steele should also be assured that the Republicans are not a monolithic bloc of hateful troglodytes who cheer the latest episode of war to quench their bloodlust.
Of course, Steele is correct in his analysis. When was the last time you received a clear definition of "winning" from the politicians? When they come anywhere near such a definition, do their objectives strike you as attainable? Of course, not. As a basic political fact, Afghanis want no governmental export from the United States. Our governance is foreign to them and will ultimately be rejected by them. As our attempts to force our government on them are foolish and will never take, America has a convenient reason to stay in Afghanistan, forever, as we press our futile attempt to get them to accept the political system we'd wish they'd have.
America is now engaged in perpetual war for perpetual peace, as Vidal cautioned. We should all be more demanding of her politicians. We deserve answers to some basic questions: When can we stop the loss of American and Afghani life, and when can we stop the pointless expenditure of billions of dollars we squander to prosecute this exercise in futlity? In a more prickly question, do Americans value the loss of an Afghan life as equal to the loss of an American life?
This adoration of a standing military and perpetual war makes the Republican Party absolutely intolerable to those who advocate limited government and fiscal austerity and want to have America be thought of favorably in the world. At the close of WWII, America couldn't have been more revered in the world. Currently, however, we're a thug country, a dangerous bully, a country with a short temper that engages in wars for resources.
The Republican Party used to be a strongly anti-war party who counseled war only when the country was under attack. These pro-war advocates are not, in any way, "conservative." They're social meddlers on a global scale who preach limited government only toward domestic spending programs such as public transportation and welfare which are quite cheap, as government programs go, certainly as compared to war.
It's O.K. to be Republican and anti-war. If more Republicans demanded the end of the war and an end to our stationing of troops around the world, we'd make some progress toward reducing the deficit and debt. Further, the party that advertises itself as the champion of "limited government" might reclaim a bit of credibility on the subject.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Daniels Increases Costs By Turning Public Property into a For-Profit Business
This is what happens when you sell off public property to people who want to run it for profit, instead of at cost. Tolls have now risen 89% on the Indiana Toll Road, now owned by Cintra of Spain.
From the Indianapolis Star:
"MERRILLVILLE, Ind. -- Drivers using the Indiana Toll Road started shelling out more cash for fares Thursday as rates went up for the first time in two years.
Tolls have increased by 89% in the four years since Mitch sold off the Toll Road. Drivers will never have a passable alternative to the Toll Road, allowing drivers to participate in a free market for roads, since the contract signed with Cintra forbids alternative routes from being built or improved.
If Daniels would have allowed the Toll Road to impose rate increases, instead of phonily saying that rates could not be increased, then these rate increases would have been imposed by the State to cover the actual costs of the road. The Public would have been furious to see a profit being made from its travels. Mitch found a way around public accountability. Presently, Cintra is raising toll rates to to recoup its investment of $3.85 billion that it paid to the State, and they are raising rates earn their profit, both at the expense of drivers' pockets. All Mitch did with the sale of the Toll Road was to impose a massive tax on drivers and shift citizen dollars to the government and private industry, all while tiptoeing around the public ire for being known as the guy who raised taxes. Not surprisingly, most Republicans love this proto-Fascism.
How does it benefit a citizen to have the public treasury receive $3.85 B for a public asset, only to be forced to repay that $3.85 billion to a private company, while being forced to pay higher use charges for the public asset? This deal is a massive net loss for each citizen.
This bad deal is crony capitalism and corporatism, at its worst.
From the Indianapolis Star:
"MERRILLVILLE, Ind. -- Drivers using the Indiana Toll Road started shelling out more cash for fares Thursday as rates went up for the first time in two years.
The cost for cars to drive the 157-mile road from Illinois to Ohio went from $8 to $8.80.
It's the second rate increase since the state leased the Toll Road to a private company. In 2008, the price to go the full length of the road went from $4.65 to $8 for drivers paying cash."
Don't look for Cintra to lay off the toll increases:
Tolls have increased by 89% in the four years since Mitch sold off the Toll Road. Drivers will never have a passable alternative to the Toll Road, allowing drivers to participate in a free market for roads, since the contract signed with Cintra forbids alternative routes from being built or improved.
If Daniels would have allowed the Toll Road to impose rate increases, instead of phonily saying that rates could not be increased, then these rate increases would have been imposed by the State to cover the actual costs of the road. The Public would have been furious to see a profit being made from its travels. Mitch found a way around public accountability. Presently, Cintra is raising toll rates to to recoup its investment of $3.85 billion that it paid to the State, and they are raising rates earn their profit, both at the expense of drivers' pockets. All Mitch did with the sale of the Toll Road was to impose a massive tax on drivers and shift citizen dollars to the government and private industry, all while tiptoeing around the public ire for being known as the guy who raised taxes. Not surprisingly, most Republicans love this proto-Fascism.
How does it benefit a citizen to have the public treasury receive $3.85 B for a public asset, only to be forced to repay that $3.85 billion to a private company, while being forced to pay higher use charges for the public asset? This deal is a massive net loss for each citizen.
This bad deal is crony capitalism and corporatism, at its worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)