Cell phone users and texters need to grow up

When someone says they are having trouble shaking an addiction to perpetual use of their cell phone or texting, especially while driving, you have to question their propensity toward mental analysis.  In other words, they are a fruitcake.  It becomes even worse when they compare this craving to that of cigarettes or alcohol, which clearly places them in the category of the feeble-minded.  Sorry, but if these people have learned that little discipline in their life, it’s pretty sad.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this last week recommended a complete ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving and this prompted outcries such as the above.  Although it is only a recommendation and states must pass their individual laws, it might be a good thing if the federal government considered such a law.  According to the NTSB, “at any given daylight moment” there are 13.5 million drivers on hand-held phones.  Sometimes it seems they are all right in front of you, right?

The Board also reports that there are 3,092 fatalities on the roadway caused by distracted drivers, a figure which could be underestimated due to reporting methods and drivers who won’t admit what they have done.  "This (distracted driving) is becoming the new DUI. It's becoming epidemic," says the NTSB’s Robert Sumwait.  But everyone agrees that laws are not the only answer; there must be a massive educational campaign to convince the hard-noses.  If you want to compare this with cigarette addiction, education helped reduce smokers.

The straw that broke the cell phone’s back was a 2010 chain-reaction accident close to Gray Summit, Missouri involving a truck, a tractor trailer and two school buses.  The idiot driver of the pickup had sent and received 11 text messages in the 11 minutes prior to the crash.  It’s almost like he didn’t have his eyes on the road at all during this period.  Two people, including the truck driver were killed, 38 others injured.  The driver of the pickup was 19 and was at the time breaking a Missouri law that prohibits drivers under age 21 from texting while driving.



The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that a “safety-critical event” while driving was 163 times more likely to happen if the driver was texting, e-mailing or surfing the Internet.  Right now there are laws on the books in 35 states that ban text-messaging while driving, 30 that ban cell phone use by “novices,” and 10 that ban all use of hand-held cell phones.  Cell phone companies have successfully lobbied in many states to block these laws and will undoubtedly fight the NTSB recommendation.

Do you know anyone who doesn’t own a cell phone?  In most cases if we did, they would probably be in a coma.  They’re everywhere, and with over 4 percent of the U.S. population—doesn’t sound like much but it’s 13.5 million people—on their cell phone at any moment while they are driving, just how coincidental would it be if one of these distracted lamebrains were to rear-end your car at a red light?  

Socializing on the phone, which probably accounts for much of the activity, should come under the heading of “duh” I really shouldn’t do that.  Doing business; why not wait until you get to the nearest Starbucks?  An emergency is different but in most cases you can pull off the road.

The NTSB knows they have a fight on their hands and an already dysfunctional Congress is not likely to listen to the Agency, at least until after the 2012 elections.  The question is, how many more deaths, many of whom will be innocent drivers, will occur by then?  One thing is for sure; the NTSB will be keeping a record of incidents.

Read more here.

House Speaker Boehner freaks out on payroll tax cut. Is Tea Party to blame?



Speaker John Boener

 It was a slam dunk with a vote in the Senate of 89 to 10 to pass the two-month extension on the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits, also including a deal on the Keystone XL pipeline.  But House Speaker Boehner caved to the Republican caucus that Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer described as “…a small group at the extreme…try to dictate every move this nation makes.”  This sounds like Tea Party extremists to me, and once again Boehner has reneged on an agreement.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor

Everyone involved agreed it wasn’t the best and should have instead been a plan to carry these programs through for a full year.  But Boehner had earlier left it to Senate leaders to come up with a deal, one that even Republican Mitch McConnell was in favor of.  But conservative extremists, apparently led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, turned their wrath on Boehner who once again changed his mind and went with the flow.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Schumer question Boehner and the GOP’s ability to lead.

Reid has said repeatedly that the Dems. have supported the two-month deal because “that was the best we could get.”  A statement that seems to reflect a combination of the willingness to negotiate with Republicans—completely contrary to the latter’s refusal to raise taxes—and some degree of weakness that must be turned around soon if progressives are to win control of this country.  It has to start from the top down and we haven’t seen much of that from President Obama.

It is also clear that the GOP is insisting on including the pipeline issue in any payroll tax legislation because they back the oil industry as is the case with any big business.  This, even though there is some credible concern by environmentalists and the state of Nebraska where the pipeline is scheduled to cross.  But politics aside, it is incomprehensible that conservatives would make this demand in light of its opposition possibly scuttling the passage of the whole payroll tax bill, just to support the corporate world.

 

So what can you expect if the payroll tax bill is not passed?  A cancellation of the program means that individuals will pay from $700 with a salary of $35,000 to $2,341 if you earn $110,000 and up, the maximum.  But there are some questions re. just how much a continuation will spur the economy.  There are those who believe, because it takes such a broad sweep in income, there is not enough emphasis on low and middle-income households which are most likely to do the most spending in the marketplace.

But this whole fiasco is just another example of a dysfunctional government that has now taken on a life of its own.  These morons in Congress walk around in a state of denial, in delusions of grandeur actually believing what they are doing is right.  Power is king and being reelected the only goal of their actions.  However, if they think this goes unnoticed, the Pew Research Center shows discontent with Congress at record levels.  Right now two-thirds of voters believe lawmakers should be voted out of office in 2012.  Amen!

Church condemns interracial marriage then repents

A Kentucky Baptist church voted to ban interracial couples from attending their services.  This was all prompted by a nice couple, Stella Harville, who played the piano in the church and who is white, and her fiancé, Ticha Chikuni, a black from Zimbabwe, who had sung at the church the day they were booted. 



Stella and Ticha

 After the service one of the redneck members came up to Stella’s father, Dan Harville, a member for decades, and said, “Susie and her boyfriend are not allowed to sing in this church anymore.”  He added, “Furthermore, Susie can take her fella back where she found him from.”

Kentucky is my birth state but it is a part of the South, and racism is still prevalent in that part of the country.  Of course this is true all across the U.S. these days and it seems to be getting worse, not better.  It has been 47 years since the Civil Rights Act was enacted on July 2, 1964, so I decided to do some research on Wikipedia to determine just what this epic legislation was designed to do. 

It clearly spells out the fact that you can’t do what the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, Kentucky did.



The bill outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation.  It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public.  It was the dream of John F. Kennedy, but ramrodded through Congress by then President Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s assassination.

The legislation was challenged in both the House and the Senate, in the latter by the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) who launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.  Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) fought the bill until the end when four other senators came up with a compromise piece of legislation that was finally passed in July of 1964.

So is the American public still not ready for interracial marriages?  If not you had better get ready because they have soared since the 1980s, according to the Pew Research Center, accounting for nearly one in seven of all U.S. marriages.  President Barack Obama is the product of a black father and a white mother, which many feel accounts for those who claim to dislike his politics.  An important Pew finding was that the 18 to 29 age group has an 85 percent acceptability rate for interracial marriages.

That is interesting thinking back to growing up in a South where I would constantly butt heads with racists, even KKK members, who not only said I should get out of the South, but some added threats if I didn’t.  It was the young turks like me that refused to conform.  The point here is that Pew claims interracial marriages are important to examine since they could be a barometer for race relations, and these seem to have deteriorated again since the election of President Obama, and the fight now over the immigration issue.

What happened to the “melting pot” ideology?

Is Arizona the hub for turning out the Hispanic vote nationally in 2012?

All of a sudden President Obama is interested in Arizona.  He probably wrote it off in 2008 running against home grown John McCain, but he might have viewed the state in a different way had the Hispanic population been the factor then it is projected to be in 2012.  Activists are popping up everywhere and drives are active to get Latinos registered to vote.  With former State Sen. Russell Pearce, the racist who authored SB-1070 voted out of office, there is hope.   

Arizona’s Hispanic voting-age population has jumped from 455,000 nine years ago to 845,000 today, 19 percent of the state’s population eligible to vote.  These are daunting numbers when you consider just how much mock Gov. Jan Brewer and her lackeys in the Arizona’s legislature have pissed off Latinos.  One recent show of force was indicated by Hispanic firefighter Daniel Valenzuela beating a white businesswoman for a spot on the Phoenix City Council.  Latinos also played a big part in the defeat of Russell Pearce.

Obama’s chances to get the majority of the Hispanic vote is enhanced by the continued inflexible position Republican candidates are taking against Latinos.  With Arizona as the center of the anti-immigration movement, and the GOP firmly entrenched in its similar stance, plus rejuvenated movers and shakers out there touting the anti-immigration rhetoric, there’s little doubt that Hispanics will be fired up in 2012.

 

And then there’s Richard Carmona, a former U.S. surgeon general in President George W. Bush's administration, an Independent supported by Pres. Obama, running to fill Sen. Jon Kyl’s vacated seat.  If the map that has been presented by the Arizona Redistricting Commission stays in place, the fairer districts, according to everyone but Republicans, will give the Dems. a shot at U.S. Representative seats. 

Taking Arizona in 2012 is not really that far-fetched considering Obama won 45 percent of the state running against McCain in 2008.  But there are still the economics of the upcoming election and people’s financial situation plus continuing joblessness will affect the President, although the unemployment rate has dropped recently to 8.6 percent nationally.

Democrats are hoping to register approximately 300,000 new Latinos to vote prior to November 2012.  Add to that the 400,000 already registered already and you have a formidable force.  If they can be convinced to vote.  Even if they are legal in Arizona some Hispanics are still scared to stand up against the likes of Russell Pearce who still has plenty of anti-immigrant followers.

One bright spot, Colorado, by the grace of former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo’s drive to alienate Latinos in his state, was able to sign up 225,000 new Hispanics who voted in the 2008 election turning the state from red to blue.  Within 6 months of fake Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signing anti-immigration law SB-1070 in 2010, 43,000 new Latinos were registered to vote in Colorado.  Obama would love to see a blue Arizona but am sure he would settle for the color purple.

Will Congress adjourn without extending payroll tax and unemployment compensation?



Pres. Obama, Speaker Boehner

While the two houses bicker over how to pay for the tax cuts with one relentless on not raising taxes, millions of Americans cannot enjoy their holidays with the thought that 2012 will only bring more financial problems.  The payroll tax cut covers 160 million Americans, and the extended unemployment compensation 6 million.  The former could cut at least $1,000 from the average paycheck next year and the latter would eliminate $300 from average monthly unemployment benefits.

If Congress takes no action, this will cancel some $165 billion from the economy in 2012.  All because we have a band of dysfunctional legislative morons in Washington.  And folks we put them there but we can remove them in 2012.  And there is an additional issue of heading off the scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors next year, something that could affect future medical care to seniors.

According to CNN Money, the Democrats want a tax on millionaires producing $155 billion over 10 years.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charging mortgage lenders more; estimated revenue $38 billion.  Ban millionaires from receiving unemployment benefits and food stamps saving $127 billion over ten years.

Republicans would limit pay and the size of the federal workforce plus a 3-year extension on the current 2-year freeze on pay for civilian employees and members of Congress.  This would save $222 billion over 10 years.  Also they would only extend the pay freeze for another year, saving $26 billion over 10 years.  Changing the rules for retirement for federal civilian retirees would save $37 billion over 10 years.  Charge millionaires more for Medicare saving $9.2 billion over 10 years.  And increase premiums on high income households by 15 percent saving $31 billion over 10 years.



There is more but the above is the substance of where the left and the right are coming from.  The Dems concentrating on the inequities of wealth in the private and corporate sectors for revenue.  The GOP placing the burden on the backs of the middle class federal workforce, except for concessions on congressional pay raises and Medicare payments for the rich that are already blatantly obvious.

Republicans in Congress are daring Democrats to scuttle their bill that they claim comes to the aid of the middle class.  Eric Cantor (R) Virginia, bases this on tax cuts and job creation he claims is built into the GOP legislation.  It is all but certain the bill will fail in the Democrat controlled Senate.

So back to the original question.  Will this inept body be able to salvage the future of the American working public or will they go home for Christmas each laying the blame on the other side?  If this happens, they will have to face the voter’s Grinch in 2012.

Did CBS’ “60 Minutes” bolster Pres. Obama’s tax on wealthy?

My suspicious mind has gotten me in trouble before, but don’t you think it might be just a little more than coincidental that "60 Minutes" combined Barack Obama’s interview this past Sunday with billionaire Warren Buffett?  The Warren Buffett who said he thinks millionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, supporting the President’s plan to raise revenue through a fairer share from the wealthy.  The Warren Buffett who engendered backing from other fellow patriotic millionaires to ease the plight on middle income Americans through fairer taxes.

Warren Buffett with Pres. Obama 

The President announced recently that “some of the wealthiest” pay a considerably smaller rate as a percentage of their taxes than those with less income.  Specifically, 25 percent of millionaires pay a tax rate that is below that of the middle-class.  There are even some billionaires with a tax rate as low as 1 percent.  With Buffett’s approach, some 25 percent of the very high income group could be affected.  Grover Norquist has been squirming since Warren Buffett started his crusade, and must have lost his dinner after the CBS “60 Minutes.”

This whole brouhaha results from the fact that many rich Americans’ incomes come from tax investments that are taxed at a lower rate than the average Joe and Jane’s salaries.  When you combine that with additional perfectly legal tax loopholes, these tycoons’ tax rates dip even lower.  Many of us get tax breaks such as mortgage interest deductions, savings for retirement and capital gains or losses.  But it is entirely possible that we will have to give up these shelters in response to raising taxes on the wealthy to balance out the inequity.

Obama has stated that the rich can chip away at their tax burden and that is “the height of unfairness.”  So enter the Buffett Rule named after billionaire Warren Buffett who has made it clear to Congress that the wealthy should be taxed more.  His appeal continues to fall on deaf ears because no one is willing to cross Norquist and the pledge the GOP made to him to raise no taxes.

In a recent survey by CBS News/NYT, the question was asked to the American public, “Should million-dollar households get tax increase?”  Here are the results:

          All     Reps    Dems Inds

Yes    65%  38%      80%    68% 

No      30     59         16       25

With an overwhelming majority of people wanting this tax increase, even 38 percent of Republicans, it is hard to understand how the GOP can stick to their pledge.  Their excuse that it will slow the economy has been refuted by some top economists due to the long-range nature of the tax increase, and the only other opposition would be the fear of taxing those Republicans who donate the most to their reelection campaigns.

 

President Obama put it simply on “60 Minutes;” the GOP took a look at an economy in the tank, created by George W. Bush’s administration and his rightist minions, and decided to do nothing during Obama’s four years until they could elect their own president.  From the ilk of the current Republicans running in the primary, they made a bad decision.  But hopefully the American voter won’t forget this scheming chicanery in 2012.

Read more here.

What does being an Independent really mean?

Jackie Salit, Pres. CUIP

When the Independent voting movement began to get wind in its sails, a group called the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) was formed and has become the spokespeople for those who don’t wish to be connected to either political party.  There are a lot of those folks these days and the ranks have swollen to 40 percent of the voting public.  They have helped decide recent elections and will continue to do so in the future.  The big question for most of us is what do they look like?

According to Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications for CUIP, The Washington Post called them “The Misunderstood Independent.”  If you were a former Democrat, you might have joined the group because they sounded like a bunch of progressives.  If coming from the Republican side, you might have imagined the makeup was more conservative.  Well, it’s neither, at least in specificity, rather a formerly meandering crowd of disgruntled voters that found their way with the amazingly simple designation of Independent.



CUIP was there to pick up the pieces and mold these wanderers into a meaningful body of serious voters that are passionate about their country, but have demands that don’t neatly fit into the Dems or GOP framework.  CUIP has not pursued a third party and there is no central manifesto on which they operate.  You have to learn to understand this philosophy or trying to figure out an Independent will drive you crazy.  Pew Research says it is Americans trying to ditch the kind of partisanship that has brought Congress’ approval rating to the lowest ever. 

If you look at the Pew study, "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology,” it makes it clear that Independents aren’t the center of the American political system; they are in fact a contradictory band of individuals who have strong beliefs that they want to see materialize in Washington.  And they don’t feel the job is getting done by either Republicans or Democrats.  Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic quotes Vincent Hutchings, professor of political science at the U. of Michigan, as breaking down Independents one-third each Democrat, Republican and true independent.

Lyons of CUIP says Pew came up with the same findings they have during their organization of Independents over the years:  “Independents are not in the middle between Democrats and Republicans. Rather, they want to move beyond the confines of parties altogether.”  She adds: “independents are attuned to the fact that partisanship is not a behavioral issue—it is a structural one.”  They are questioning the very structure of the current political system and want to do something about it.  Like adding open primaries and nonpartisan elections.

But if the Independent threat in their numbers is meant to change Congress from its dysfunctional state, it has failed so far.  At least on the GOP side that refuses to even consider raising taxes on the rich.  An interesting recent survey came up with the fact that more than two-thirds of Americans want to increase taxes on the wealthy, including a majority of Republicans.  Even larger numbers feel that Medicare and Social Security should remain untouched.  If I was the GOP, and I mean at every level of office in this country, I would be scared to death.  But the question, of course, is will these people vote their opinions or fall back into the rut of backing a comfortable incumbent?

The movement to remove members of Congress in-mass is a valid cry for help from the American public.  All 435 House members and one-third of Senators are up for reelection every two years.  We have a chance to knock off all of the House and a third of the Senate in 2012.  If we don’t complete the job next year, there’s still 2014 to get the rest of the House and another third of the Senate.  Maybe even put some Independents in office.  By then if we haven’t scared these morons in Washington and convinced them who they are working for, we finish the job in 2016.