Sunday, October 31, 2010



It was last year during one of those now infamous TOWN HALL MEETINGS where the elected representative wanted to meet with people in his district and have a meaningful exchange of ideas and feedback from his constituents that this woman in the back of the room rose and tearfully went into a diatribe about how she was afraid and her voice cracking with anguish and pain declared “they are taking away my America”

I will not forget that although I have forgotten which Town Hall meeting it was and exactly when it happened because there have been so many others just like that encounter that it is all melding together into one big, incoherent message that resonates with Teahadists and which Republicans are not willing to repudiate.

It is one of the many askew and repugnant signs of that old ugly snake raising its head: the snake of racism, intolerance, xenophobia, homophobia and religious fanaticism. Only these Teahadists don’t really know it, they are sadly, too ignorant to realize that this is really the issue as they carry a flag with another snake that reads: “don’t tread on me”

To “take back America” from whom; take it back to where? I think that any of the Tea Baggers would be hard-pressed to answer those two basic questions. It is also one significant point that they want “LESS GOVERNMENT, SMALLER GOVERNMENT OR NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL”, they want “MORE FREEDOM”. And another one was: ‘LISTEN TO US”

It is then that you have to ask: Less government from what? From having regulations? Less government from interfering in our private sex lives? Less government to offer safety nets? What is it exactly what that less government entails?

You also question this mantra of “SMALLER GOVERNMENT” What in the hell are they talking about? “Government is too big” they will repeat like parrots. But our government is as big as it needs to be if you consider that we are arguably the number one super power in this world of ours. To have anything else is a defeatist, self-destructive outlook that would make our country a third rated, third world nation.

And then there is the beauty: “MORE FREEDOM” More freedom to do what? More freedom for whom? Are you now deprived of some freedom that you have to go out and carry a sign protesting that deprivation? Is there some freedom you stand to lose if your Tea Bag Party does not win? I dare say NO.

I would also like to say to these Teahadists: I will start LISTENING TO YOU when you have SOMETHING TO SAY.

In the blog

Terrance Heath puts it very eloquently: This is not your country. Nor is it mine. That we were born here, along with our forebears hardly matters. This has been the message of the Tea Party since its incorporation — and of conservatism itself for more than a generation — to anyone who doesn't' fit their demographic, in terms of race, religion, politics, etc.

It is most often expressed by the Tea Party's declared desire to "Take our country back." This is not your country. Nor is it mine. It's theirs, and they're "taking it back." This raises a few very important questions: "Who are they taking it from?", "Who are they taking it for?", and "How do they plan to take it?"

So, if you want to take back your America bear in mind that it is not yours to take because this is also my America, it is everybody’s America you stupid, racist, xenophobic douche bag. And I close with the insult which I feel is not even sufficiently harsh to express my disdain and repulsion for the Teahadists.

Saturday, October 30, 2010



It has become increasingly clear to me and many other people on the progressive side that these Teahadist-Republicans don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. They keep touting that they stand for FREEDOM. But my question is: Freedom from what? What kind of freedom don’t they have right now they wish to have? Which is the freedom they are missing or stand to lose?

My argument is simply this: if they are elected and eventually are successful in incorporating all their insane and radical measures we will actually have LESS FREEDOM. Gone will be the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of choosing your public representative and freedom to pursue happiness.

In its place we will have: forced religion and one that is based on erroneous interpretations of the Scriptures, we would also be missing the ability to read balanced news because all the “liberal media” will have been decimated; we would not have freedom of speech because if you went to a public event you would be either arrested or thrown on the ground and have your head stomped on.

Ah, yes, if you are a woman you will no longer have freedom over your own body…you have to relinquish that to the Federal Government. If you are gay you will no longer have the freedom to be who you are because there will be penalties.

So what is this FREEDOM these Teahadist-Republicans are talking about? Perhaps it is limited to the freedom of the rich and the corporations to milk us out of any and every dollar, to force a kind of dependency on them to be fed, housed and clothed and just like the old time COMPANY STORE we would always be owing more to the company at the end of the month.


Billy Roper is a write-in candidate for governor of Arkansas and an unapologetic white nationalist.

"I don't want non-whites in my country in any form or fashion or any status," he says.

Roper also is a tea party member who says he has been gathering support for his cause by attending tea party rallies.

"We go to these tea parties all over the country," Roper said. "We're looking for the younger, potentially more radical people."


Stop hurting America – you are not very patriotic

Four questions for Republicans...and four answers for undecided voters

by Jed Lewison

Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 08:16:03 AM PDT

[Such a good reminder, we're going to run it once every day until the election. Susan]


  1. What was the average monthly private sector job growth in 2008, the final year of the Bush presidency, and what has it been so far in 2010?
  1. What was the Federal deficit for the last fiscal year of the Bush presidency, and what was it for the first full fiscal year of the Obama presidency?
  1. What was the stock market at on the last day of the Bush presidency? What is it at today?
  1. Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform?


  1. In 2008, we lost an average of 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we have gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. (Source) That's a difference of nearly five million jobs between Bush's last year in office and President Obama's second year.
  1. In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In FY2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. (Source) Yes, that means President Obama has cut the deficit -- there's a long way to go, but we're in better shape now than we were under Bush and the GOP.
  1. On Bush's final day in office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 closed at 7,949, 1,440, and 805, respectively. Today, as of 10:15AM Pacific, they are at 11,108, 2,512, and 1,183. That means since President Obama took office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 have increased 40%, 74%, and 47%, respectively.
  1. The Republican Party, whose candidate for speaker, John Boehner, will campaign with Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott this weekend. If you need an explanation why this is offensive, you are a lost cause.

The moral of the story is this: if you vote Republican, I hope you enjoy Election Day -- because you're not going to like what comes next.”

I have taken this verbatim from an e-mail that was sent by

I think it leaves no doubt as to what these elections that will take place in two short days are all about. Teahadist-Republicans in their myopic resolve to regain power have resorted to some of the most odious and unprecedented attacks in the history of politics. Yet there are some people out there who will be gullible enough to believe them and the lies that Fox tells them.

Be careful what you wish for because if these nut jobs are elected we are all in for a bumpy ride, and that does not exclude you Teahadist-Republicans. Unless you are in that top 2% who is now the new ruling oligarchy you will be affected in some way or another or in all ways and completely. What is most amazing to some of us as we observe your behavior is that you are defending something that is immoral and will have a negative effect on our country and on you.

What makes you think that the rich and the corporations will part with their money to benefit you in any way? You don’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of so stop the hate and the spreading of lies.

This post originally appeared here on Friday, October 29.



But under no circumstances let these Republican-Tea-Baggers get away with the crap they have so far gotten away with and has produced a backlash of uneducated, misinformed, gullible marionettes that would go out to the streets carrying misspelled signs to support a rich class they will never be a part of and people who have no alternative solutions other than anarchy and the dismantling of our society.

People, please, listen to me…this is a plea from the heart…I have seen this once before in my native country. The Fidelistas were carrying on against government in much the same fashion that these Tea-baggers are doing in America today…they offered no alternatives, no ideas, no solutions…and ours was a corrupt, imperfect society and government just like in America.

However, we were not so divided in Cuba and the divisions were only along the economic classes …it was the very rich trying to be richer and keep the general population poor. Here in America we are also divided along color lines, economic classes, religious affiliation and ethnic origin. If that was not enough we are also divided in a homophobic struggle by the Evangelicals to force upon the rest of the population their askew interpretations of the Scriptures and the resolve to turn America into a theocracy.

Alan Grayson says:

“Isn't it about time that someone told the truth about the Ridiculous Right? The berserk, bizarre, bonkers, crazy, delirious, demented, drooling, farcical, flipped-out, lunatic, off-the-wall, nutty, unhinged, weird and wild psychos, dullards and tools who have taken over the Republican Party?

Not just tell the truth about Sharron "Obtuse" Angle. Not just tell the truth about Christine "Used To Be a Witch, But It Didn't Pay Well" O'Donnell. But tell the truth and expose someone who doesn't get all the national media, even though he's just as wacko as all the others?”

Think about it for a moment, take a deep breath and ask yourself if any of these radical right wing assholes would have been considered anything other than nuts in other times. How long is this crap going to continue? If this is the shape of things to come, please feel sorry for our nation…there is no light at the end of the tunnel…pray if you are religious and if you are not, fight like hell to prevent this from continuing to happen.



I remember it all too well; I was filled with excitement because after having been replaced by a computer from my technical illustrator job I had interviewed with Eastern Airlines and was hired on the spot. They needed somebody like myself who spoke several languages and I spoke four as well as having a college degree.

I was told to wait for the contract and all the paperwork in the mail the following week and I went home thinking that I was going to have a career with an airline…my dream of traveling and having a well paying job would come true.

I waited and nothing came in the mail; but I did see the news that Eastern was laying off hundreds of employees. Then the other shoe dropped: Eastern was bankrupt and would cease to exist. Everyone spoke about the reasons: some blamed the unions, other the competition for lower fares but one came across loud and clear…it was the actions of Frank Lorenzo that sealed the fate of the airline. Mr. Lorenzo played an active role in the US aviation industry, particularly after its deregulation in 1978. The Lorenzo team engineered the acquisition and turnaround of several carriers, as well as the start-up of New York Air, Inc., in 1980. In addition, in the 1980’s the team was responsible for the creation of the modern-day Continental Airlines with its well-located hubs and efficient cost structure.

The public, however, just wanted cheap fares. Unable to keep up, in 1986, Borman sold the airline to Frank Lorenzo. Under Lorenzo's tenure, Eastern was crippled by severe labor unrest. Asked to accept deep cuts in benefits, Eastern's machinists striked. Lorenzo sold Eastern's shuttle service to real estate magnate Donald Trump in 1989.

Unable to keep up, Borman agreed to the sale of the airline in 1986 to Texas Air, led by Frank Lorenzo. Lorenzo (who was named as one of Time Magazine's 10 "worst bosses of the century") was known as a ruthless corporate raider and union buster. He had already purchased Continental and lost a bidding war for TWA to Carl Icahn.

On January 13, 1982, Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into Washington, DC's 14th Street Bridge and fell into the Potomac River shortly after taking off. A total of 70 passengers, 4 crew, and 4 motorists on the bridge were killed. The crash was due to an anti-icing system being left off, which caused an inaccurately high engine pressure ratio (EPR) indication at an extremely low power setting, and the crew's failure to either abort the takeoff or apply maximum engine power. The crash prompted modifications to Air Florida's pilot training regarding anti-ice systems. The FAA also required revised aircraft de-icing procedures at airports.

The current Republican nominee for the United States Senate representing California. Fiorina served as chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 to 2005 and previously was an executive at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent. She currently serves on the boards of several organizations.

Fiorina was considered one of the most powerful women in business during her tenure at Lucent and Hewlett-Packard. The spinoff, from HP, of Agilent Technologies – which had been initiated by her predecessor, Lew Platt – was completed shortly after she joined the company in 1999. Under her leadership, in 2002, the company completed a contentious merger with rival computer company Compaq. In 2005, Fiorina resigned as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

HP wanted to use Compaq’s purchase of DEC in 1998 to give it some more advantages in the services field.

Unfortunately, the merger didn’t wind up going as smoothly as HP had hoped. So badly in fact, that it was one of the key reasons why then-CEO Carly Fiorina was driven from power and the company was nearly lead to a breakup. You can see how badly it went from some of the headlines on about HP since 2001:

What is not mentioned in any of the articles I have read so far both for Frank Lorenzo and Carly Fiorina is that both these CEOs walked away with millions of dollars from the dissolution of several airlines for Lorenzo and for Fiorina after she was driven from power.

You see, both Lorenzo and Fiorina were terrible CEOs…they were…shall we dare say…INCOMPETENT? But what they were good at was being LIQUIDATORS and in the process secured some very generous severance packages and golden parachutes.

Thousands of people lost their jobs due to the incompetence and greed of these individuals…would you vote for either one if they ran for office? Fiorina is is running.




My grandfather who was illiterate until his thirties when my grandmother who was a Columbia University graduate taught him how to read and write used to say that “Communism is very attractive when you see it written down on paper; but when put into practice it is an utter failure…why? Because it kills man’s incentive”

And a very wise man he was good old grandpa. When I think of the free enterprise system I think that it is ten times more desirable than communism. But when I see it at work in its purest form I can’t help but conclude that it is also an utter failure.

We have warned everyone about this time and time again and people don’t seem to listen. So I am going to repeat it time and time again until I am blue in the face: “THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM IS THE BEST ECONOMIC SYSTEM THERE IS BUT IT HAS TO HAVE REGULATIONS” Why? Because greed has no conscience and the whole system will collapse under its own devices when given free reign.

I like to know if the Koch brothers for example in their exclusive private schools were taught ECONOMICS 101. Or if Murdoch even went to college. We know people like Sarah Palin had very little formal education; neither did Christine O’Donnell and Rand Paul, well he studied the human eye…so how could we possibly trust any of these people to govern our country? How could we possibly have given a man like Ronald Reagan the reigns of power when the premise he held dearest was that “GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM” How can you govern when you start with that premise?

We have seen but a sample, a small sample of what can happen when you eliminate regulations and permit the system to operate freely without any government intervention. We had a taste of it…a very bitter taste of it during the Great Depression America suffered. We had but a small reminder; a “sampler” if you will of what can happen when the Free Enterprise System runs unchecked in the 2008 Economic Crisis.

Yet, there are those TEA BAG-REPUBLICANS who are trying to convince us and sell us a bill of goods. “LESS GOVERNMENT, LESS REGULATIONS, TAX INCENTIVES FOR THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS and sadly, a tired, old, debunked economic concept: “TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS”.

I have but one observation for the very rich and the corporations: You keep this shit up and your wealth will disappear. Why? Because when a rigid oligarchy is well established there will be no economic activity and thus no profits. So you might as well pack it up and take whatever millions you have left after the next Wall Street crash and the following economic crisis and go to another country because America is not going to be a very pleasant place to live…not even for you in your isolated mansions and secured gated communities.

Friday, October 29, 2010



We are finding out more about their tangled interwoven web of “secret” campaign contributions, how all these ultra-right wing persons and outlets are all tied together.

They claim to be “independent” that is not tied to the Republican Party and yet they all have very close ties with the GOP and communicate with one another.

Peter Overby and Andrea Seabrook in an article put it this way: “As for their independence: It would be illegal for them to coordinate their attacks with the candidates they're helping, or with Republican Party committees. But among themselves, they're proud of the way they synchronize their efforts.

"If one group puts an ad on television in a certain congressional district, they let everyone else know that," says Jonathan Collegio with American Crossroads. "This way they don't double up on the advertising."

Rove is of course deep into this conspiracy to undermine democracy

They might be able to get away with it this time but rest assured that once the American public learns of the extent and pervasiveness of this intertwined apparatus of political fund raising they will be so repulsed that I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some very definite legislation on the matter. Perhaps enough to counterweigh the Citizen’s United Supreme Court repugnant decision.

In my opinion they are nothing more than MONEY WHORES, trying to buy the government and pushing their askew and immoral agenda.



Thursday, October 28, 2010


95 Bold Democrats make Net Neutrality an Election Issue!

by Forrest Brown

Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:26:44 PM PDT

In a year where Democrats are running from their records, I'm excited to report that 95 Bold Democrats together with the PCCC went on offense today announcing they'll fight to protect Net Neutrality.

As PCCC senior online campaigns director Jason Rosenbaum said this morning, this announcement is " the first time ever that congressional candidates have joined together to make net neutrality an election issue."

The media are already reporting on this news today. The candidates involved are asking the public to make clear that Internet freedom is important to voters by being a "citizen signer" of our joint candidate statement on Net Neutrality? Click here to see it and sign. (Please also donate to help pro-Net Neutrality candidates win next week. Chip in $3 here.)



I will tell you why I am not just biter; I am downright indignant. It would be very convenient for those who haven’t lost anything to just dismiss the predicament of millions of older Americans as just cantankerous bitchiness. But the reality is that millions like myself lost all their savings and their retirement accounts in 2008 and beyond (*) to the tune of 2 TRILLION DOLLARS.

So you say to put it to bed and start all over again? You see that is not possible because I am too old to start from scratch and I am just too tired to work anymore. So if I am bitter - tough; I will be as indignant as I need to be and I will never let anyone forget who caused this mess. Seniors should remind everyone every day…I know I do because I wake up every morning and I curse the Republicans, the Teahadists and all those associated with it. I curse Wall Street and their greed and I spit on the image of George W. Bush.

Some of your candidates running in this election have expressed their intent in privatizing Social Security. Others want to abolish it altogether. So it wasn’t enough that you made us loose all of our retirement accounts, now you want to do away with Social Security? Do any of the candidates running have any idea what it is like to live on less than one thousand dollars a month?

Do you still want me to vote Republican in a few more days? I DON’T THINK SO AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.




At a recent meeting with blog heavyweights at the White House the President answered many questions from the bloggers and the FILIBUSTER issue came through loud and clear as something that is hurting our country because it hinders the legislative process.

QUESTION FROM BLOGGER: I want to go back to the idea of working with Republicans. And given the comments from McConnell and -- well, all of them -- I think that what a lot of people find frustrating is that our side compromises and continues to compromise just to get that one Republican on. We’re going to get one of the Maine twins -- whatever. And it doesn’t happen, and then by the time health care or whatever goes through we’ve compromised; we still don’t get any Republicans.

I don’t anticipate this changing in the next two years. I think it’s going to get worse. How are you going to get Democrats to understand that compromise means the other side has to give something sometimes, one day?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, obviously I share your frustrations. I’ve got to deal with this every day.

Q UESTION FROM BLOGGER: Well, I don’t expect you to talk like a blogger. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: But I guess I’d make two points. The first is, I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.

Now, during the course -- the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that’s a fairly narrow window. So we’re right at the number, and that presumes that there is uniformity within the Democratic caucus in the Senate -- which, Barbara, you’ve been around a while. You know that not every Democrat in the Democratic caucus agrees with me or agrees with each other in terms of complicated issues like health care.

But that’s not the system of government we have. We’ve got a different system. I will say that the damage that the filibuster I think has done to the workings of our democracy are at this point pretty profound. The rate at which it’s used just to delay and obstruct is unprecedented. But that’s the reality right now.

So I guess my answer is that there has not been, I think, any issue that we’ve worked in which I have been willing to sign on to a compromise that I didn’t feel was a strong improvement over the status quo and was not the best that we could do, given the political alignments that we’ve got.

And, yes, it leaves some folks dissatisfied. I understand that. But let’s take the health care bill. As frustrated and angry and dispirited as the base might have been -- we didn’t have a public option, and it just dragged on for such a long time, and you’re having conversations with Grassley, even though it turns out Grassley has no interest in actually getting something done -- all the complaints which I was obviously very familiar with, the fact of the matter is, is that we got a piece of legislation through that we’ve been waiting a hundred years to get through; that in the aggregate sets up a system in which 30 million people are going to get health insurance; in which we’ve got an exchange that forces insurance companies to compete with a pool of millions and will be policed so that they can’t jack up prices; that pool has purchasing power that they’ve never had before; that you’ve got a patient’s bill of rights that was the hallmark, sort of the high-water mark of what progressives thought we could do in the health care field -- we got that whole thing basically just as part of the bill.

You’ve got investments in community health centers and preventive medicine and research that’s going to help improve our health care delivery systems as a whole. And we can build on that.

And I know this analogy has been used before, but when Social Security was passed, it was for widows and orphans. And a whole bunch of folks were not included in it. But that building block, the foundation stone, ended up creating one of the most important safety nets that we have. And I think the same thing is going to happen with health care.

I think when you look at financial regulatory reform, there’s been a whole bunch of debates about where that could have gone and how it could have gone. And there are folks in the progressive community who complain we should have broken up the banks, or the derivatives law should have been structured this way rather than that way.

But the truth of the matter is, is that this is a incredibly powerful tool. You’ve got a Consumer Finance Protection Agency that that can save consumers billions of dollars -- is already saving folks billions of dollars just by having it passed. Already you’re starting to see negotiations in terms of how mortgage folks operate, in terms of how credit card companies operate.

You’ve got capital requirements that are being imposed on banks and other financial institutions that are much higher than they were before, which creates a cushion against the kind of too-big-to-fail that we’ve seen in the past.

You’ve got derivatives markets that are now being forced into open clearinghouses and markets so people know exactly what’s going on. You’ve got Volcker rule that some people didn’t think it was strong enough, but basically prohibits some of the proprietary trading that helped to create this market in securitized subprime loans that helped to trigger this disaster.

So in each of these cases, this glass isn’t full, but it’s got a lot of water in it. And so I guess my point is that on all these debates, my constant calculation has been, are we better off going ahead and getting this done? Or are we -- is it better for us to have a fight that may end up being symbolically satisfying but means that we lose because we just don’t have enough votes.

And I’ll give you one last example because I know this is a famous example in the blogosphere, is the stimulus. I mean, if folks think that we could have gotten Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter and Susan Collins to vote for additional stimulus beyond the $700 billion that we got, then I would just suggest you weren’t in the meetings.

This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

And getting 60 votes for what was an unprecedented stimulus was really hard. And we didn’t have the luxury of saying -- first of all, we didn’t have 60 votes at the time. We had 58. And we didn’t have the luxury to say to the Senate, our way or the highway on this one.

So we did what we could in an emergency situation, anticipating that we were going to have to do more and hoping that we could continue to do more as time went on.




Gallup World Headquarters - World headquarters for Gallup, Inc. (polling, etc.) in downtown Washington, DC (Photo thanks to Flickr user afagen, available under by-nc-sa v2.0)


I am one who is very skeptical about political polls. I am agonizing over the fact that a lot of political polls are showing Republicans over Democrats right now. At this point, if anything should be obvious is that Republicans should be behind by double digits.

Why is there such disparity? Why are polls showing that Republicans are ahead? To answer these questions one has to look at several issues. The first one is the voters themselves; are they so frustrated by the dismal economy and the unemployment figures that they are actually blaming incumbents and the Democrats in particular for not fixing America’s ills?

But wait a minute here…aren’t the Republicans to blame for this mess we are in? Aren’t the Republicans also responsible for standing in the way and obstructing any measures, any legislation that would fix the problems they left behind? because if this is indeed the case then the lies and obstructionist tactics that they have been perpetrating against the American people have been working.

When I see a poll I ask myself if it was conducted in good faith and fairly…was it worded in such a way as to steer the person polled in one direction or another?….I like to know who conducted the poll and who paid for it. For obvious reasons the people who conduct polls don’t want to be so far off the real mark that when the results come back they stand there with egg on their faces. For this reason they always tell you that there is a margin of error. This margin varies greatly but I venture say that this margin is almost number by number matching the disparity of the intent.

If a poll is ordered and contracted by Republicans, then you look and see what the margin of error is and award it to the Democrat because it is almost a constant that it is the amount that the poll is exaggerated or tilted.

Then one also has to look at who and where the poll was taken from. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that these people polled were just pulled out of a hat…randomly and without any guiding criteria. The pollsters have lists of registered voters, identified by party affiliation and propensity to vote one way or another. Clearly this can produce polls that are askew.

Then lastly, there is the Hail Mary poll…I got one of them in the 2008 election…it went sort of like this: “Have you chosen a candidate for sheriff to vote for in the upcoming election? went on: Are you aware that sheriff Jones has allowed strip joints to flourish and prosper all along US1? Then they continued: “Are you aware that sheriff Jones does not go after prostitution rings operating in the open all along US1? Knowing what we just told you, do you still plan to vote for Jones for sheriff? Do you know what I told the caller? “Listen here, I don’t care if Sheriff Jones ran up and down US1 naked…I am still going to vote for him because he is not a Republican; it is going to be a cold day in hell before I vote Republican” and then I hung up.

I received yet another one the next day. This one also mentioned that prostitution rings were operating openly and the government was allowing it by ignoring the county and state laws. My answer was quick and unequivocal: “oh, I see, well then Republicans should be happy that government is not interfering with business at least not in this case…isn’t that one of the Republican’s main beef, that there should be less government interference with business and the free enterprise system? As far as I know, prostitution is the oldest business in the world…and it is the best business as well because you got it, you sell it, and you still got it”. I am sure that the pollster was utterly frustrated by my answer.

One major distinguishing difference between scientific and unscientific polls is who picks the respondents for the survey. In a scientific poll, the pollster identifies and seeks out the people to be interviewed. In an unscientific poll, the respondents usually "volunteer" their opinions, selecting themselves for the poll.

Here are the 20 questions Sheldon R. Gawiser, Ph.D. and G. Evans Witt* say should be the criteria for polls:

  1. Who did the poll?
  2. Who paid for the poll and why was it done?
  3. How many people were interviewed for the survey?
  4. How were those people chosen?
  5. What area (nation, state, or region) or what group (teachers, lawyers, Democratic voters, etc.) were these people chosen from?
  6. Are the results based on the answers of all the people interviewed?
  7. Who should have been interviewed and was not? Or do response rates matter?
  8. When was the poll done?
  9. How were the interviews conducted?
  10. What about polls on the Internet or World Wide Web?
  11. What is the sampling error for the poll results?
  12. Who’s on first?
  13. What other kinds of factors can skew poll results?
  14. What questions were asked?
  15. In what order were the questions asked?
  16. What about "push polls?"
  17. What other polls have been done on this topic? Do they say the same thing? If they are different, why are they different?
  18. What about exit polls?
  19. What else needs to be included in the report of the poll?
  20. So I've asked all the questions. The answers sound good. Should we report the results?





US Chamber of Commerce has been found out…they are receiving contributions from these foreign entities:

The Chamber’s anti-clean-energy agenda serves not only domestic coal barons and oil majors, but also the following foreign oil and coal companies, who are some of the dozens of foreign corporations that pay member dues to the Chamber of Commerce’s 501c(6) account, which is used to fund its political ads:

Avantha Group, India (at least $7,500 in annual member dues): power plants

– The Bahrain Petroleum Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil campany

Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil company

Essar Group, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas, coal power

GMR, Bangalore, India ($15,000): coal power, mining

Hinduja Group, London, UK ($15,000): the Gulf Oil group

Jindal Power, New Delhi, India ($15,000): coal power

Lahmeyer International, Frankfurt, Germany ($7,500): power plant engineering

Punj Lloyd, Gurgaon, India ($15,000): offshore pipelines

Reliance Industries, Mumbai, India ($15,000): oil and gas, petrochemicals

SNC Lavalin, Montreal, Canada ($7,500): mining, power plant, and oil & gas engineering

Tata Group, Mumbai, India ($15,000): power plants, oil & gas

Walchandnagar Industries, Mumbai, India ($7,500): power plant, oil & gas engineering

Welspun, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas exploration

Meanwhile, the Chamber is just pumping more money into attack ads against Dems, including an entire $1 million in Washington State alone against Sen. Patty Murray.

And that is just scratching the surface…there are more secret contributions figuring in the millions of dollars for other reasons and for other special interests.

For example:

Republicans reap rewards from bailed out companies

Companies that received federal bailout money, including some that still owe money to the government, are giving to political candidates with vigor. Among companies with PACs, the 23 that received $1 billion or more in federal money through the Troubled Assets Relief Program gave a total of $1.4 million to candidates in September, up from $466,000 the month before.

Most of those donations are going to Republican candidates, although the TARP program was approved primarily with Democratic support. President Obama expanded it to cover GM and other automakers.**.

My question is simply this: When did the law change to grant foreign corporations and individuals the right to vote in America? Are you in agreement that your bail out money went to these companies so they could turn around and use it as political contributions instead of fixing their failed companies?

Would you still vote for Republicans knowing full well their campaigns are funded by foreign special interests?