Ronald Reagan Redux, America In His Darkness
August 23, 2012

It’s evening in America.

Today fewer men and women will go to work than ten years ago.

With banks paying virtually no interest on savings, with a financial sector filled with thieves, hucksters, and con men drawing astronomical salaries as they destroy American’s ability to take care of their families, Americans are more fearful and less secure than ever.

Hundreds of young men and women will marry today, and they can look forward to a nation that values weapons more than education; that values scientific ignorance more than facts and evidence; that values people with money more than people struggling with three jobs to support their families; that sends American jobs overseas to enrich wealthy owners who pay little or nothing in taxes; that gives pride of place to religious superstition and ignorance instead of knowledge and understanding; that seeks to degrade women to the status of farm animals.

It’s evening in America, and under the cover of darkness the forces of wealth, amorality, and ignorance, the forces of forty years of Republican and Conservative political deceit and lies, our country is weaker and worse off than ever.

Ronald Reagan told us it was morning in America and then he started turning out the lights.

Today in America, night is falling and the lights are still going out. Why would we ever want to put Republicans back in power?


Bush, Bush, and Reagan: Fiscal Insanity From The Republicans
September 2, 2007

In case you missed it, Doonesbury in today’s Globe points out that of the nine trillion dollars in debt racked up by the United States since 1776, George W. Bush and his father are responsible for over fifty percent. And when you add Reagan’s ditzy economic performance, the three of them account for seventy percent, or $6,300,000,000,000.

Why am I taking financial information from a comic strip? Well, you don’t expect me to trust the Bush administration’s numbers on anything, do you? Garry Trudeau is a hell of a lot more reliable and truthful than the Republican comedians running the government.

Fuel Efficient Cars? Sure, Twenty-five Years Ago. But Automakers Just Can’t Manage It Now.
July 30, 2007

John Donnelly’s got a big front-page article in the Globe today about the Congressional debate on increasing the gasoline efficiency of automobiles.

Two bills are up for discussion:

Representative Edward J. Markey… is sponsoring a bill that calls for a 35-miles-per-gallon standard by 2019. Another House bill, endorsed by more than 40 Democrats and 60 Republicans and backed by much of the auto industry, calls for a standard of at least 32 miles per gallon for cars and trucks by 2022.


The automakers’ bucks go far indeed when they’re paying for politicians.

Two decades ago, government analysts informed Congress in three reports that technology existed to produce cars that could achieve an average of up to 45 to 50 miles per gallon by 1995, if Congress chose to adopt higher fuel economy standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Congressional Budget office showed that high mileage technology was available, in reports done in 1979 and 1980.

Here’s the kicker:

Automobile industry officials, in interviews, agree that such technology exists, but said consumers would pay much more for those vehicles and would sacrifice safety features.

Do they mean safety features like air-conditioned gloveboxes?

No. What they mean is that to make high-mileage vehicles they would have to forego the hefty profits they make off the heavy, inefficient pieces of iron they sell now. They want to make their profits safe, and the country and the environment be damned.

Had Congress enacted legislation back then, fleet fuel economy for cars and trucks could have reached an average of 37 to 42 miles per gallon in the 1990s.

But in 1985 the Carter Administration caved in to the fat cats in Detroit, refusing to call for an increase in standards when the boys in Detroit objected.

Along came Ronnie Raygun, who opposed any increase in mileage standards and tried to roll back other environmental initiatives.

Republicans in the White House and in Congress, supported by key Democrats from auto-industry states, successfully stalled efforts to increase the standards for cars, while increasing the standard for light trucks by just 5 miles per gallon over the last 28 years.

As usual, the Republicans want to have it both ways. They, with help from key Democrats, want to keep their fat cat automaker friends happy and the money flowing into Republican coffers and pockets, while ginning up a war for oil to keep their fat cat oil friends happy.

Remember that the next time you read about dead American soldiers in the Middle East and South Asia.

Remember that the next time you see a picture of a dead Iraqi child.

They died to make a few sociopathic Americans rich.

Conservatives Keep On Loving Actors, Liars, and Empty Suits
July 25, 2007

Scott Helman writes in the Globe today about the Conservative love affair with Freddy Thompson, former Senator, former silk suit lobbyist, boom-boom voiced TV actor, and empty suit.

“There’s a consensus developing around him that’s pretty clear and pretty profound,” said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, an Orlando-based conservative group. “I’ve never seen anything like it in 25 years in politics.”

Trying to gin up the troops, John?

Conservatives just love to rally around actors. And it makes sense for them to do so. Conservative issues, principles, and programs are just so much hot air, devoid of reality and meaning, so if they can glom onto an actor who can fool the public into believing he can save them from whatever demons the Conservatives are pushing, they’ll do it. That’s the trick they used to pawn the Reagan disaster off on the country. Shameless hussies that they are, now they’ll try the same fraud again.

This time it’s Thompson. The guy not only has had nothing intelligent to say, but he’s lied about whoring for abortion rights back when he was a real lawyer. Now he’s just oh-so-anti-abortion and full of grace. I don’t mind a guy changing his view. I do mind a guy lying about it. We now know that he will likely lie about anything. His credibility is right around, oh, I dunno, zero.

And of course by hovering outside the current candidate circus, refusing to commit to getting into the race with the rest of the Republican suits, he keeps an air of mystery. And he keeps his undoubtedly high salary from working on Law and Order on TV. This guy has always been about money. Fine. I like money. But when he garaged his big Lincoln Continental and hid his silk lobbyist suits, trading all that in for bluejeans, a flannel shirt, and a used pickup truck so he could garner votes in Tennessee when he ran for the Senate – yeah, that’s lying.

Ah, but there is dissension in the ranks:

Not all conservative leaders have applauded Thompson. James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family, raised eyebrows this spring when he told US News & World Report, “I don’t think he’s a Christian: at least that’s my impression.”

In Dobson-speak, which is the language of a man who is so full of himself he thinks he’ll get to replace his god when he kicks off, Jimmy D is just saying, “Freddie didn’t get on his knees in front of me and beg.”

But a fellow from Ohio, Phil Burress, leader of a group called Citizens for Community Values, says it all about Conservatives:

“He (Thompson) looks like he’s the first candidate that’s come along that one, can raise money, two, that’s electable, and three, we’re pretty comfortable with … on most of the issues today.”

Yup. Liar. Hypocrite. Elitist. Empty suit. The kind of candidate every Conservative would just love to inflict on the rest of us. Again.