Al Franken took down a protestor at a Dean rally.
According to Franken,
"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."
I am officially giving my public endorsment for Gen. Clark for president, because I am sure everyone was waiting with baited breath. Take a look folks, this is a man who is going places, and can take us all along with him.
As Howard Zinn says "You can't be neutral on a moving train." And I'm anguished with the direction this Presidential train has been moving these three years.
Let's reflect on a speech from earlier in the Bush Administration. Or if you prefer, hop on over to his recent State of the Union Address. When you finish, comment on what you see wrong/right over there or down below, then read on.
From August 21, 2001, during question & answer session following a speech President Bush delivered at Target, Bush answers how his tax cut will jump start the economy. The the full interview is available here (as of January 25th, 2004).
Q Mr. President, do you think that the purchasing of school supplies and things people would buy ordinarily will, in fact, jump start the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it's a cumulative. If you try to look at one isolated incident, it's easy to belittle $600 in a person's pocket. But $600 of additional disposable income all across America that amounts to billions of dollars will provide a part of the equation for economic recovery. Of course, if somebody buys a pencil, somebody's had to make it. But it is not just school supplies. That maybe kind of diminishes the effect of billions of dollars getting into the economy in a very quick period of time.
I knew I wasn't going to vote for Bush this election year, as many who read this site did as well, however I've been hard pressed to decide on a Democartic candidate. This year, unlike last year it seems to me, there are several solid candidates running, unfortunately they are all WASP's, but solid they are nonetheless. And like many "porgressives", I'm not just looking for a canddate that can win, I'm looking for a candidate that can represent the multi-faceted value structures and issues facing America and the World today. America should represent and lead in valuing the human spirit and every individual's right to live freely to pursue their own life free of opporession, as long as they don't infringe on others rights to do the same. I believe I've found a leader that can and will do that and I'll refine my reasons over the coming months as I delve deeper and grow more committed to the campaign.
One of the reasons Wesley Clark is appeals to me today, irregardless of his unavoweledly prior Republican alignment, supporting Reagan and Bush Seniors' Administrations, it seems to me he has the willingness, passion, and ability (through the benefit of hindsight) to bring realistic economic solutions to the forefront of leadership. Clark's economic plan disavows Reagan's trickle-down theory, which Bush has honed to a sharp edge and brought ever an embellished refinement.
In a speech I watched yesterday on Clark's website yesterday I couldn't help but confer what Clark says with what Bush said back in 2001.
An excerpt from Clark's speech at Dartmouth College:
"...what's going on in this country is that a lot of people are insecure about their future's. They're worried about jobs. They're worried about health care...the thing is..that the party that is in power, is doing the least to help them. It's program is taxcuts for the wealthy, with the assumption of trickle-down economics. And if you're at Dartmounth (this speech was given at Dartmouth), I'm sure you're aware that there is no academic merit in "trickle-down" economics. It should be taught in poilitical economy. Not in economics. (Applause)"
Wes Clark's tax plan make sense to me, and will probably be even more meaningful and beneficial to families like my brother's (4 boys all under 5). families who are a one-income family, that bring's home under $50,000. Read Clark's plan here.
Here's an excerpt of from his Families First Tax plan:
The majority of families will not need to file tax returns. Under Wes Clark's reform, more than half of American families will no longer need to file tax returns. The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit. If they still want to file a tax form, they can. This system has been proven to work in thirty-six countries, including the United Kingdom.[1]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to think this will pass through congress with flying colors. Even in the few minutes it took me to read, I saw a few glaring challenges. For example, his plan mentions several seeming inflexible target numbers, as oppossed to ranges based on cost of living analysis. As it stands it doesn't really take into consideration that different locales have different costs of living and hence different measurements of poverty. Nonetheless, it makes more sense than Bush's $600 for tissues or school supplies at Target, and waiting for the cumulative KA-POW of economic stimulus from that. We would have to wait until our states revenues recovered from his massive retraction of federal programs, that in the aforementioned speech above he claimed was laden with "pet projects". Mr. President, if Education, Health Care, and Labor rights are "pet projects" than perhaps you should consider running for the Chair of some board again, 'cause those "pet projects" ain't going away. I'm impressed that Clark's not just criticizing the Administration, he's getting his team to think about plausible alternatives, and making a stance on these in his bid for democratic nomination.
I've been spending a fair amount of time in analyzing the candidates on my own, and I still have a long ways to go before I am fully committed to one Candidate, but this much I can say, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, and even Dean, all look a lot better than the current Administration.
Clark seems the strongest and most capable of meeting Bush on his National Security platform, and as Clark proclaimed this past week in NH, "...I can go toe to toe with George Bush on National Security..." and I agree. And I've read a plethora of varied sources to boot. Watched video after video of debate, interview, etc. of all of the leading candidates and Clark seems far in front of the pack to me.
Of the top candidates, Clark speaks with the most decisiveness on all the issues he's weighed in on to date (which are many), yet allows openness for counsel from experts and debate at the same time. One of the things I've most disliked about Dean, is his waffling nature, to me, that spells defeat and clear centrist, middle-of-the-roadeness, that we don't need.
I remeber another waffler from my home state, George Bush was accussed of being a waffler back in Texas. He managed to win two gubernatorial races, before he marched on to D.C. The problem back then was that we didn't know what his stance was on most issues,a nd he waited till he got to the Whitehouse to let the full brunt of his decision fall on the American public,a nd took an opportunity to play his agenda once we faced the crisis of post 9-11.
Wesley clark sounds committed to Openness in the Federal Government and has made adamantly clear his stance on the most common and basic issues facing the American public, and in turn one of the first things he's done is provide a 100 Year Vision for America. And his vision is weighed by careful integration with his stance on issues. I can't remeber Bush ever clearly stating his stance on anything (besides issues that are clearly outside the realm of governmental intervention, i.e. religious beliefs, unbased in fact) , and I know that is not good for our country. Leadership must lay out their vision and be willing to hear and take criticism and amend their vision accordingly. It seems Wes Clark has stepped out leaps and bounds above the rest.
Read Clark's Pledge to Open Goverment...Or his Tax Policy...Or his 10 Pledges on National Security...or his stance on Education...Job Creation...
Well I have avoided this for a few days, but now I just have to let it out. During George Bush´s "State of he Union Address" this week, Bush once again made his feelings on gay marriage clear, this time without actually using a reference to homosexuals.
Along with so many others from the christian right Bush wants to create a constitutional amendment that would ban making gay marriage legal. In a time when republicans are yelling for smaller less intrusive government, they ae still showing their true colors. Republicans tout states rights, but it seems only if the state is in line with their thinking.
Pres. Bush 1:20pm EST—"Part of the things you'll hear me talk about is how to continue the growth. I mean, we're growing. This economy is good. It can be better, so more people find work. "
—Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031205-4.html
Then how come so many damn people are being laid off still!?
Here is a List of people I know, who've been: laid off, can't/couldn't find steady work, are underemployed, etc. during this BUSH/CHENEY Presidency(Note: They didn't have this problem during the Clinto Era. Coincidence? Maybe.):
That's all I can recall at this moment...but I know there are more. And we all know there will be more. When the soldiers come home, there will be even more. Anyone recall, "Vietnam" or "Desert Storm". It's seems to me that the only people who have jobs come in two categories:
Sure, I sound cynical, and on the whole I tend to be, but I do have passion for: this country, democracy, fairness, justice, equanamity, and humanity. Where has all of it gone? Not only are we waging an unjustified war in a foreign land, lacking domestic support, under a popularly un-elected President...but we are also spiralling into the largest economic black hole of debt in the history of the world.
Today, when I found out my father was laid-off, I was angry, devasted, pissed, crushed, exhausted, and then I realized that I've been that why for a while, and this is just another time it has really hit home. I mean I am grateful that he has his health and has incredible intelligence, work experience, and more to come, but I am furious that he's been tossed aside like someone's used trash. The man worked (slaved...as so many else have) for my entire life at this company.
Not only, did he work for this company for 27 years, but he had been there several years before it became one of the many companies it was renamed to (when his employment was finally considered non-contractual work and a "full-time" employement - and Dad, correct me if i'm wrong here?). And it seems like only yesterday (although it was about a year ago), when he and I were talking about how his good friend Tommy had been laid off from said company, the same way, just before retirement.
Because, you know, we are living longer, so maybe we should all just work our asses off until we drop steaming hot dead in our jobs.
So, I came home, having decided I need to do something about this crap, and started to just poke around and see if there was anything about: economic growth, unemployment, workers rights, laid off, etc., on the world wide web. And what ahve you, i found numerous resources on unemployment and laid-off workers rights, and I found the speach mentioned above, coincidentally from this afternoon, around the same time I found out about him getting laid off. Wow, what a surprise.
Now we can't blame this all on Mr. Bush, but I'll tell you what, searching his former state, I sure can't find a helluva lot about laid-off worker's rights, infact the only thing found was this and it was on the Department of Labor's site. And the hilarious thing is that I was hard pressed to find the word "fired" laid-off". It seems they've renamed it...
Bush to Secretary of Labor
Elaine L. Chao —
Bush—"'Laine honey darlin, what's a better word for fired or laid off? I need a synyrnym for this here crossword puzzle?"
Chao—""Shoot hun, how 'bout...uh..´dislocated worker´...?"
Bush—"hrm...too long...but I like the ring it has...can't we do something with it?"
If you are a dislocated worker, then you may need this site.
I'm sorry, but I'm with George Carlin on this "...when are we going to dispense with the euphemistic language and call shit what it really is?"—a derivative of what he said in a routine form a long time ago.
What the hell can a person do about this?
What are you supposed to do if you are in midlife and you've been laid-off from the one place that you invested your life's work?
How can we prepare for this if we haven't even reached mid-life when this happens?
What happens when it hits home right away, when you're young?
What if you never even have a fair opportunity?
What the hell is going on in the world?
We need to act. I suggest we all try as damn hard as we can to stick it to each other, find some answers to these questions and more, and stop taking this crap! We have to stop sedating ourselves, and work our minds in this country to solve our problems, 'cause in case you haven't noticed, borders are dissolving, and our problems are becoming world problems. That's why we have to intervene, because often we are at fault. Of course that's easier said than done, I haven't had my experience with a layoff...yet, but I'll be damned if I won't.
We have to fight back, and as some say regime change begins at home. you can guess who's going to be one of the first scapegoats I pen it on, well, he does deserve it. Also, I'm going to continue my research. This may be the impetus for me finally going for a law degree.
To be continued...in the meantime a few resources for the "Dislocated Workers":
And if anyone is reading this. Please tell us what you know with you comments.
Truth is, I am not one of those guys going around screaming that marijuana should be legal. Do I think it is silly that it is not, sure, but I am not going to go join some advocacy group. Still watching tv recently (yeah, I know, that was my first mistake) I have seen an incredibly annoying "PSA" for the war on drugs, maybe you have seen this too.
I looked at this site a few days ago and said to myself, "Uh…woops, it’s blank." And then I turned the computer off, and read a book. Now several days have past and I really have had a lot to think about over the past month and even several days. I figured why not write these thoughts down. Before I forget them, as so frequently happens.
I don't know how many people read my site, and frankly I don't really care (quality over quantity), but I like to use this as what it really is, a journal of sorts. Albeit, one that could succumb to electronic maelstroms and atmospheric interference, but what wouldn't? I mean, if I had a paper journal and I started to write frequently and then some natural disaster came along. The most frequent natural disaster for many of my journals has been me, leaving them somewhere or spilling liquids on them, so why not write my meanderings here. At least someone out there can take a hack at my concept of the world. Maybe?
I digress, or maybe I just meander into meaning. I'll let you sort that out.
