My Response to Ron Paul

This is my response to Ron Paul on his “plan.” I’m not a fanboy or Paulbot, so if you are you should probably stop reading. I’m also not an objectivist,  as he is. I’m nowhere near selfish enough and have a grounding in reality, as well as knowledge of history, so Objectivism holds no allure for me.

Another reason that I have no love for the man as a candidate, is is opposition to established rights for minorities and women and children. Yes yes... I know. He refuses to say that he'll chain women in kitchens and blacks in cotton fields, yet he has no problem destroying protections and laws that prohibit discrimination. He uses the ridiculous "state's rights" line instead. So if Texas wants to use capital punishment on women who have a miscarriage, it's just AOK with him. If a state decides to cap wages for labourers at 50cents per day, and nearly all of them are black, he'd be just fine with it. Being that companies will be allowed to hire whomever they choose and he cares nothing for education, we can also look forward to children in mines and fields from dawn til dusk, because companies might decide that adults are too much trouble. 

My comments are all in bold and his are italicised but otherwise unaltered and unedited from his article.

PAUL: One year to go

By Rep. Ron Paul -The Washington Times Thursday, November 3, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/one-year-to-go/?page=1

I firmly believe the American people are serious about cutting spending and fixing our debt crisis now. Those struggling to make ends meet and provide for their families while also trying to save for the future know we must change course immediately.

While this might be true to some extent, planning on giving away what little people do have left to corporations and billionaires will work directly against the very people who are struggling. Only in the imaginary “Libertarian Land” will allowing corporations to own everything and repealing any and all worker protections be a good thing for anyone except the millionaires and billionaires... a club to which I can’t help but notice that you belong.

I’m not running for president merely to trim a little here and there from our bloated federal budget. Instead, I have offered the boldest, most specific and most comprehensive solutions in the history of American politics to restore our economy and once again make America the most innovative, competitive and prosperous nation in the world.

Yes it is bold and comprehensive, yet neither of those actually mean that it would work. The over-whelming majority of economists, both world wide and domestic, have read your plan and condemned it. Even though your fan club insists that a “We Hate Paul” campaign is the reason, the real reason is that some people are far better educated than you and have actually made efforts to understand economics and history.

We face no problem that cannot be solved by reaffirming our trust in the fundamental principles of freedom, limited constitutional government and individual responsibility.

The Constitution is often referred to, rightly, as a living document.  The reason for this is simple, we are no longer a loose collection of states held together by treaty alone. In the early days of America the problems were simple and as a result we have a rather simple constitution. Your problem Ron, is that you do not see the current world as any more complex than a few million people bound together only by a desire to no longer be a colony of England.

The nation has changed. We have watched corporations and governments destroy environments, enslave people, murder people, and prevent common members of society from benefitting from the American experience. Through governmental changes and constitutional amendments we have stopped much of the destruction and abuse that you wish to see continue.

As a candidate, I pledge that not only will my first 100 days as president be dedicated to reinstituting these core values from the moment I take my oath but that my entire time in office will be devoted to protecting our liberties and removing the burden of an out-of-control government from the people’s backs.

Read above…

Starting on Day One, I will begin implementing my Plan to Restore America, which cuts $1 trillion in spending during my presidency’s first year alone and delivers a fully balanced budget by Year 3.

This is exactly why you are accused of having no ideas other than “Sunshine and Lollipop” concepts. This act alone, removing 1 trillion dollars from the economy, would devastate America. It would make the recent recession look like a view of heaven. The “3year” plan is just nonsense. I’m sorry to inform you, but you will have to get all of this through congress, and none of them like you. You will have no political capital to work with and you will be demanding that Congress, that place you show up to work at once in a while, abrogate their responsibilities and jobs to you.

This plan is about priorities. Politicians play a game in which they give lip service to the voters’ concerns only to sacrifice a strong national defense, the needs of our veterans and the promises made to our seniors at the altar of attaining more power once in office.

I don’t disagree that our veterans are treated poorly and that seniors are also. I’m also in agreement that politicians should stop paying lip service to constituents. Yet, how are you different? You make grand statements and say that you stand for Americans while your policies and cuts will do only one thing, disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and make most people virtual slaves of corporations… except for those who will be actual slaves.

I will lead a national discussion on how we might tweak cuts, and I will work with coalitions to make them in the fairest way possible and to plan the necessary transitions.

Either you are lying here, or you lied above. You have led no discussions, you have done the exact opposite. Economists and others who have an understanding of money and economies have all panned you soundly. Not for “bucking the trend” or whatever else you and your supporters claim, but for your plan being impossible and destructive. Perhaps you should have actually spoken to an economist before making this plan? Perhaps trying to make a coalition in your current job?

A Paul presidency will deny the politically connected the spot they have carved out at the American people’s expense. By immediately repealing such regulatory nightmares as Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, we will start to break the corporatism that places special interests over the average American.

And here you present two opposing concepts together as if they were the same. Removing restrictions and regulations will INCREASE corporatism, as nearly any sane person could tell you.

Your resistance to healthcare options outside of the corporate system we currently have will do nothing to help Americans and everything to harm them. Because you seem to know so little on the topic, let me explain.  We spend, as a nation, far more than other developed nations on healthcare, generally by twice or thrice. Our life expectancy is less, infant mortality greater, and cure rates below the other nations. Contrary to right-wing lies, we spend longer waiting for treatment and receive far less in actual healthcare when we are finally allowed to get the treatments. You wouldn’t know this, due to being part of the moneyed elite that has no such concerns, but more than two hundred million people in this nation have or will have these issues.

I am opposed to your desire to keep the insurance companies in charge of the very real death panels that other libertarians and conservatives pretend exist in other nations.

My administration will fight for requirements styled after the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) to ensure all new bureaucratic regulations are thoroughly reviewed and approved by Congress before taking effect. I also will cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by executive order.

Yet again, you insist on having powers and abilities outside of the office of President.

I will move to abolish all corporate subsidies and end all bailouts.

I’m not opposed to removing most subsidies and many bailouts that allow executives to hoard money and grant enormous bonuses. I have yet to see any glimmer of understanding from you in regards to the difference between subsidies or stimulus plans that help industry and America and those that do nothing but prop up the oligarchs. Not everything you call a bailout is bad and many subsidies work to keep America moving forward technologically.

As we work to cut $1 trillion in the first year, my budget will eliminate the Departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. Functions that cannot be abolished immediately will be transferred to other departments.

Here you simply betray a vast ignorance and a strong desire to keep all wealth and power in the hands of your fellow millionaires and billionaires. Removing the department of education will do more to separate the states in our currently cohesive union and cause dramatic differences in education levels. The southern states and some Midwest states will regress towards scientifically and historically illiterate populations at the same time your removal of workers protections will make these victims of your plan into little more than slaves, of the style of the mining companies from the 1800’s.

Removing the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development will insure that millions of Americans will have few options other than sheet metal and plywood clap-together homes in Pottervilles around America. It would also allow sprawl and environmental devastation on a scale that would make the meanest third world nation gasp in sadness. I realize that you care nothing about the environment and see and unspoiled landscape as a waste of space, but people that understand environmental studies, food production, etc. all shudder at the thought of your plans.

I plan to answer the call of the vast majority of Americans for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, and I will work with Congress to pass competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

Literally every part of your plan will do nothing other than bankrupt the nation and crash the dollar as a currency.

I will lead the way toward restoring a sensible and constitutionally conservative foreign policy by ending all foreign aid, nation-building and participation in organizations that threaten our national sovereignty, while honoring our commitment to our veterans, who deserve what they have sacrificed to earn.

Your obsessive need to declare “all” of something bad should make any thinking person cringe. Do we support nations and regimes that we oughtn’t? Of course. But we also keep many nations strong and relevant on the world stage. Without our foreign aid, most of Africa would be either dead from famine and disease or held by terrorists. Nations in Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere all benefit from one degree or another by our aid, to the final benefit of America and a stable and productive world.

Your desire to remove America from organisations, we all know you mean the UN, that is just ridiculous. By participating in the UN we share the benefits. Should we have a complaint against another nation the UN is there to mediate and moderate. When we need to gain an economic advantage, the UN is there to assist. When we want to benefit from a treaty, that is when the UN is handy. Yes, it sometimes means that we must also sacrifice time or money, but it is to benefit all of the world. Your desire to close borders and isolate America is at best short-sighted and actually harmful to both America and the world.

The looming entitlement crisis can be addressed without breaking our nation’s promises to our seniors. Younger workers will be allowed to opt out of Social Security so they can properly invest for their futures, while money saved from reining in our government will be used to sustain those currently depending on Social Security funds.

There is no “looming entitlement crisis,” that is an invention of the right-wing. Social Security is solvent and needs to be altered only slightly on a routine basis to stay so. Allowing investing of money in something else is, yet again, short-sighted at best. In this recent recession millions of people lost billions of dollars. Why do you want that to continue? Corporations have made dozens of billions of dollars from fraud and cheating in the investment markets. Why do you want them to also have the amount that people will need later? Investment is not some magic concept that will allow people to save and support themselves. Investing nearly only helps you and your wealthy friends. Stop trying to convince people to sacrifice their future so that you and your buddies can steal what we have actually earned.

The expanding cost of Medicaid and other welfare programs will be tackled without harming those relying on such programs by giving states block grants to give them the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems individually.

I’m so tired of hearing about “state’s rights.” As seems to be the case on nearly everything you say, you have no idea what you would unleash… unless perhaps you are malicious and know exactly what you will unleash. In no manner or fashion do I find your desire to give states a block grant without a federal supervisory dept. in place to be good. Mississippians could find themselves being sent to workfarms to pay medical debts and asylums or state “hospitals” for the ill and diseased. Texans could find themselves being executed for getting sick. Your desire to relinquish to the states all control would make these ridiculous statements quite likely.

My administration will reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent, slash congressional pay and perks and curb excessive federal travel. As president, I will stand with the people by taking a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median income of average American workers..

So, just to be clear, your plan for an anemic jobs economy is to dump a few million more people into the pool of the unemployed?

Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent will make America competitive globally, and I will allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. I also will work to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the death tax and end taxes on all personal savings so families can build nest eggs.

Lowering the corporate tax rate will do nothing except remove even more money from the economy. The corporate tax rate is lower now than it has been in decades. It is FAR lower than the boom years of the 40’-60’s. Extending the tax cuts on yourself and your golf buddies will do nothing to help America. If they would have a positive effect, you’d think that they might have shown some semblance of existing over the last decade.

This insane desire for corporations and billionaires to stop getting taxed benefits only them. If you were either intelligent or honest you would know this.

I am often asked how I expect to accomplish such goals, but I am confident that due to the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the veto and, most important, the united voice of the freedom-loving Americans who voted me into office, the real pressure will be on those who support the status quo to defend their reckless big-government agenda.

And this is why I question the sanity of people that support you. You have your taglines and your plan to benefit the wealthy, but nearly no one of consequence supports you. There is no “united voice” in your favour. The few who will vote for you do so knowing that they are wasting their vote.

I am the only candidate with a serious plan to cut spending, balance the budget and promote freedom and prosperity, and I hope you will join me in working to restore America now.

You do not have a serious plan, you have a Randian bundle of bullshit that will do one thing and one thing only: Destroy my nation. Go away Objectivist, the majority of Americans are far too intelligent to vote for you, and even most of those who will vote for you fill their arguments with “Well ya, that part sucks and this part is bad and that other thing would be terrible... but look at his idea on pot!"

Evil pregnant black girls, how dare they get educated!!

If you are a power hungry, corrupt, dictator and want to maintain power at all costs, what do you do? You arrest regular people who object. We saw this with Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein, Mubarak, and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.
The goal of his administration is to uphold Teapublican policies like removing anything held in public trust or done for the common citizen and selling it to corporations to own and/or do away with.


One school in Detroit just had to go. It was far too successful. It was a school for that most hated of teapublican enemies, pregnant and predominantly black girls. Not only is their receiving an education an affront to all that teapublicans hold dear, they were successful. They had a 90% graduation rate. In Detroit, it is rare to find an 80% graduation rate. These girls had, or were about to have, children. Most were from broken homes. Yet there was a principal who refused to let them fail as society expected. She guided these children who became adults too soon into a world that they would never have seen. She helped MOST of them get into college! In Detroit!


The Teapublicans have their revenge on these horrible people though. Passing draconian measures in order to increase their control and to sell schools to whatever warped millionaire wanted one, they gave a corporate lackey FULL control. No more messy discussions with public servants and no more rule of law. In Michigan, you will now do what the dictator and his corporate sponsors tell you or else they will, literally now, own your schools and cities.

Bill Donahue again

Bill Donahue loves the Catholic Church. He loves it so much that he is willing to spread disinformation and repugnant ideas to defend it. As always, he insists that priests do not engage in paedophilia, it is the evil gayness that is to blame or a desire for money... or both. In the past he has chosen to blame society, the victims, and "teh gayz." He is still beating that tired drum and placing the blame everywhere but on priests, even though there is actual documentation of cover-ups, including records from Pope Ratzie wherein he declares that anyone who accuses a priest or turns a priest in to authorities is guilty of a mortal sin.

Every time a new wave of accusations surfaces in one diocese, not coincidentally we see a spike in accusations in other dioceses.What is not often reported is that the vast majority of new accusations extend back decades. For example, for the first quarter of this year, 80 percent of the cases of alleged abuse involve incidences that occurred before 2000.

This is true. It's too bad that such a well known concept is so hard for Donahue to figure out. Let me help: When people see others standing up to a controlling and domineering entity they feel as though they can also do the same, it is a form of empowerment. Many of these people spend their lives sure of only one thing: that they couldn't win against the monsters that abused them.

It is also no surprise that the majority of cases involve people who are now adults, the children currently suffering are under the power of their abusers and are not yet old enough to understand that the threats and punishments offered by the authority abusing them are often empty threats. It is the nature of an abuser to control and instill fear in the victim.

In March, an 80 year-old man came forward in St. Louis claiming he was abused 70 years ago by a priest who has been dead for a half century. This is not an anomaly: the same phenomenon has happened in other dioceses. Unfortunately, too often bishops have been quick to settle, thus inspiring more claims. When $225,000 is dished out to a Michigan man who claims he was abused in the 1950s by a priest who died in 1983—and the diocese admits the accusation is unsubstantiated—it encourages fraud.

Who cares how long ago the abuse happened or whether or not the priest is dead? The majority of the claims against the church are not due strictly because of abuse, it is the resulting cover-up that is the reason for a suit. Shifting around the abusers from diocese to diocese, not limiting their interaction with their preferred targets, and blocking attempts by law enforcement to investigate are horrendous crimes. The church is culpable for these crimes, therefore it doesn't matter whether or not the abuser is still breathing.

The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse

did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Because Catholics like Donahue cannot accept that the holy church could be at fault, he tries yet again to spread this stupidity. “Inappropriate touching” is such a vague term that it allows creeps like Donahue to imagine it was just just a quick grope through clothes and the priest felt terrible after. This is and was rarely the case. Forcing the child to physically and/or orally service him, the priest is just as guilty of rape as if he had penetrated with his penis. It makes me sick to think what else those like Donahue do when these dishonest wordplays are such a part of their nature...

To further insist that these weren't children is to attempt a blurring of what does and does not constitute a child. Apparently, to Donahue, the very moment that a child notices their first pubic hair begin to sprout, they are no longer a child. Does that girl appear to have swelling below her nipples? Now she;'s a marriageable adult! I wonder if Donahue would have had this opinion if he had a twelve year old daughter who came to him and declared that she was moving out and starting a family with some middle-aged guy down the street. All she would have to do is show him his very own words on the matter of adulthood.

To further blame this on homosexuality, Donahue is again attacking those with the least blame. Healthy adult sexuality is not predicated on abusing the young. Whether the sexuality be gay, straight, pluralistic, etc., the healthy component is the desire for a partner or partners that comes willingly to the relationship and is capable of understanding and embracing the emotional and physical results. This is why claiming that puberty makes the adult is so wrong. This is also why blaming homosexuality is wrong. If it isn't child abuse but is instead a homosexual relationship. Why do you not see these priests keep a single “lover” until old age? Instead they discard the victim when the victim has passed an age barrier that makes the victim no longer attractive. For most of these man on boy paedophiles, the point where a boys voice deepens and body hair is sprouting in earnest is when the attraction ends.

When the National Review Board, a group of notable Catholics, issued its study in 2004, the team’s chief, attorney Robert S. Bennett, said that “any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.” One of the members, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins, has said that “This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it’s not being discussed.” By the way, the figures after 2004 haven’t changed—eight in ten cases involve homosexuality. Worldwide, the Vatican estimates that 60 percent of the cases are same-sex, 30 percent are heterosexual and 10 percent involve pedophilia.

So because a Catholic group said so, and the Vatican said so, and a Catholic psychiatrist said so...

This selection deserves only an admonition about confirmation bias and source bias.

Why are priests being singled out when the sexual abuse of minors among other segments of the population is on-going today? According to Virginia Commonwealth University professor Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading education expert on this issue, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” We know from the work of Jenkins, and others, that there is no reason to believe that the rate of abuse is higher among Catholic priests than among the clergy of other religions. Moreover, there has been a slew of stories over the past few years detailing the extent of this problem in the Orthodox Jewish community; some rabbis still insist that sexual abuse cases should be handled internally.

I'd like to see the citation for the “100 times” figure. Because schools are so much more open than religious organisations, the possibility of reporting is higher. So I could imagine that even slight offences could be reported on a much more frequent basis. I think someone is just pulling this number from thin air, however. Notice the word usage; “ ...is likely more than 100 times...”. This means that the person made a statement based not on data or figures, but instead used what I call presto-digitation (I need a number and so Presto! I make one up).

To cast doubt on the Jewish community is good, to investigate better. But not when you are using it as a defence. All this sentence says to rational people is: “See, it's not just us. Other groups are bad too!”

Federal District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein took a “compassionate” view toward a man found guilty of collecting thousands of explicit pictures of children, as young as three, that he downloaded from a child porn website. Weinstein slammed existing legal penalties for the crime, saying, “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily. At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

Yes, that is wrong of a judge to do or say that. There was another, in Vermont I believe, that likened child sexual abuse to alcoholism. This was equally repugnant. It also has nothing to do with the church hiding and moving around sexual predators.

How often has the Church been ripped for following the advice of psychiatrists who thought they could “fix” molesters? To be sure, that was the zeitgeist several decades ago, as virtually every institution and profession can testify. Indeed, the punitive approach so favored today would have been cause for condemnation at that time had it been followed. Interestingly, a report on this situation in Ireland correctly concluded that had more bishops followed canon law, instead of seeking a more “compassionate” strategy, much of the problem could have been avoided.

What report? Was it written by Catholics?

The real damage done by the therapeutic approach is that it fostered the phenomenon of reassigning priests after they were treated. The exact same thing happened in the teaching profession. Indeed, moving treated teachers to new school districts is so common that it is called “passing the trash.” While moving treated priests to new parishes is no longer tolerated, the New York Times found that the practice of moving abusers around who work in New York’s state-run homes is commonplace.

Teachers that sexually abuse, or are accused of doing so, go on suspension until an investigation finishes. If the investigation results in innocence, then yes they are moved to somewhere where the allegation may be quietly marked but the teacher has a chance of not being lynched by angry parents. This is nothing like the Catholic method of reassignment, wherein no investigation is permitted and abusers were moved around to protect the abuser.

Mandatory reporting of sexual crimes is not uniform in law or practice. In New York State, several attempts to blanket the clergy and other professionals have been met with resistance. Not by the bishops—but by Family Planning Advocates (the lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood) and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). Planned Parenthood counselors routinely learn about cases of statutory rape; mandatory reporting would obviously work against their clients’ interests. Even where mandatory reporting is law, such as in the state-run homes, it is seldom followed (more than 95 percent of the time the authorities are not contacted).

So first the claim is that reporting isn't uniform. Fair enough. But to claim that the clergy had no problem with accepting the rules and laws but the evil abortionists and criminal liberties people stopped it... that's just ridiculous. There is a reason that very few people take Donahue seriously.

Yet again I find myself wanting a citation. 95% of the time? Seriously? What study found what numbers to justify this statement?

Calls for suspending the statute of limitations have regularly been made. But even if one sets aside the fundamental due process reasons why such laws exist, what is most disturbing about this issue is that they almost never apply to public employees. Unless explicitly stated, laws that revise the statute of limitations leave untouched those in education: they are protected by “sovereign immunity,” making transparent what the real goal is—“getting the priests.” And when proposed changes apply to teachers, in every state where this has happened, teachers’ unions and school superintendents have organized to register their objections. Why, then, should bishops who protest these revisions be criticized for doing so?

If there were a contest for misunderstanding reality, Donahue would come in just behind Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. There is no effort to protect teachers while targeting priests. Attempting to assassinate the character of an entire profession is just what Donahue has been complaining about. Yet here he is, yet again, claiming that teachers are the bad guys and the priests are just innocent victims of society.

Here's one reason why immediate firings and criminal activity against teachers faces a roadblock. If Sally gets a C from Mr. Wilson, but knows that the sub in this subject is a friend of moms, she can make an accusation against Mr. Wilson and have a teacher more likely to grant an A. Sound far-fetched? It isn't. Even parents are attacking teachers that don't simply automatically give good grades. Every strict teacher that cares about the quality of education that a child receives has been subject to this at least once. Two investigations do occur for these circumstances though. One internally and one by a state investigator. If and when the accusation is found to be false, the teacher resumes work.

The difference between teachers and bishops is that bishops hold themselves apart from the law; only internal investigations are desired, only church law cited, only punishments or disciplines from within the church required. Had the church not held to this for so long, had the church willingly involved law enforcement when allegations were made, this would all be a moot point and more people would trust the church.

The rest of Donahue's article is primarily the same “poor us” rubbish and can be found here:

http://www.catholicleague.org/nytstraighttalk.php

Many, if not most, of you have probably heard about the Wisconsin tyrant that wants to end any collective bargaining in his state. He has admitted to wanting to change the course of history by destroying unions and their abilities to protect wages and jobs. But have you heard about a far worse man? One who wants to increase the deficit by taking money from seniors and giving it to corporations?


Gov. Snyder of Michigan is a very bad human being. He is an even worse American. He had his fingers crossed when he took the governors pledge to protect his citizens and uphold national and state laws.


Step one in his "budget" bill is to end tax breaks and benefits for low income and elderly people. He feels this could save approximately 1.7 billion dollars. He then intends to place this money directly into the tax breaks for businesses and corporations that will cost the state 1.8 billion dollars. Yes, you read that right. He is planning to increase the deficit in his state by forcing elderly and low income people to go hungry and lose what little they have to live on so that he can give unnecessary tax breaks to businesses. http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/x1992210546/Gov-Snyder-asking-this-morning-for-1-2-billion-in-spending-cuts


Step two is to cut funding for schools. No real surprise there, republicans have come to despise schooling because it seems to make people less likely to be willing slaves to the two things they care about: religion and blind obedience.


Step three is to cut public employees, cut union membership and function, and to remove most businesses from even paying taxes.


The worst action, and the most unamerican, is a bill that passed allowing the governor or his staff to declare emergency management powers over cities and regions. What does it take to be considered in need of an emergency manager? Anything that the governor decides of course. I imagine that any township, city, or district that doesn't give full support to Snyder and his cronies will find themselves "managed."


What does this management consist of? Summarily dismissing or dissolving any contract or obligation of the area managed, dissolving school districts and/or incorporating them with others, and dissolving local governments and firing any elected official they choose and appointing someone to replace them. The state is expected to have quite a few issues with local insolvency, more so because he intends to cut taxes to those who need it least while increasing taxes on those who need money most. Now all of those pesky democrats and independents across the state can lose their jobs and positions and be replaced by good, loyal, republicans.http://www.freep.com/article/20110309/NEWS15/110309030/0/SPORTS05/Senate-votes-give-emergency-financial-managers-more-power?odyssey=nav|head




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
Watch the second segment from march 8, clip title Gop strategy: disaster capitalism.

All too often in this nation, when the terms Supreme Court and DNA come together, the story is about testing someones DNA against their will. DNA has become property of the state in many places, prosecutors being allowed to use it when and where they want while defendants are often blocked from using it in their own defense. This is incredibly bad for both liberty and justice. The prosecuting attorney should be fighting to place GUILTY people behind bars at all costs, not just someone convenient per crime.

Are most people that the law goes after guilty? Yes they generally are. Does this mean that we can assume a general burden of proof lies with the defense or that the state should receive special treatment? No we can't. At any point in a serious, especially death penalty, case, the prosecution should be vigourously pursuing ALL available resources to not only "seal the deal" on a defendant but to make damn sure that the defendant is the actual perpetrator. 

In this case, Henry skinner was on death row and was within an hour of death when the Supreme court stepped in to hear the case. I have very little doubt as to his guilt, as do most of the people that worked hard to solve the crime. Yet he was almost executed without the prosecution ever doing a DNA test on the evidence. Whether or not this man killed someone, how can the state not want to put this to rest?

Granted, it is in Texas and very little can get in the way of that states love affair with murdering inmates, but this is a serious issue of misconduct. Any prosecuting team or state legal department should have a first priority of fully processing evidence and ensuring that every available avenue of investigation has been explored. For a state to refuse to examine evidence, note that this isn't about "re-examining" because they never bothered even once, is tantamount to murder in capital cases. At the very least, I think that any prosecutor or states attorney that blocks a review of evidence or refuses to conduct methods of investigation like DNA should be brought up on charges of willful indifference to death should the person be executed. Perhaps then they might be a little more stringent during the course of their work and, most especially, when a persons life is on the line.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/07/us.scotus.death.penalty/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Anti Smoking Laws

Responding to someone undeserving of responses