John Kerry Serves Up a Reality Check

From a Crooks and Liars post on Jan 16th. I know it's long, and no, it's not required reading. but it is very good. click title of this post for original piece, and worthy links.

John Kerry gave a speech last week at the Center for American Progress that should become the marching song for every liberal in this country. He was clear: The last 10 years have cost us too much, and if the hyper-partisan tone doesn't change to one of true concern for the direction of this country, we will cede any chance to lead to others.

He hits it all: Infrastructure, energy, debt, climate change. Every point. The one that hit home for me was when he talked about where we might have been, had Bush and the Republicans not unwound progress made during the Clinton administration.

Here's an example. We talk about how the Clinton tax rates generated a surplus, but we stop there. We don't talk about the fact that if the Clinton tax rates had remained in effect, the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2012. Imagine what a difference that would have made in today's dialogue. And more importantly, why aren't we hammering this home every single time one of those self-righteous Republican buffoons stands up and talks about how our national debt is killing the country?

Kerry points out that we would be at a point where our financial position would be at it's strongest point ever. What would that have meant when (or if) the bottom fell out of the economy? Most assuredly, we wouldn't have to be speaking of debt retirement and austerity.

We need to start going there. This shouldn't be swept under the rug. I can't recommend this highly enough. Take an hour out of your day and watch Kerry's speech. He really hits hard on the cost of NOT investing in the country and how it puts us behind on a global basis every single day.

Check out this headline from January 26, 2000, just 11 years ago:

Consumer Confidence Hits an All-Time High; Jobs Called 'Plentiful' : Clinton Sees An Early Payoff of U.S. Debt

Compare it to today's headlines (this one, from the Wall Street Journal, one of the biggest tax-cut pimps):

U.S. Ran $80 Billion Budget Deficit in December

I think we need to give Republicans full credit for everything they did for to us. We should be at least as loud as the anti-hcr folks are, and we should repeat it every single day in public, especially to anyone who still thinks Republicans are fiscally responsible.

perhaps the best ad (and reason) yet for indy-energy and fighting climate change

Listen to These Vets
by John Kerry, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
posted March 4th, 2010 (on HuffPo)
The Senate needs to listen to these veterans: Enough words have been spoken in Washington, with none as powerful as what these vets have to say. Let's keep it simple and straight. Politicians have talked for years about the link between foreign oil and global terrorism.

And these veterans are doing their duty once again when they remind politicians in Washington that it's not "tough" to vote for legislation that creates jobs, cuts pollution, and strengthens our national security -- what's tough is what happens when we don't and our troops shoulder that awful burden instead.

And it's true. Don't believe me? The Pentagon recently released their quadrennial defense review, and they included the instability from climate change as a factor that could cost the lives of the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

The Center for Naval Analysis brought together a blue-ribbon panel of generals and admirals who concluded that "climate change is a serious national security threat." And General Anthony Zinni said flatly that if we don't deal with climate change now, "we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."

And these veterans know it already does.

The politicians don't have it tough. The troops do. End of story. Now the Senate needs to do its job -- for them.

Read this article by Al Gore, on global warming. Seriously.

"...January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago....Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept."

This editorial by Al Gore was originally run in last week's NY Times. It's a good read, with some good links. Most importantly, it's filled with facts. Remember those? - sj

We Can't Wish Away Climate Change
by Al Gore
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
Published: February 27, 2010

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

click here for rest of original piece, with great and informative links throughout

nevermind "Wolfman" - this is the REAL scary stuff...National Debt & Budget Deficit summary, and how it affects unborn Americans...

Drowning in Debt: What the Nation's Budget Woes Mean for You
Economists Predict Cutbacks, Tax Increases That 'Aren't Even Imaginable'
By DEVIN DWYER
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2010—

American political and economic leaders have sounded the alarm for years about the red ink rising in reports on the federal government's fiscal health.

But now the problem of mounting national debt is worse than it ever has been before with -- potentially dire consequences for taxpayers, according to a report by the nonpartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

"It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink," said President Obama in Nashua, N.H., on Feb. 2. "Most of it is structural and we inherited it. The only way that we are going to fix it is if both parties come together and start making some tough decisions about our long-term priorities."

Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow that establishes a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make recommendations on how to reduce the country's debt.

Over the past year alone, the amount the U.S. government owes its lenders has grown to more than half the country's entire economic output, or gross domestic product.

Even more alarming, experts say, is that those figures will climb to an unprecedented 200 percent of GDP by 2038 without a dramatic shift in course.

"Within 12 years&the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "[They are] payments for which we get nothing."

(click below for rest of scary story...)

National Debt, Budget Deficit: A Scary Forecast for Taxpayers? - ABC News

U.S. ranked 83rd most peaceful, out of 144 nations

Americans pining for a peaceful existence might consider moving to New Zealand, the most peaceful nation on Earth, according to the 2009 Global Peace Index released Tuesday by an Australian-based research group that counts former President Jimmy Carter, Ted Turner and the Dalai Lama among its endorsers.

The U.S. is 83rd on the roster, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace that rated the relative tranquility of 144 nations according to 23 "indicators" - including gun sales, the number of homicides, the size of the military, the potential for terrorism and the number of people in jail.

The index defined peace as "the absence of violence," and so far, things are a little dicey. Violence and instability have increased, respect for human rights has decreased. The researchers also calculated that the world's nations have collectively lost close to $8 trillion due to the complications of widespread violence.

After New Zealand, the top 10 most peaceful nations are Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Finland and Slovenia. In the bottom 10 are Zimbabwe, Russia, Pakistan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Israel, Somalia, Afghanistan and, in last place, Iraq.

Traditional U.S. allies generally fared well on the list: Germany is at 16, Australia at 19, Spain (28), South Korea (33), Britain (35) and Italy (36).

Libya, Nicaragua, Jordan, Cuba, China, Peru and Ukraine all are rated more peaceful than the United States. Rwanda is rated 86, Syria 92, Iran 99 and Mexico 108.

"Because they can work better with others, peaceful countries can constructively work together on solving some of our most pressing economic, social and environmental problems. Indeed, peace is the prerequisite to helping solve today's major challenges, such as food and water scarcity, decreasing biodiversity or climate change," said Clyde McConaghy, a former advertising director and business executive who developed the index with entrepreneur Steve Killelea.

"Peace is a concrete aim that can be measured and valued, not just in social terms but in economic terms. There is a clear correlation between the economic crisis and the decline in peace," Mr. McConaghy continued, adding that peace tends to promote productivity and trade.

America's so-so rating on the Index is better than its grade last year, when the nation was ranked 89th.

The six-point jump is due in part to a lower risk of terrorism, said Leo Abruzzese, director of North American research for the Economist Group, which calculated the data for the index.

The Economist Group also publishes the Economist and Roll Call, among other things.

"Although the United States saw an increase in ranking despite the economic crisis, some factors - such as the ease of access to weapons, a large prison population and ongoing combat deaths - prevented it from ranking higher this year," Mr. Abruzzese said.

The index is primarily based on 2008 data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the World Bank, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and United Nations sources.

America's slow learning curve: example #14...

It's hardly going out on a limb, but in case there's any doubt, I'll restate the prediction I made about a decade ago: recreational marijuana use will be legal in most states in America, no later than 2020. If not, it will be the first time in American history, the United States Government passed up a chance to make hundreds of billions of dollars with such little effort. We're back to being a government for the people, by the people now, and the time has come to use the profits from legalizing weed to fix this country (check out the last line in this piece: "the public is going to drag the politicians into doing what is right." That kills me. Like it's NOT supposed to be that way!). There's enough money to be made by doing so to genuinely improve our education, healthcare, environment, and national security, among other things. This is to say nothing of the money we'll save NOT successfully fighting a large part of the drug war, or how far legalization will go in starting to unravel the utter mess we have on our southern border. And never mind the "gateway drug" mischaracterization: marijuana is no more a gateway drug than coffee is. Here's the latest, from California, a poll favoring legalization, and how it relates to Arnold's budget problem. sj

San Francisco Gate
Governor says he's open to debate on legal pot
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that the time is right to debate legalizing marijuana for recreational use in California.

The governor's comments were made as support grows nationwide for relaxing pot laws and only days after a poll found that for the first time a majority of California voters back legal marijuana. Also, a San Francisco legislator has proposed regulating and taxing marijuana to bring the state as much as $1.3 billion a year in extra revenue.

Schwarzenegger was cautious when answering a reporter's question Tuesday about whether the state should regulate and tax the substance, saying it is not time to go that far.

But, he said: "I think it's time for debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues - I'm always for an open debate on it."

The governor said California should look to the experiences of other nations around the world in relaxing laws on marijuana.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has introduced a bill to regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which are barred by federal law.

California voters in 1996 legalized marijuana for medical use with permission from a physician.

Ammiano said he was pleased the governor is "open-minded" on the issue and added that he was sure the two could "hash it out."

Under Ammiano's proposal, the state would impose a $50-an-ounce levy on sales of marijuana, which would boost state revenues by about $1.3 billion a year, according to an analysis by the State Board of Equalization. Betty Yee of San Francisco, who chairs the Board of Equalization, supports the measure.

"This has never just been about money," said Ammiano, who has long supported reforming marijuana laws. "It's also about the failure of the war on drugs and implementing a more enlightened policy. I've always anticipated that there could be a perfect storm of political will and public support, and obviously the federal policies are leaning more toward states' rights."

An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week found that 46 percent of Americans favored legalization of small amounts of pot for personal use, double the number who supported that a decade ago. A Field Poll also released last week found that 56 percent of California voters supported legalizing and taxing marijuana.

In March, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government would take a softer stance on medical marijuana dispensaries, with drug enforcement agents targeting only those who violate state and federal law. California is one of 13 states that allow marijuana use with a doctor's recommendation.

Many law enforcement organizations oppose changes in marijuana laws. The California Police Chiefs Association, in a report last month, concluded that marijuana dispensaries constitute "a clear violation of federal and state law; they invite more crime; and they compromise the health and welfare of law-abiding citizens."

But the head of that association said he, too, is open to a debate on legalizing pot.

"We keep walking around the 5,000-pound elephant in the room, which is should marijuana be legal?" said Bernard Melekian, president of the association and chief of police in Pasadena.

The Board of Equalization analysis predicts that legalization would drop the street value of marijuana by 50 percent and increase consumption by 40 percent.

Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates legalization, said the governor's comments about marijuana are part of a "tectonic shift" in attitudes toward the issue.

"I think, frankly, the public is going to drag the politicians into doing what is right," he said.

new study: Each Illegal Immigrant Cost Britons 1million pounds (1.5million in US dollars)

while this isn't a study regarding the American taxpayer's cost per illegal immigrant, many of the problems, ramifactions, and truths do indeed apply. I thought this was a very interesting article, and I have read similar studys that have been done with regards to illegal immigration, and the burden it puts on America's services and taxpayers, both directly and indirectly. I will try and find them. To me (nobody asked but it's my bleepin' blog! - and Pilgrim's), this is one of the bigger issues facing our country, due to the sheer numbers of illegal immigrants coming here every year, and it frustrates me, because the fact is that the solution to stop illegal immigration (unlike other big problems we face), is relatively easy to fix: simply keep illegal immigrants out. I am talking about all illegal immigrants, not just those at our southern border, although, they are the biggest problem. I will write more on this in the future, and post some different studies I come across (from both sides of the equation), but here's what needs to happen, and if I was President, this is what I would do:
1) Simplify our LEGAL IMMIGRATION PROCESS. Anyone the world over should be able to apply to come to America legally. The process to apply is a nightmare of a clusterfuck currently. it's BEEN that way. Simplify the application process.
2) NO illegal immigrants come to America. See "#1." Simply apply to come LEGALLY.
3) let most of the 20 million illegal immigrants who are already here, stay. If we can do these three things moving forward, and we most DEF can, we will be on our way to a better America. sj

(click on title for full story)

Each illegal immigrant costs us £1m, says study as Government faces calls for amnesty
By Daily Mail Reporter
May 4th, 2009

An amnesty allowing illegal immigrants to stay in Britain would cost taxpayers £1million for each newcomer, a shocking new report revealed today.
The massive sum reflects the costs of handouts and other state services provided over the lifetime of the average immigrant.
The figure would also apply to many of those who have already been granted asylum in Britain, according to campaign group Migrationwatch which commissioned the study.

Their revelation came as thousands of churchgoers, trade unionists and charity workers today prepared to rally in London in support of an ‘earned amnesty’ for 450,000 foreigners.
The coalition argues that providing permanent residency for those long-term illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions – roughly half the total – would bring in more than £1billion of tax a year.
But Migrationwatch warned that such an amnesty would overburden the public purse during a recession and only tempt more migrants into the country.
‘Our calculations show the numbers are truly enormous, adding an unacceptable – and entirely unnecessary - burden to the nation’s balance sheet,’ said the group’s chairman Sir Andrew Green.

‘It is clear that not only is rewarding illegal behaviour wrong in principle but the experience of Spain and Italy shows conclusively that it encourages even more illegal immigration in anticipation of future amnesties.
‘This is a ridiculous proposal which is bound to increase illegal immigration rather than reduce it. It is also a shocking waste of public money at a time when we can least afford it.’

click here to read the rest of this very interesting article.

Fuck You Cheney!

Hey Cheney: are you aware that you made the concious decision to orchestrate the release of a CIA Agent's name to the entire world, or are you too senile to remember that?

Your passionate but hollow defense of our national defense and homeland security as of late (along with your oh-so-faux patriotism), is now, and has ALWAYS been laughable. YOU GAVE NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS AWAY TO THE ENEMY, when you released Valerie Plame's name! YOU compromised America's national security you insufferable ingrate!

Nobody with a brain believes you anymore with serious matters such as war, homeland securtity, terror, gitmo, et all (if they ever did); Please! Answer this, half-wit:

Are we still in the "last throes?"

Are we "greeted as liberators" yet?

Just where are those pesky WMD's?

How's the whole "spreading democracy throughout the middle east" thang going?

You are a fucking disgrace to America, Dick, and I wish you had the balls to debate me in public about your ideals, actions and miserable life, which has set this country back many years. You are no friend of veterans, no friend of federal agencies, and you've brought no good to America whatsoever, in your entire life above ground. Bill Maher was right on when he said "more people in the world will live" when you die. Rest assured, the day that happens, most Americans will celebrate.