Romney Tax Plan: A Sham

Posted by on February 26, 2012 2 comments

After 30 years, still a Sham

Mitt Romney released more exciting details on his economic plan this past Wednesday.

Here are some key points:

  • 20% across the board tax cut.
  • Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax(AMT).
  • Eliminate the Estate Tax.

Despite his statement last November- “I’m proposing no tax cuts for the rich”, he is now showering the 1% with a generous $60,000 cut.

For people making $1.7 million annually, they can enjoy an additional $264,000.[1]

Where does the money come from?  Over the next 10 years, this will increase the debt by $10.7 trillion.  This is the same hypocrite running ads about our moral duty to reduce the deficit for our children.[2]

Sure he can talk about offsets through bold cuts in spending. While his details on this point are a lot less clear, who do you think will be effected by these cuts?  That’s right, the rest of us.

He would also argue that he is not cutting taxes for the rich, because they already pay a much lower effective rate of 20.3%. This is due to expenditures and loopholes which he intends to close.  It’s hard to believe that he can eliminate loopholes currently providing 15% reduction in effective rates, while keeping capital gains tax untouched.

James Kwak, Associate Professor at Connecticut School of Law says:

“The bottom line is that if, like Mitt Romney, you want to cut tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate the AMT, it is arithmetically impossible for the top 1% to pay anything close to their current effective tax rate.”

What a joke.  This is yet another example of Republicans pushing regressive tax policy.  Whether it is a flat tax, or an across the board cut, it is all the same thing, a boon to the very wealthy.

If there is one thing you could take away from observing economic policy over the past 30 years or so, it would be that “Trickle-Down” economics just doesn’t work.  Just ask David Stockman, Budget Director under President Reagan.  Originally a supporter, and architect of “Trickle-Down” or “Supply Side” economic theory, now calls it a “Disaster” and a “Trojan Horse” that destroyed the American economy.  Why do these fools continue to propose this failed policy?  Do they think we’re too stupid to do the math? to stupid to have learned from history?  Maybe they would like to catch us not paying attention?

WAKE UP! America.  Wake up Republican voters.  If you don’t understand the difference in policy, you are missing the point entirely.  If you are not in the top 1% and vote Republican, you are voting against your own interest. More importantly, you are voting against a sustainable America.

 

Share via email

High Gas Prices?

Posted by on February 24, 2012 1 comment

Not really- U.S. gasoline prices are among the lowest in the world.  We rank 119th out of 151 countries listed.  Why so low?

Answer: low taxes

Facts:
(All prices in US Dollars)

The U.S. has some of the lowest gasoline taxes in the developed world. Since 2009 Federal gasoline tax has been 18.4 and diesel tax 24.4 cents per gallon.  Including state taxes, total average fuel taxes are 48.1 and 53.1 cents per gallon respectively.[3]

Compare this to Canada where on average one third of the price they pay for fuel is tax.  Compare that to the U.K. where the duty rate is $3.47 per gallon, plus a VAT tax of 20%, plus an excise duty based on fuel efficiency.

As of the 24th of Feb. 2012, Brits are paying $8.30 per gallon for petrol.[2]
France $8.63
Germany $8.21
Spain $7.27
Italy $5.79

Some of these prices are a year old, but prices have only increased in that time.

Today, Canadians are paying an average $4.80 per gallon.
In contrast, the U.S. has an average gasoline price of just $3.60 per gallon!

Out of all 151 countries listed, the U.S. ranked 119th for the average price of gas.[1]
Japan paid $7.23 per gallon last summer.
India paid $6 per gallon last summer.
Brazil, $5.79 (12/2010).

Not only do we pay less than other countries, and far less than Europeans. We also pay the same or less than other oil rich countries such as Russia, China and Iran.  Even these countries that produce vast amounts of oil, just like the U.S.,  still pay market prices because oil is a global commodity.  It may be domestically produced but it is globally priced.

Well, wait a minute, drivers in Mexico pay $2.90 per gallon, what gives?  They get this price because of a subsidy provided by their government. Their government buys fuel from the U.S. and resells it at $98 barrel!

So why then do we complain about the prospect of $4 to $5 per gallon for gas?  Why do we complain about our ruined and aging roads despite our refusal to accept that higher gas taxes would correct this problem? Why do some refuse to understand that increases in domestic production will have little to no effect on the pump price?

I understand our fragile economic situation, and that nobody wants to pay more for gas.  But to the rest of the world we in the U.S. look like spoiled babies, not mature or intelligent enough to understand world economics, supply and demand, and the like.  We already have some of the lowest prices and want to fault one person, our president, for a predicted increase in the price of a global commodity?  We have Republican candidates running for the his office making statements like:

“…There is no reason why we cannot have gas prices around $2.50 per gallon”. -Newt Gingrich

Really?  You are going to wave your magic wand and “set” the gas price at around $2.50 per gallon?  I don’t know who is the bigger fool, you or the people who would believe in and vote for you.

 

Share via email

Government Conspiracy or Common Sense?

Posted by on February 18, 2012 No comments

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - the “Underwear Bomber” was sentenced to life in prison the other day.  Most sane people see this as a victory, others see it as an example of justice gone wrong.

False Flag?

I just finished reading this article regarding an alleged “False Flag” by our government.  For those of you unfamiliar with the term, the following definition may help:

“False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.”
I would like to comment on it.  First, the gist of the story:
  • Another passenger, and would be witness, saw someone escorting UB(Underwear Bomber) to the gate…
  • This same passenger/witness, feels bad about not getting to testify on UB behalf…
  • Passenger/witness thus believes the bomb, inoperable and safe, was given to UB by our agents…
  • He was very scared by the whole experience, and now doesn’t trust the government…

More recently we have this case of Amine El Khalifi,  the guy who, believing that he was working with Al Qaeda, attempted to blow up the Capital.  The most notable difference in this case? it was immediately brought to light, and released to the media, that our agents posing as Al Qaeda, tricked him by giving him a fake bomb.

Wow, that really screws up the conspiracy theory.  At least the part about the government keeping this policy a secret.  Disclosure anyone?

Well, luckily there is still plenty to complain about if you are hell bent on finding fault with our government and it’s policies.

What about Entrapment?

According to the Department of Justice:
“A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.”

It is my opinion that both of these cases fail on points one and two.

But wait a minute.  Are we really this schizophrenic? I understand that you cannot please all the people all the time, and only some of the people  some of the time.  Now, you cannot expect to please some people at a later time by doing the opposite of what displeased them in the first place?

When Abdulmutallab was originally taken into custody back on Christmas day 2009, the screams from conservatives were clear–

“…It is yet another huge failure of this administration, to take a foreign born, non-citizen, and read him Miranda rights as though he were a citizen!”

They were crying foul for weeks following the event.  How dare he! (It’s all Obama”s fault)

Being a clear thinking, non-conservative, the reading of Miranda rights bothered me very little.  Why?Because nothing this guy could say before having legal representation would effect his case.  His actions literally spoke louder than any words.  The key element here was intent– He was attempting to light his “Blessed Weapon” in an attempt to harm as many people as possible.  There were in fact many witnesses to this.  At the time, he was not aware of the possibility that his “Blessed Weapon” was merely an impotent prop. (If you believe the allegations from the first story to be true.  Why not they admit to it now?)

Now, the battle cry by some of the same people is–

“…Foul play is afoot!  They took this poor man and entrapped him.  How dare they(the government) strip away his rights making him a patsy…”

What?  So on one hand, in 2009 we gave him one more right than he should have been afforded.  Now, more recently some of the same people believe we’ve taken away one too many rights by [allegedly]setting him up with a non-functioning device, and possibly buying him a plane ticket?  Well, which is it, too many rights or not enough?

Let’s apply logic and common sense for one moment.  Even IF entrapment applies(which it does not), in the case of terrorism you cannot take the null hypothesis.  You don’t have the luxury of waiting until a crime has been perpetrated to act.  Doing so means american lives lost.  And if you take the perpetrator before his “big day” on a lesser charge? Then you risk a case that may not put the perpetrator away or stick at all,  and you are only emboldening him, sending him back out to his handlers, to kill on another day.  The same is the case if you haven’t collected enough evidence.  In order to be sure of the person’s intentions, make an iron-clad case, and make sure nobody gets hurt, you must do something that closely resembles entrapment.

In these cases it is not entrapment.  Entrapment is based on the premise that the individual is being baited into doing something, they would not have done otherwise, were it not for the agents arresting them. But for many, this idea conveniently leads to disappointment, confusion, and conspiracy theories.  Beyond their actions, listen to their own words.  They state their intentions very clearly.

Also, you cannot compare this to a continuation of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action.  Most would agree that the Bush Doctrine applies to sending our armed forces or other military machinery into a sovereign country.  This is comparing apples to oranges.

But you say, “Oh you silly person, it’s not the perpetrators rights we’re concerned about, it’s the ‘American People’s right to know the truth’.”  They lie to us!  To control us!  Passing laws which infringe on our civil liberties!  The truth is, unlike so many things conservatives believe in, terrorists do in fact exist.  Another inconvenient truth, this is the only logical way to deal with them.  Imagine if we took the other approach, and waited until the plane blows up before arresting the guilty.  Everyone would be screaming, “Why did our ineffective government do nothing to stop this?”  And who would you arrest?  they’re dead after all?  You need to work with these guys, all the way through their would be act.  You need to study, trick, disarm, collect solid evidence, and carefully follow them to their leaders.  You may call this deception and erosion of civil rights (for foreign terrorists?), I call it a GOOD JOB!  Thank you agents!  I’m sure the people that were not blown to pieces would agree with me.

Maybe, I’m getting my labels wrong.  I could be blaming the wrong group.  Maybe it isn’t the conservatives that have a difficult time understanding this, but rather the well meaning, “leave everyone alone” libertarians.  It is their [conspiracy]theory after all that terrorists are a made up invention of the government, designed to exert control over people. This is crap.  Subscribing to these theories would also have you believe that anything bad that happens, foreign or domestic, is our own [government's]fault anyway.

Lastly, I understand and do not want to belittle the value of freedom and liberty.
Bejamin Franklin said:
“…He who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither.”

One of my own favorite quotes.  But we cannot let political ideology trump common sense.  Even if the terrorist was an American citizen such as Tim McVeigh, I would still prefer handling it as these two cases were, rather than allowing it to take place as it did.

Just my opinion.  What’s yours?

 

Is the current U.S. policy reasonable with regard to preventing terrorism?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Share via email

Republicans Grasping for Reverse

Posted by on February 17, 2012 No comments

Lately it is becoming crystal clear to me the difference between conservatives and progressives. Progressives want to move “forward”, while conservatives feeling that we have been “on the wrong track” for, I don’t know, 250 years or so, want to put the country in reverse. Go back to a simpler time, when only land-owning men could vote, could own slaves, and had only God to answer to.  Back then, women knew their place, and we didn’t have this problem with all these damn “foreigners”.

Since conservatives define themselves by what they oppose, I could write all day on the issues.  Here are just a few:

Immigration

While most countries the world over, are bending over backwards to attract immigrants, the Republicans would have you believe that they are some scourge of our nation, like some plague of locusts.  As though they were taking all our ‘good’ jobs, and not paying taxes.  And the ones that aren’t working, well they are probably just criminals:

While people born abroad make up about 35% of California’s adult population, they account for only about 17% of the adult prison population, the report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed. Indeed, among men ages 18 to 40 — the demographic most likely to be imprisoned — those born in the U.S. were 10 times more likely than foreign-born men to be incarcerated.

A second study, released earlier this month by Washington-based nonprofit Immigration Policy Center, found that on the national level, U.S.-born men ages 18-39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than are their foreign-born peers

To the contrary, immigrants create jobs.  25% of all high-tech startups over the past 10 years were founded or co-founded by immigrants.

America only produces about 10-20% of the mathematicians, engineers and scientists it needs to stay competitive– the rest are imported.

Every single person in this country who is not American Indian, either is or is descended from immigrants. We are a country of immigrants, but do you think there has ever been a time when it has been more difficult then now to come to this “land of opportunity”?  Let’s instead throw it in reverse.  Kill the Dream Act.  Put up an electric fence.  Self deport.  We can behave like Nazis demanding “Where are your papers?”

Voter Photo ID Laws

The most blatant power grab, by a party which feels they must do something to prevent fading into obscurity.  Put this in the same category as Gerrymandering.  These state laws are being created under the pretense that they “reduce fraud”.  There is no fraud, that assertion is a lie.

“The Bush administration launched a multi-year investigation into voter fraud but found no evidence that it is a pervasive or serious problem.”

Despite over 140 years of progress making voting more accessible to all citizens…

  • Birth – “All persons born or naturalized” “are citizens” of the US and the US State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
  • “Race, color, or previous condition of servitude” – (15th Amendment, 1870)
  • “On account of sex” – (19th Amendment, 1920)
  • In Washington, DC, presidential elections after 164 year suspension by US Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
  • (For federal elections) “By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” – (24th Amendment, 1964)
  • “Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age” (26th Amendment, 1971).

Republicans are yet again, throwing it in reverse.  What do you do when you are no longer the majority, and the true majority would vote against you and your policies?  Make it harder for them to vote.

Known as “disenfranchisement”, now Michigan, joining 14 other states, has fallen under this dark cloud. Some would even like to amend or replace the 14th Amendment!

Women’s Rights

Specifically with regard to contraception.

On May 9, 1960, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves the sale of oral pills for contraception. [...] freeing women to control their lives. Finally women have an easy and reliable means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and plan their families.

Many see the “pill” as “the single most important thing to happen for women’s rights in recent history.” While some could argue the right to vote was a more important change, certainly one is a close second to the other.

Not if a small minority of men get their way.  Recently, they actually had the audacity to put together an all male panel to discuss and investigate the issue.  ”Investigate” it under the guise of religious freedom.   A ridiculous, and thinly valed attempt to yet again– Throw it in reverse.

Separation of Church and State

“…thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”  -Thomas Jefferson

Yet again, another assault on the Constitution.  We could argue all day about what personal rights are afforded by the First Amendment.  Currently they are making a lot of noise about the “moral conscience” issue.  This logic is so severely flawed, it is difficult to see this as anything but a feeble attempt at political grandstanding. Fortunately, it looks like it’s backfiring on them.

If the “moral conscience” argument is taken seriously, it would allow Jehova’s Witnesses to deny blood transfusions to people that work for them.  It would allow child abusers to beat their kids to death, or feed their kids lettuce, until they die of malnutrition.  The concept literally justifies and stands on the same ground as Muslim Jihad.  As I stated in my earlier post, common sense would dictate that your religious freedoms end where another persons rights begin.  But no, let’s instead throw it in reverse…

On this point, one thing is clear, for some time Republicans have been trying to turn the U.S. into a “Christian State”.  While it is obvious to most, this is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to stop.  In the case of religion, it doesn’t matter if we are a country consisting of 9% christian or 99%, the intention of the First Amendment is to protect the minority, not assert the views of the majority as law.

Guess who would like to throw it in reverse?

The scariest thing about this campaign to reverse all the progress which has been made over the last 200 years?  They claim that they are protecting the Constitution and America.  Some people believe them.
I think they are destroying both.

Share via email

Is it a Left vs Right thing?

Posted by on February 11, 2012 1 comment

 

Maybe you’ve heard people say things like:

“They’re all the same, Democrats and Republicans…”

“We focus too much on the political party, and not the person…”

“That’s the problem with politics, it’s always this side vs. that side, we should focus on the issues…”


Maybe friends will tell you that you are too biased, leaning, or partisan, as though this were a bad thing.  I don’t think it is, here is why.  Politics are by nature, subjective.  That is, one cannot hold any political opinion without it being influenced by or derived from their own personal feelings, worldview, and goals. But of course, this obvious. However, many people may deny this by saying “We all want the same thing, right?” No, we don’t.  Maybe this is a trick that some have fallen for, or maybe some are just not paying attention.
Read more »

Share via email

Meet Pete Hoekstra…

Posted by on February 8, 2012 No comments

Republican candidate running for Senate in my state of Michigan.

Pete Hoekstra

Former Congressman Peter Hoekstra, Michigan's 2nd District 1993-2011

I can’t understand why there is such political risk taking from people who call themselves conservatives.

Whenever I see something like this ad which aired during the SuperBowl last Sunday, I always think to myself, “boy that was really, really dumb.  How is he going to get that foot out of his mouth?”
Then I consider for a moment, maybe it wasn’t dumb?  Maybe it was just the opposite, an artful ploy for free media attention.  Could this ad have been very carefully [mis]calculated?  It is after all from the same genius minds that brought us the “I’m not a witch…” campaign that worked out so well for Christine O’Donnell.  I’ve heard people say, “There is a fine line between bold and stupid.”  You be the judge.

Read more »

Share via email

Is Obama attacking the Catholic Church?

Posted by on February 5, 2012 6 comments

File this under ridiculous.

No, he is not.  The position that the administration has taken is clear, if you are a church or the like, you do not have to offer contraceptives in your health insurance plan.  If you are a church running another business, like a hospital, that hospital must provide the same health benefits everyone else gets.  This is easy enough to understand, right?  non-Catholics work there, as do non-Christians, adherents of other faiths and non-theists.  Why should these people have their rights infringed upon because of where they work?  This is not an attack on the church’s rights, that part remains the same. Rather, this an enforcement of individual rights under the new law.

If this were an “attack” we would see tax-exempt status revoked, and require the churches to follow the same law of the land that everyone else does.  It is my opinion that this should be the case.  This “attack” would be consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution which assures a secular(showing no religious bias) America.

 It states:

 ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is very short and easy to understand. How does interpretation of this clause allow for tax evasion?  How does this clause allow for exclusion of other persons rights?  Is it the “free exercise thereof” part?  I’m sorry, that doesn’t hold up.  Clearly the intent was to allow the church to go about their worship without the government interfering or infringing upon that worship.  This is NOT a pass to do anything they like even if it breaks the law.  If that were the case, we would still have slavery since it is permitted (and encouraged) in the Bible.  Yes, the confederates would have won that argument.  Wife beating and stoning people to death would also have to be permitted.  Mormons would have to be allowed polygamy.  Islamists, would have to be allowed to Jihad here as they see fit.  You see, this is simply absurd.  The reason that this more sensible interpretation exists is because of common sense, maybe you have heard the phrase- “Your rights end where another’s begin.”  This is common sense.  Why the spin?

Also, let’s consider for a moment the larger picture as well.  Nowhere in the Bible does it preclude contraceptive use.  In fact, it doesn’t even discuss it.  Why?  Because contraceptives didn’t exist when the Bible was originally written.  You could try and point to Genesis 38, and the story of Onan, but that is a straw man argument.  God put to death Onan not because he “withdrew”, no it is clearly stated that Onan was seen as greedy for not wanting to split his inheritance with his brother’s wife’s child (I know, marriage was complicated then). This is why he was struck down by God.  Greed was the sin, not contraception.  So, this was an interpretation, based nowhere in the text, that church leaders just decided to add.  Why would they make such an interpretation?  I do not know, but can only guess that it is consistent with the effort to relegate women to an inferior class.  Men are allowed control over their destiny, while women simply at the mercy of God(and men).  Personally I would be offended, but I am neither a woman nor a Catholic, so I am not.

  I’m not even going to go into the incredible significance contraceptives have had on our history and women’s rights.  I won’t even go into the obvious moral case for preventing unwanted births and other uses for contraceptives.  This all stands on its own merit, and would be the subject of another whole article.  All I will add is this, contraception is not abortion, that is another case entirely.  Those who would throw all this in the same box are again twisting things where they see fit.

That is my opinion, what’s yours?

Is Obama attacking the Catholic Church?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Share via email

The Ron Paul Factor

Posted by on February 2, 2012 No comments

Take a look at this page from the official Ron Paul website.

I have suspected it for quite a while and was searching for some real data to support my hypothesis, which is basically this:  Since the largest and most energetic group of Ron Paul supporters are in the 18-29 demographic, the same demographic which supported Barrack Obama in 2008, would these people vote for Barrack Obama again if Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination?  In other words, which party stands to win or lose the most if Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican primary?  My gut feeling was that they would come back, and this would tilt things just a little more in favor of the Democrats than the current polling data can suggest.

This is a real problem for Republicans, since Ron Paul has already stated that he is not interested in a VP position on the ticket.  He really never could be VP for any of the remaining candidates, primarily because some of his positions, most notably on foreign policy, Iran, and Isreal, just to name a few, are in direct opposition to theirs.  On top of this, his principles are far too high to “agree to disagree” and take a back seat.  Indeed one of his most endearing characteristics is that his positions don’t change.  Say what you will about him, he is not a flip-flopper.  He also exhibits far less hypocrisy than the others that remain.    If your stated goal is to really change things, you simply cannot do that as VP.  Consider his age, he cannot risk not being around 8 years later, or being seen as viable candidate then.  So it should be obvious VP Paul is out of the question.  Maybe he would give an endorsement?  Well, it’s common knowledge that endorsements have very little effect on actual voters.

So here are the interesting parts of the polling data provided by Ron Paul supporters,
Only one combination would favor Republicans, Mitt Romney with Jon Huntsman.  Every other combination they proposed showed Obama/Biden favored, sometimes by as much as 2-1!  If you take this data at face value, and genuine, (Why wouldn’t it be?  Not the kind of guy to try and scare voters into voting for him) then my hypothesis is correct.

He still hasn’t ruled out the option of running as a third party candidate.  This might be just as interesting case to study.  Personally, I think he should.  Primarily because he is not a Republican.  Maybe you could call him a RINO.  He is a Libertarian, and should represent himself as such as a matter of honesty which suits him well.  My suspicion is that this scenario also helps Obama win.  Why?  Because there will be a number of other Republican voters that can’t stand Mitt, and Paul will soak up those votes, effectively splitting the party.  Just a gut feeling though.  If I find any polling data, for or against this hypothesis I will be sure to update this post.  Until then, I think President Obama should be thanking Ron Paul for deciding to run this year.  What do you think?

If you are a Ron Paul supporter, how will you vote if he does not receive the Republican nomination?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Share via email

Life inside the Bubble

Posted by on February 2, 2012 1 comment

I might have to make a category for this, “Life inside the Bubble”.

Have you heard about this one?  The president made good on an offer to take the resume of this woman’s husband, and “see what he could do.”  Well, it worked, the guy now has had several firms contacting him about possible employment.  If that isn’t strange enough, listen to this.  When she was interviewed by the various morning shows, the question always comes up, “Will you vote for him?” Her answer, “Not necessarily, we are Republicans and always voted Republican.”  She continues to say, “We are undecided, and not very happy with any of the candidates including the current president.”  Also, “We are only one family.  What about everyone else that is out of work?  Maybe if he changed his policy regarding H1-B visas we would, maybe.”

 

What?  Did I misunderstand something?  First of all, the Bureau of Labor and statistics has data showing that employment is increasing despite what you choose to believe.  Also, you can easily check the data on H1-B visa’s to see that fewer were approved in 2010 than any year since 2002. Maybe the policy has changed and you failed to notice?

What is wrong with people?   Isn’t the prospect of employment after three years a pretty big deal for most people?  What more could this guy do to earn two stinking votes?  Specially since it will come at some political cost for him.  Certainly there are others who wish the President of the United States would take a personal interest in them, and their employment status.  But he simply can’t.

I imagine that most people (that are not in a strange bubble) would vote for somebody if they did a whole lot less than that.  I would probably vote for a politician that showed any personal kindness to me.  Something that requires them to take time out of their busy schedule.  I’m not talking about a handshake, but a phone-call, maybe?  Yes, I might be inclined to believe in a person who personally reached out to me for a couple moments even.  But this is employment!  Maybe a small token of gratitude would not be too much to ask?  And he didn’t ask.  The President did not allude at all to anything like “If you scratch my back…”  He just did it, spontaneously.  As one human trying to help another.

Ok, Jennifer Wedel, you think about it.  Think hard about who you want to vote for next November.   But don’t hurt yourself thinking too hard, and whatever you do don’t break that strange bubble which surrounds you.

 

 

Share via email

Quote of the Day

Posted by on January 29, 2012 No comments

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

-Mark Twain: The Adventures of Samuel L. Clemens

Share via email