Eight years ago

The GOP was threatening to invoke the nuclear option in response to the Dems filibustering Bush's judicial appointments. Here was their reply:

Barack Obama 4/25/05: "The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said 'change the rules.' 'Do it the way I want it done.' And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said 'Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.' You have to restrain yourself Mr. President."

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: "We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum."
Harry Reid 5/18/2005: "Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: "The nuclear option if successful will turn the senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation."

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: "This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab."

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: "But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration."

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: "I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority."
Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: "If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient -- well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so."

Joe Biden 5/23/05: "I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: "They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President."

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: "This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel."

If you ever needed proof that there is no difference between either party, here is your answer.

Remind me if you've heard this story before.

There's a country in the Middle East, where various ethnic groups and religious sects are kept in line by an authoritarian regime. For all intents and purposes though, they do not pose a threat to the United States and its interests.

The U.S. government seeks to impose some kind of military action against said country with trumped up charges of WMDs, said military action may drag the U.S. into a quagmire that will ultimately do more harm then good in the long run.

What was it that they said, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".

Remember when Obama said "No more tax breaks for corporations"

Obama: Top tax rat e should be 28% for corporations, 40% for smaller businesses

I certainly did.

In fact, a person on another forum I frequent said that the Dems love to claim they are opposed to corporate exploitation, yet the very policies they support tend to lead to protectionist economies that lead to corporate monopolies forming.

Funny how that works, eh.

It's not a matter of left vs. right.

One movie I am very much looking forward to seeing is "Elysium" by Neill Blomkamp, aka the director of District 9. For those unaware, the film's premise is about a dystopian society where the uber-rich live on a luxurious space station, the titular Elysium, while everyone else lives on a Earth that has more or less gone to hell with crime, pollution, the works. And its up to Matt Damon to save us all. (Also, it has him and Sharlto Copley having a katana fight, which is awesome).

Reason why I bring this up is, considering the film's subject matter, its become a magnet for political debate. Really, really, stupid political debate. Essentially, those on the right claim the film to be "socialist propaganda" since Matt Damon's character seems to be the classic "Working-class hero who overthrows the bourgeoisie" archetype. Those on the left claim the dystopic world that the film presents is what will happen if conservatives have their way and its why we must they must never be elected into power lest this comes to be.

The issue of the wealth gap, the "1 vs the 99%" is a very real concern. But it seems to me both sides have turned this into a "Left vs. Right" issue where they blame each other for causing it and that they and only they can rectify the flaws. Aside from the fact that I doubt Blomkamp's intention was to turn the film into a politically ideological debate defined by parties, both tend to ignore that they themselves are guilty.

A thing I've noticed that may have served as an inspiration for Elysium's motif is the gated communities in Los Angeles in contrast to inner-city slum neighborhoods. The gated communities have private security patrols, much like the robots shown in the trailers, and they more or less are divorced from the problems with places like South LA, where crime, police brutality and other things are rampant. And many of the progressive policies that have led California to bankruptcy is designed to maintain that status quo, the same way the creators of Elysium are determined to keep immigrants from Earth off their station.

So the bottom line is that, left vs. right, both sides are guilty of maintaining the social standards that could very well lead to the nightmarish world that Elysium demonstrates. Both sides, and especially the left, fail to notice the hypocrisy as they are too busy blaming each other for the damage.

And like the definition of insanity, we continue to perpetuate this hoping things will change.

Thoughts on Trayvon Martin

With this case apparently about to be concluded soon, here are my quick thoughts for the day. First, I will argue neither man is entirely in the right. I do believe Zimmerman acted recklessly when he started the whole confrontation with Martin rather than calling the police about a suspicious individual, which might have prevented Trayvon's unfortunate fate and this whole circus from occurring in the first place. On the other hand, the media's constant canonizing of "St. Trayvon", coupled with the prosecutions almost over-zealous tactics that ultimately contradicted their case does make me convinced this was an act of self defense. After all, the truth isn't always that simple.

Now, to the whole "issue" that's the reason why this became the latest courtroom sensation. Race. During the night of the shooting, it was mostly passed as a non-issue, at least something that Zimmerman could not be stood to trial. But as soon as the media and special interest groups got a hold of the story, it immediately turned into a race issue, complete with Zimmerman being classified as a "White-Hispanic" and Obama saying that his son would have looked like Trayvon. And we're now seeing that their zeal for essentially trying to lynch Zimmerman has fallen apart as the prosecution continually contradicts itself.

Now, of course, there are plenty of bigots who said that Zimmerman "Did a good thing killing that nigger" and that he should be praised as a hero. While Trayvon is a not a saint, to say he deserved to be killed doesn't make you any better. On the other side of the spectrum, the words "If Zimmerman walks, we riot" have become popular in the social media circus. And while I doubt it will turn out like Rodney King or Watts, I would not be surprised if there are some idiots that try to pull something. Not to mention, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, he's pretty much a marked man wherever he goes.

Bottom line, if anything this case has shown, it is that far from moving away from racism, we may have become even more polarized on racial lines. And while we can expect this in the usual suspects from white southern conservatives, I would argue to the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of America to take a look at themselves in a mirror once in a while.

MLK, wherever he is, has to be shaking his head in shame. 50 years later, we still haven't quite gotten it, and both sides are to blame.

Dear America: Stop giving the Westboro Baptist Church airtime

I'm certain a number of people by now are aware of the WBC and their rhetoric. For those unaware, they are essentially a gang of bigots who think every disaster and tragedy, from soldiers killed in duty to school shootings, is because God is punishing us for tolerating gay marriage. Often they love to picket the funerals of the victims and said disasters.

To give you a sense of just how twisted and evil they truly are, two things: One, they picketed Fred Rogers funeral. And two, the Ku Klux Klan think they are too extreme. Think about that for a moment.

Today, I just learned they plan to picket, of all things, a funeral for a group of firefighters that died in Arizona during the recent wildfires there.

If we weren't so in love with media saturation, we would dismiss them as nothing more than a group of whackos desperate for attention. Unfortunately, because the news just has to have something to fill airtime, they continually cover them in articles and press reports, which only gives them attention they do not deserve.

So yeah everyone, if you wish for the WBC to go away or fade into obscurity, please stop giving them attention, thank you.

And yet another false promise.

Today, the Treasury Department has announced that they will push off enforcing insurance mandates for the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", until after the election.

Now, one would hope after seeing how Obamacare has actually raised insurance premiums and rates in California, in contradiction to the claim that it would lower health care costs, perhaps this is the Dems realizing this was a bad idea from the start and they need to restructure it into a system that is actually reasonable. One that can bring about affordable care without us needing to front exorbitant bills or be forced to triage because there is no money left.

Of course, I doubt it. This is because they know if the ACA is implemented in its current state, many will see exactly why people are so fervently against it. And no, it is not because we don't want to "Give free care to undeserving poors". On a whole list of failed promises, this would no doubt spell trouble for the election, I mean, if Obamacare was viable, would they not enforce it already?

Not that I relish the prospects of the GOP winning both Houses should it come to pass, but if this whole farce doesn't convince people of how much the Dems will sink to to maintain their grip on power, I don't know what will.

They're both terrible, and how we haven't already casted them out into the desert where they belong is beyond me.