Why Portland?

 Why were the protests of  2020 so extended in Portland? What happened in Seattle?

 

Pioneer Square in Seattle Washington. 

Protests in most cities did not last as long as the protests in Portland, WA. I often wondered why BLM was still actively protesting in Portland when other cities were mostly quiet. 

Today I read through the Seattle Met magazine for Fall 2020, a magazine I take at home in Texas because I have relatives in Washington near Seattle. 

This is a totem pole in Pioneer Square, Seattle, Washington.

In that issue was a story about the Native American woodcarver John T. Williams. He was killed by a lone cop 10 years ago because he had his knife in his hand. Being partially deaf, he would not have understood or even heard the command to drop his knife. After all, what was he doing with it to upset anyone? 

Being a woodcarver, would he have been waving his knife in a conversational fashion at someone walking by? You know, like homemakers do with knives when they are peeling potatoes or chopping onions and someone walks through the kitchen and speaks to them. A friendly gesture. Was he threatening a passerby? When the cop saw him from his car and got out with gun drawn to tell him to drop the knife, what was happening? 

Read the story in Seattle Met and judge for yourself.

The ten-year later approach is informative.  

 

Photo Credits: Both photos were taken in 2014 by the same photographer and are used by Creative Common License from Wikimedia. For the totem pole and for Pioneer Square: Jrozwado / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

What has Obama Done for us over his First 3.5 Years?

Here is a blog post that lists the accomplishments of the past 3.5 years of the Obama Administration.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Doesn't look like a do-nothing presidency to me.

(Image of President Obama copied from http://northcountrydemocrat.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html as a lisense-free image.)

Obama a Loser?

Today while reading The Week on-line I came across a comment where the fellow claimed that Obama was a loser.  (There is a link below the box to the entire dialog.)

Tumblers, a flame © 2009

This is my reply to him.

Heavens, how can you call a sitting president a loser? He won that election, after all. And got some very major bills passed through a partially hostile congress. And he accomplished the primary publicly-stated goals Bush set for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq both. And he lowered the unemployment rate and reduced taxes for business and the middle class. And look at what he accomplished against the enormous odds set by the other party.

The major weakness that I have observed in the Obama years is that the press does not publish his accomplishments with the same fervor that they publish the criticisms against him, nor does it publish favorable opinions fair-handedly. The other major weakness is that the Dems have not explained their policies and the new laws in ways that the public will hear and understand. They have not consistently pointed out the facts so that people can read through the innuendos and out-right lies propagated by the other party and its media censorship.

The other major problem with publicizing Obama's successes is that many Americans have a religious fervor for accepting everything they hear on Fox News Network and refuse to listen to any reporting that does not agree with the likes of Glen Beck. When church members in the Bible Belt claim that what they hear on Fox is all they know or need to know in the same manner that they say they only read the Bible and do not require much education because God will provide all they need to know and whatever they need to live on-- they always let you know that to think, or say, otherwise would be a betrayal of their Faith--then you have to realize that churches are doing lots of politicking despite their tax-exempt status.

Check out the entire dialog here:
http://theweek.com/article/index/228291/5-reasons-the-clinton-biden-switcheroo-will-never-happen

How will Romney Defend the Nation?

I was watching Thom Hartmann yesterday on satellite TV. A lady called in with this question: If Mitt Romney and his 4 sons are conscientious objectors, how will he lead the US military as Commander in Chief?

 Taking Over © 2009 V. Coskrey

On the news it was reported that the Republicans in the house want to pass a resolution requiring the US to declare war on Iran as soon as that country becomes "nuclear-capable" even if the use of nuclear power is for peaceful purposes like generating electricity. How will the leading Republican candidate, a conscientious objector of past wars (Hartmann {May 16, 2000} reported that Romney had avoided service in the military by serving as a Mormon missionary to France) deal with a war begun by his party as soon as he enters office?

How will Republicans under Mitt Romney Create Jobs?

    How will Mitt Romney create jobs? By bolstering the corporations? By making business loans available? By increasing government civil service positions? By expanding the number of government subcontractors?

Below is a copy of am email from Stephanie of the Obama-Biden campaign.  It discusses past examples of business practices of Mitt Romney.

There is an email within the email. The original is posted in the bottom half of the boxed area. It is even more informative than the top half.

 (Hello)

Watch this video we put together featuring people affected by Mitt Romney during his time in the private sector, and help hold him accountable by passing it along.

[This is an ad by Democrats. There is much info here, especially in the timeline across the bottom of the add page. Ignore the first popup. The others are all about information gathered from the people involved in the assistance provided by Romney's company. ~Knee Jerk Reactions added this caption.]

It's important that you understand exactly what Romney did as a businessman, and whether the lessons and values he drew from that experience really do qualify him to be our president.

In a career of buying and selling companies, Romney's pattern was to reap quick profits for himself and his investors, but often at the expense of workers and communities. Sometimes it meant outsourcing jobs to places like China and Mexico. Other times, it would mean reducing wages and benefits.

At times, his firm would buy companies, load them with debt and pocket millions, even as the companies went bankrupt, costing workers their jobs, health care, and pensions.

In Romney's world, CEOs and wealthy investors prosper by any means they can get away with, even when that means companies fail and workers are left behind. Two sets of rules -- one for people like him, another for the rest of us.

It's our job to let people know the truth about Romney's record, and what it says about the economic vision and values he would bring to the presidency.

The real strength of the economy is a growing, thriving middle class, not simply a band of successful financial engineers, and Romney doesn't get that.

I sent the note below to the Truth Team, a group of grassroots supporters who've signed up to be on the front lines of doing just that.

So check out this video:

http://my.barackobama.com/Romney-Economics

And consider becoming a part of the Truth Team -- we'd love to have your help.

Thanks,

Stephanie


-----
More than 1.9 million people like you power this campaign. If you can, please donate today.


-----------------Original Message-----------------
From: Stephanie Cutter, BarackObama.com
Subject: Romney economics

Friend --

On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney points to his private sector experience as his chief qualification to be president.

So we took a look at that experience, and put together a new site, RomneyEconomics.com, on it. Take a look for yourself here.

Let me sum up how Romney economics works:

Romney and his partners bought companies across the United States, often loading them up with debt in the process.

Too often, they slashed pensions, benefits, and jobs, while paying themselves and their shareholders straight from the debt they'd accumulated.

Because of that debt, several of these businesses went bankrupt, leaving workers without jobs, without pensions, and without health care -- all while Romney and his partners walked away with millions.

Everyone understands that businesses rise and fall -- and sometimes fail -- and no one is challenging Romney's right to run his business as he saw fit or questioning private equity as a whole.

But when a handful of people make a fortune by putting thousands out of work and bankrupting once-healthy businesses, it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president -- and whether those are the values that will create an economy built to last, with a strong, secure middle class.

On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney claims that what he and his partners did is the very best of what capitalism can be. He claims to know how to create jobs based on that experience, but even his former partners admitted their business was never about creating jobs -- it was about creating wealth for investors.

Just listen to the workers of GST Steel: Mitt Romney came in, ravaged it with debt, and it ended up filing for bankruptcy. 750 workers lost their jobs and health care, and Romney's managers left their pension fund $44 million short. The 113-year-old steel mill closed its doors, and Romney's company made a 150% profit on their initial investment.

As RomneyEconomics.com shows, stories like that happened time and time again. That approach, where a few people do very well no matter what the cost to others, is the last thing we need in a president.

Romney's economics would be a disaster for the middle class. We can't afford an economy where even when the company fails, the financial wizards walk away with millions, while the workers who have invested years growing the company are left holding the bag. That won't make our economy -- or our country -- stronger.

As part of the Truth Team, it's up to us to spread the truth behind Mitt Romney's business record. We don't need to spin it here, the facts speak for themselves.

So take a look around the site -- check out the year-by-year statistics and hear from the workers and managers affected by Mitt Romney and his business partners. Then share these stories far and wide: http://my.barackobama.com/Romney-Economics

There's too much at stake in this election not to.

Thanks,

Stephanie

Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Tea Party and oher Horrors that Make me Fear for our Future

(Got a thunderstorm coming, so this is a quick post copied from what I wrote in WordPad this am.. Yep, it needs double-checking and revising, but I have to turn off the computer now!)

New Jersey wants to recall its senator because he voted for measures proposed by the President of the United States. Tea Partyers think they can legally do this based on a New Jersey law recently passed.

Texas wants to teach a revisionist history in its public schools. This movement is headed by the same folks that couldn't force Creationism on the public school system. As part of the fact distortions of the revisionist history is the inclusion of the acceptance of non-separation of church and state. Is this another aspect of Tea Party influence.

Nationwide, the Tea Party is claiming that a duly-elected President of the United States is un-American. Somehow it was OK for a Republican to steal an election for president, but a an actually legally elected one is unacceptable.

Tea Partyers are upset about a possible tax increase that hasn't materialized. They are upset that the majority rules, not them. They are upset about the National Debt, even though the policy makers that they support created this mess.

I am afraid that the Tea Party and the Far Right, with the help of Fox TV, Sarah Palin, and numerous others are going to completely destroy this country. They have no respect for the Constitution in its entirety, just certain favored amendments. They want to reduce the Federal Government to impotency. Unfortunately, once that happens, the USA as we know it will fall. The deregulation of the past decades have gutted so much of our economy. Our physical infrastructure is old and needs repair, let alone maintenance. We are fighting expensive wars.

Meanwhile, climate change has already produced numerous natural disasters in the form of numerous powerful tornadoes, floods, mudslides, drought, melting glaciers, diminished snowfall, and sea-level rise. Changes in temperature and rainfall patterns are devastating our agricultural regions.

In the near future our success as nation will require a united people willing to work together to solve tremendous challenges. Or the USA will be destroyed from within. Prayer will not save those who will not help themselves. Making the USA a religious state will not stop the natural disasters coming our way. Refusing to pay taxes will not enable the USA to recover from this past economic tragedy.

Jobs will come when corporations hire Americans to produce a product. Why not force a US corporation to keep an American workforce, to pay taxes to its own government? In fact, if all corporations that do business in the United States were required to pay all its workers a decent wage and to pay their fair share of the taxes that support this country, they just might hire Americans. We could make a law that says that all corporations doing business in American must hire a certain percentage of Americans within the borders of the USA. If a corporation wants to be registered elsewhere and hire workers elsewhere, let them. But require that they also register in the United States, pay taxes on any profit from work and products from within the United States; and be required to treat its foreign workers overseas to the same human rights, pay them reasonable local wages above the local minimum wage expectation, and maintain OSHA safety standards.

Why should the Tea Party blame the Obama administration for the lack of jobs? It was deregulation, corporate outsourcing, and corporate greed and mismanagement that reduced the number of jobs available. Yes, NAFTA encouraged corporations to open businesses overseas, but the corporations themselves made the decision to abandon the American people to do so. Blame the corporations.

Has anyone in the Tea Party really thought through what our country will devolve into if they get control of the legislature? I foresee a religious state with revisionist history and science, denial of the technology and scientific principles required to adjust to a changing world climate, taxes too low to maintain governmental services, guns used to force neighbors to act as required by the will of the more powerful, more heavily armed, isolationism with no money in the government coffers to actually enforce the policies or defend the borders, attack from abroad because the Jihadists can, natural disasters that destroy with no assistance from the financially gutted FEMA, and all the other trends that an impotent Federal Government leads us into.

People, I am frightened for our future as a country. The very principles that this nation was built on are being eroded by the Tea Party, the Conservatives, the Republican Party, and the religious fundamentalists that want to control this nation, greedy and unethical corporate policies, and inadequate taxes.

What is at stake is our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution. What is at stake is our cultural pluralism. What is at stake is our individualism and individual freedoms. What is at stake is our scientific and technological success.

To Opt In or Opt Out? That is the Question.

What is the difference? Either way citizens get the health insurance they need to pay for the health care they need. And just what is so socialistic about the citizens getting something directly from the taxes they pay. After all, huge corporations and even regular-sized businesses and (farmers/food producers) get support from the government all the time. Even after using all the tax loopholes that deprive this country of the needed taxes that they would ordinarily owe. (No wonder the country is in debt!)

Oh, wait. I know. If a state has to opt out, then the state legislatures and governors have to overtly show the citizens they represent that health care for the regular people of their state is not something that they care about--even if the majority of the citizens are in need and are asking for it.

If the state has to opt in, then the minority, who happen to have decent health care insurance, can ignore the matter and hope it goes away and that the citizens of their states will not ask why they got left out. Maybe there will not be a grass-roots movement to demand an opt in.

But wait, there's more...

Watch. These same politicians will be the first to respond to the inevitable grass-roots demand for decent options to their health care choices insurance with the mantra: "Vote for me and I will see that this state opts in."

It is just semantics. It is just politics.

I think there should be an executive order to drop the health care insurance policies of Congress that is funded by taxpayers and change it to a set of private heath care insurance programs. Privatize it for everyone, not just the needy citizenry. It is feudal elitism for the Congress to get privileges paid for by taxpayers that the same Congress refuses to grant to the same taxpayers. Why do we fund these obstructionists? Our blood, sweat, and tears are shed so they can collect from the special interest groups and ignore the needs of the people. Are we tired of this yet?

Wake up, Republicans. Get with the program, Democrats.

And another thing: Why is there such an uproar over the possibility of coverage for abortion from the same people that send our sons and daughters to a war to be maimed, killed and traumatized. Are we exhausted yet?