. . . the gory details of behind-the-scenes politics at the highest level of The U.S. government gives one pause. Granted, I was just a kid when these people were active, but it is absolutely mind-boggling to learn of the great lengths to which some will go in the interest of power. And money, for that matter, although my current reading material is about power while the sub-plot of 'money can easily buy power' (a fact of which our current conservative supreme court justices are blissfully unaware) is all too present. And this is really nothing new to our times, my lifetime or recent history. As long as history has been recorded the very same has been true. It makes me quite content with my own principles. I will never be rich (financially) nor powerful (politically), but I will always be honest and true to myself and in any and all human interactions in which I participate. Really!
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
My latest solo release, '2014', can be downloaded digitally at:
(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak4)
(from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702303519404579352551767664072?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB40001424052702303519404579352551767664072.html by James Piereson)
""Income inequality" has emerged as the issue du jour in U.S. politics, threatening to displace the unpopular health-care law and the slow-growing economy this election year. Speeches and columns now routinely attack the banks or "the undeserving rich" and call on Washington to do something to redistribute income from the "super rich" to the poor and middle class. Democrats from President Obama to the new mayor of New York City are leading the charge on behalf of the "99%."
This crusade is based on three questionable claims. One is that the wealthy are mostly Wall Street bankers benefiting from rising stock and real estate prices, or executives who pay themselves extravagant salaries. Another claim is that such people unfairly benefit from a system that taxes capital gains at half the highest marginal rate paid by those who earn salaries and wages. Then there is the assertion that the "super rich" have abundant funds that can be taxed to improve the living standards of everyone else.
All of these claims are false. By promoting them, the president and his supporters may hope to distract attention from ObamaCare and the economy. Yet they are igniting hopes they can't possibly fulfill. . ."
(from http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/index)
" . . . This shared prosperity of the postwar years was no accident or lucky combination of circumstances. A "rising tide" of robust economic growth does not necessarily lift all boats. Political struggle and policy choices determine whose boats rise. The inequality of the 20th century's early years actually began closing before economic growth took off in the 1940s, as a consequence of the political response to the Great Depression. . . "
(from me. . . )
Mr. Piereson seems content with making the sole point that wealth inequality is basically untrue because the 1% of the population holding the majority of wealth does not consist exclusively of bankers and Wall Street wizards but includes sports, movie, rock and roll and other 'entertainment' types in addition to 'business' executives who draw salaries. And this point alone contents Mr. Piereson that there is no inequality of wealth (with no mention of course about caring for the less fortunate) and that ". . . At a time of slow economic growth, mounting government debt, a stalemated politics and the impending retirement of the "baby boomers," the attacks on the "one percent" look more and more like a diversion from America's real problems."
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/opinion/colinvaux-irs-taxes/index.html)
Roger Colinvaux, associate professor of law at Catholic University of America and former counsel to the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation
The noise about IRS 'targeting' procedures should not be misinterpreted. The real issue at hand is disclosure of donors, not tax-exempt status. Something tells me that liberal and conservative groups are equally suspect when it comes to revealing donors, but that's just ME.
The IRS is actually in the 'targeting' business. They are an enforcer and are supposed to go after scofflaws, cheaters and dodgers. The guilt lies in the searching of tax returns for names like "tea party", which is clearly a specific group. What they should have done was searched for all such groups as a class, irrespective of political affiliation.
Roger Colinaux writes, ". . . But the extra scrutiny here is less because of tax exemption and more because of other tax benefits that flow from tax-exempt status, such as the ability to receive tax-deductible contributions. Importantly, charitable organizations are not allowed to engage in any political activity, because Congress long ago decided that charity and politics are incompatible. . ."
It's campaign finance law and NOT tax law that dictates public disclosure of donors for political groups but not for social welfare organizations. Mr. Colinaux again, ". . . After the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, it became possible for a 501(c)(4) organization to engage in unlimited amounts of political spending. It thus also became possible for a political organization to use the tax law to hide the identity of donors. After Citizens United, the abuse the IRS is tasked with policing is whether an organization that claims to be a "social welfare" organization is in reality a political organization in disguise. . ."
So its yet another polarizing issue (guess there wouldn't be so much polarization if we weren't limited to only two poles.) and also again, an issue of many barking up the wrong tree.
Once again, our wonderful media and even more wonderful electoral system have, in combination failed us tremendously. There are actually, contrary to popular perception, OTHER options for president of the United States.
Not everything needs to exist in only in pairs like:
pants/trousers
underwear
swimming trunks
shorts
jeans
glasses
sunglasses
binoculars
goggles
scissors
pliers
clippers
tweezers
tongs
headphones
handcuffs
shoes
socks
slippers
boots
shoe laces
gloves
cuff links
earrings
pair of contacts
pair of eyes
pair of lungs
kidneys
wings
dice
skis
skates
crutches
chopsticks
speakers
headlights
windshield wipers
knitting needles
Depending upon your particular state, (and don't forget write-in possibility) there are other choices:
Libertarian Party
Gary Johnson - official nominee. Former Republican governor of New Mexico
Green Party
Jill Stein - official nominee. Physician
Constitution Party
Virgil Goode - official nominee. Former U.S. Congressman from Virginia, who was in Congress as a Democrat, an independent, and lastly a Republican
Prohibition Party
Jack Fellure - official nominee
Justice Party
Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City
Peace and Freedom Party
Roseanne Barr, entertainer, is the nominee of the California-based with activist Cindy Sheehan as her running mate
The Reform Party
Andre Barnett
Socialist Party
Stewart Alexander
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peta Lindsay
Socialist Workers Party
James Harris
Socialist Equality Party
Jerry White
Freedom Socialist Party
Stephen Durham
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . or was the debate something like this? . . .
(from http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/10/11/fact-check-slips-vice-president-debate/7ZH8sFVuIfG2B7XpZaaozH/story.html)
". . .Vice President Joe Biden has
mangled a heaping helping of facts over the years. Despite being newer
to presidential-campaign politics, Republican Paul Ryan has already
earned something of a reputation Vice President Joe Biden has mangled a heaping helping of facts over the years. Despite being newer to presidential-campaign politics, Republican Paul Ryan has already earned something of a reputation for taking flying leaps past reality.
How'd they do Thursday night?
Here’s a look at some of their claims:
BIDEN, on whether U.S. should have beefed up security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya before the deadly terrorist attack there: ‘‘We weren’t told they wanted more security there.’’
RYAN: ‘‘There were requests for more security.’’
THE FACTS: Ryan is right, judging by testimony from Obama administration officials at a congressional hearing this week.
Charlene R. Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security, told lawmakers she refused requests for more security in Benghazi, saying the department wanted to train Libyans to protect the consulate. ‘‘Yes, sir, I said personally I would not support it,’’ she said.
Eric Nordstrom, who was the top security official in Libya earlier this year, testified he was criticized for seeking more security. He said conversations he had with people in Washington led him to believe that it was ‘‘abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’’
___
RYAN: ‘‘We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting, when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people.
THE FACTS: Neither President Barack Obama nor anyone else in his administration ever considered the Syrian leader a ‘‘reformer.’’ The oft-repeated charge stems from an interview Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave in March 2011 noting that ‘‘many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.’’ She did not endorse that view. The comment was widely perceived to be a knock at senators such as John Kerry of Massachusetts who maintained cordial relations with Assad in the months leading up to his crackdown on protesters.
___
BIDEN: ‘‘We went out and rescued General Motors.’’
THE FACTS: Actually, the auto bailout of General Motors and Chrysler began under President George W. Bush. The Obama administration continued and expanded it.
___ RYAN: ‘‘And then they put this new Obamacare board in charge of cutting Medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors. This board, by the way, it’s 15 people, the president’s supposed to appoint them next year. And not one of them even has to have medical training.’’
THE FACTS: Ryan is referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law. It has the power to force cuts in Medicare payments to service providers if costs rise above certain levels and Congress fails to act. But it doesn’t look like the board will be cutting Medicare ‘‘each and every year,’’ as Ryan asserts. Medicare costs are currently rising modestly and the government’s own experts project the board’s intervention will not be needed until 2018 and 2019 at the earliest — after Obama leaves office if re-elected to a second term.
___
BIDEN, when asked who would pay more taxes in Obama’s second term: ‘‘People making a million dollars or more.’’
THE FACTS: Obama’s proposed tax increase reaches farther down the income ladder than millionaires. He wants to roll back Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.
___
RYAN: ‘‘We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let’s take a look at where we've gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material — to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They’re racing toward a nuclear weapon. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.’’
THE FACTS: Ryan’s claim is misleading. Iran isn’t believed to have produced any of the highly enriched uranium needed to produce even one nuclear weapon, let alone five. That point isn’t even disputed by Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored the world at the United Nations last month to create a ‘‘red line’’ at enrichment above 20 percent. Iran would have to enrich uranium at much higher levels to produce a weapon. There is intelligence suggesting that Iran has worked on weapon designs, but not that it has developed a delivery system for any potential nuclear warhead. . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . and think [Note to Mitt and friends, you may continue talking amongst yourselves]
(from NBCNews.com by Jim Maceda, an NBC News foreign correspondent based in London and
currently on assignment in Cairo. He has covered the Middle East since
the 1970s.)
". . . This paroxysm of protest – and violence – had begun in Cairo. But what, really, began there?
Much of the mainstream media has played it as a spontaneous reaction to a disgusting film clip which denigrated Muslims and happened to be made and promoted in the USA.
But New York Times editorialist Ross Douthat argued it had nothing to do with a "genuine popular backlash," but everything to do with old-style power politics. For Jim Clifton, chairman of the pollster Gallup, it wasn't about religion or politics, but rather the desperate expression of young Arab males, deeply humiliated because they couldn't find jobs.
'Political manipulation'
Egyptian analysts seem to be more in agreement: Many protesters outside the U.S. Embassy were genuinely offended by the film. But the real driving force behind the protest – in Cairo and Benghazi – were radical Islamist groups who know how to exploit rage for political gain.
Actors and the assistant director of the film "Innocence of Muslims" told NBC News that the original spoken lines in the screenplay were dubbed over without their knowledge. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.
"There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered," said Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian journalist. "For instance, why after two months of being on YouTube did this film suddenly explode on the anniversary of 9/11? That is political manipulation and manufactured outrage that the right wing is all too happy to use.''
Egypt issues arrest warrants for Terry Jones, Coptic Christians over anti-Islam video
By "right-wing" Eltahawy means ultra conservatives – often called Salafists – who practice a strict, puritanical form of Islam and make up the fastest-growing Islamic political and social movement in the world. On the night of the Cairo embassy attacks, the Salafists saw an opportunity to flex their muscles.
"A lot of people went to the U.S. Embassy not just because of the film, and after the film died down, it wasn't about the film anymore," Eltahawy explained. "They went because of anti-U.S. sentiment, because they know in this region how easy it is to fan the flames of anger.". . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
Inspirational and simply correct. In the face of so much adversity in the form of office politics and some basic, simple, downright ignorance, one who can maintain his/her integrity while according all due respect, even to those promulgating the politics and victim to the ignorance. I find it admirable and worthy of the utmost respect. In my own, simple, lazy way, I try to emulate this most noble tack.
I fear however, that when more time is spent in discussing the aforementioned adversity that can be spent on pure, positive, pro-activity, sooner or later. . .
something's gotta give.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . not that Howard. Howard Bess. The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer, Alaska. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.
Howard says this week, and rightly so, that it's just plain impossible to leave religion out of politics. In fact, lots of Christians actually believe that American was formed by Christians and for Christians to be a purely Christian nation. In believing this, they think that the 'will of God', as they perceive it, takes precedence over all. In short, says Howard, they want control. Population growth is huge, air and water are becoming more and more polluted and we still sidestep the fact that this is all caused by fundamental religious conviction. Howard says quite correctly that the Catholic church is a major polluter of the world through the promotion of population growth.
The recent misstatements on the part of a presidential candidate and a number of religious folks saying that the government is inhibiting their freedom of religion betray their ignorance. They can ". . . believe whatever they like, but when they propose that their doctrinal beliefs be made the law of the land, their beliefs become proper subjects of discussion in the political arena. . . " says Howard.
I can't speak for Howard, but from all I've read from him, he thinks similarly in this regard, but I, John Shelby Spong, Science of Mind adherents and a growing number of thinking, questioning, educated seekers do not pretend to know the 'will' of a 'God' based upon ancient texts, mistranslated and misinterpreted over thousands of years. In fact, God to us is the ground of being. It (notice I didn't say "HE") is a life-power flowing among all things, but first and foremost, from human beings. So it stands to reason that anyone who holds an agenda to diminish the life of any human person, especially because they think that a book which contains the last word on the subject, tells them to, is very sadly mistaken. Likewise when they think that book entitles them impose some archaic social practices on the rest of the population, they once again err grievously.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Also download
your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray
Jozwiak
