This is a forward someone sent to me. I have to repost it here. It gave me quite a few giggles. rofl
Question - where are all of those buses going to? Do all of these folks really BELIEVE they are actually gon get anywhere NEAR the ceremony? Brothers and Sistas, we can't all go to Washington for the ceremony. The city ain't but so big! "D.C." is smaller than Queens . You wasn't ALL INVITED! I heard of one church that has FIFTY buses going to Washington ! Have ya'll all lost yo minds?! FIFTY BUSES! Where they gonna go? AN' you know some our folks don't do well in the cold! What's Sista Jones and her bad hip gonna do standin on the lawn for three or four hours when it's 10 degrees out? First of all, you know she cant walk from where yall gon hafta leave the bus to where you gon hafta stan', which is gonna be 'bout five MILES from where the President’s gonna be! An' y'all know ya can't be draggin' all yo lawnchairs, beachchairs, piknikchairs an tables wid ya! You gonna hafta stand all through the ceremony. 'Sides, by the time all them bad hips an' bad knees gits down there to the lawn, the ceremony’ll be 'bout over!
That brings ta mind another thing! Y'all needs to leave on time! This ain't goan be like no church piknik or barbeque, an' it sho ain't gon start two or three hours late like some gospel show. Now B is a brotha, but he know how to handle his bizness! He don't run on CP Time! Them folks ain't gon stand out in that cold all mornin' waitin for the 10,000 buses and vans comin' from all over to get there. You church folks migh jes as well plan on leaving Sunday mornin' - do all yore singin' an' prayin' on the road! Psalm 95 on I-95! (Check it out - it fits!)
An' y'all best be plannin' on leavin right afta the ceremony. They ain't gon let y'all jes tie up Penns ylvania Avenue all daggone day! I can hear it now - "WOULD YOU PLEASE LEAVE THE LAWN – STEP BACK OFF THE LAWN!" They ain't gonna wait while 20 million black folks line up to have they picture taken standin' in front of the Capitol. AN' all your marchin' bands, steel pan ensembles, step teams, drill teams, Pee-Wee football, cheerleaders, church choirs, jump-rope teams, Elks, Masons, Bisons, Shriners, Miners, Whiners, Evening Stars, Morning Stars, Falling Stars, Alphas, Deltas, Sigmas, Kappas, Phi Beta Slammas, and fine Gamma Hammas cannotALL be in the pararde.
If you ain't got an invitation ALREADY, you ain't invited! So jes plan on goin' down, an' soon as you inside the city limits -get off the bus, take your pictures and LEAVE, cause with alla you peeples tryin to git there at the same time, the closest you likely to get to the capitol will probably be Baltimore in the north and Richmond to the South! Make sure that youSCHEDULE your time off, an' that includes Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Barack can't be callin' all your employers, an'being stuck in traffic on I-95 comin' from the Inauguration don’t get you no kinda administrative leave!
One other thing - remember back in the day when we was all still upset about racism in America, an' many of us wasconvinced that THE MAN was constantly plottin' our extermination?! Remember when everything was seen as an act of racial GENOCIDE - Welfare Reform; requirements that college athletes meet academic standards to be eligible to play; the DISPROPORTIONATE number of brothas in PRISON; drugs; raising academic standards; even birth control! Well, just suppose there was a way to get ALL of the black people together in one place at the same time. Then it would be relatively easy to get rid of them. Well, as it seems like just about every black person in America is plannin' on bein' at theInauguration, you don't suppose that all of this could be part of some sinister MASTER PLAN to get rid of black people, do you?
For myself, I plan on stayin' home that day an' watchin' everything on the tee-vee. l'll probably see mo of it than any of y'all. Besides, all that aroma of all that perfume, hair stylin' chemicals, curried goat, fish samiches, baked ham, tata salad and fried chicken on a bus for 16 hours would drive me plum crazy. On the other hand, I might jes go down to the church that mornin' an' make a few bucks sellin' some brown-paper-bag-gourmet-food. Besides, there's gotta be at least ONE person left to tell about all this.
Anyway, I hope you have a great time and keep Barack an' his family in your prayers! Oh yeah, remember - Jan 20, 2009 @ 7:30 p.m. sharp! No matter where you are, or what you doin' - it's time for the National Electric Slide!
Slide to the Left! Slide to the Right! Now everybody clap your hands!
http://cdbaby.com/cd/robertanton3 (the CD, Insane, on sale now)
www.youtube.com/robertantonnyc
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I Voted Today
I rolled out of bed this morning with a mission. To Vote. I washed my face, brushed my teeth, had some juice, and got dressed. No time for eating or a shower. That will come later. I have to Vote.
My polling place is literally a block from my house, and I had checked the net twice to make sure it hadn't been changed. This is not my first time voting, but I was nervous. jitters. This is so important. I have to VOTE.
I bundled my passport, driver's license, credit cards, utility bills, and thought of taking my social security card (just in case). After reading blogs, watching Vlogs, and checking out books by Greg Palast and the website: stealbackyourvote.org; I felt like I was ready for any eventuality. I HAVE TO VOTE TODAY.
On my way into the building, someone stopped me and asked for an interview. He was from the New York Times. I was in earnest, but I thought it might be good to delay a second and have a chat. He asked me some questions, and we had a nice talk; I gave him my card, and he said he was off to write his article.
In the auditorium, I asked for my district and went to stand in line. Someone came up and asked my name and led me straight to the table to fill out my forms and usher me into a booth. The God's seemed to be smiling on me. Maybe they've seen my political Vlogs on youtube or blogspot? No, I doubt it.
I voted the straight Democratic ticket and emerged with a smile. I looked around the room and felt pride and joy that people were exercising their rights. On the way home, I called a few friends and left messages: "This is Robert Anton, recent voter, calling." I've voted many times before, but I have NEVER felt the angst and the freedom that I have felt in doing so before.
Today I voted for myself, for my country, for history, and for the World; and I voted for those who could not or would not Vote. I voted with a purpose and with foresight. I voted knowing the issues and what's at stake. I voted for the message and for the man.
Did you vote today? How did you feel? I felt like a giant.
My polling place is literally a block from my house, and I had checked the net twice to make sure it hadn't been changed. This is not my first time voting, but I was nervous. jitters. This is so important. I have to VOTE.
I bundled my passport, driver's license, credit cards, utility bills, and thought of taking my social security card (just in case). After reading blogs, watching Vlogs, and checking out books by Greg Palast and the website: stealbackyourvote.org; I felt like I was ready for any eventuality. I HAVE TO VOTE TODAY.
On my way into the building, someone stopped me and asked for an interview. He was from the New York Times. I was in earnest, but I thought it might be good to delay a second and have a chat. He asked me some questions, and we had a nice talk; I gave him my card, and he said he was off to write his article.
In the auditorium, I asked for my district and went to stand in line. Someone came up and asked my name and led me straight to the table to fill out my forms and usher me into a booth. The God's seemed to be smiling on me. Maybe they've seen my political Vlogs on youtube or blogspot? No, I doubt it.
I voted the straight Democratic ticket and emerged with a smile. I looked around the room and felt pride and joy that people were exercising their rights. On the way home, I called a few friends and left messages: "This is Robert Anton, recent voter, calling." I've voted many times before, but I have NEVER felt the angst and the freedom that I have felt in doing so before.
Today I voted for myself, for my country, for history, and for the World; and I voted for those who could not or would not Vote. I voted with a purpose and with foresight. I voted knowing the issues and what's at stake. I voted for the message and for the man.
Did you vote today? How did you feel? I felt like a giant.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
By Larry M. Bartels – Tue Oct 21, 4:00 am
from Christian Science Monitor:
Thanks to Angelina Jolie, having lots of kids is hip Build steam for nuclear power Lettters to the Editor US national security's challenge: communication Read all the columns »
Princeton, N.J. – John McCain is a maverick and Barack Obama is a postpartisan problem-solver. But you wouldn't know it by looking at their economic plans. Both candidates' proposals faithfully reflect the traditional economic priorities of their respective parties. That makes the track records of past Democratic and Republican administrations a very useful benchmark for assessing how the economy might perform under a President McCain or a President Obama. The bottom line: During the past 60 years, Democrats have presided over much less unemployment and much more robust income growth.
The $52.5 billion plan Senator McCain announced last week includes $36 billion in tax breaks for senior citizens withdrawing funds from retirement accounts and $10 billion for a reduction in the capital gains tax. Those are perks for investors, most of whom are relatively affluent. (McCain is also proposing a two-year suspension of taxes on unemployment benefits, but that's a fraction of the plan's cost.) He also favors broader tax cuts for businesses and wants to extend President Bush's massive tax cuts indefinitely, even for people earning more than $250,000 per year.
McCain's proposals reflect the traditional Republican emphasis on cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy people in hopes of stimulating investment – "trickle down" economics, as it came to be called during Ronald Reagan's administration. But will proposals of this sort really "stop and reverse the rise of unemployment" and "create millions of new jobs" as McCain has claimed? The historical record suggests not.
President Bush's multitrillion-dollar tax cuts, which were strongly tilted toward the rich, could not prevent (and may even have contributed to) significant job losses. On the other hand, when Bill Clinton raised taxes on affluent people to balance the federal budget (while significantly expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor people), unemployment declined substantially. Under Clinton's watch, 22 million jobs were created.
Prefer a broader historical comparison? In the past three decades, since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil price shocks of the mid-1970s and the Republican turn toward "supply side" economics, the average unemployment rate under Republican presidents has been 6.7 percent – substantially higher than the 5.5 percent average under Democratic presidents. (The official unemployment rate takes no account of people who have given up looking for work or taken substantial pay cuts to stay in the labor force.) Over an even broader time period, since the late 1940s, unemployment has averaged 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents but 6.3 percent – almost one-third higher – under Republican presidents.
Lower unemployment under Democratic presidents has contributed substantially to the real incomes of middle-class and working poor families. Job losses hurt everyone – not just those without work. In fact, every percentage point of unemployment has the effect of reducing middle-class income growth by about $300 per family per year. And the effects are long term, unlike the temporary boost in income from a stimulus check. Compounded over an eight-year period, a persistent one-point difference in unemployment is worth about $10,000 to a middle-class family. The dollar values are smaller for working poor families, but in relative terms their incomes are even more sensitive to unemployment. In contrast, income growth for affluent people is much more sensitive to inflation, which has been a perennial target of Republican economic policies.
Although McCain portrays Senator Obama as a "job killing" tax-and-spend liberal, the new $60 billion plan Obama unveiled last week also has a tax break as its centerpiece – a tax break specifically tailored to create jobs by offering employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire over the next two years. Obama's proposal would also extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for those who remain jobless, as well as match McCain's in suspending taxes on unemployment benefits.
Obama's new proposal complements $115 billion in economic stimulus measures he had already announced, including $65 billion in direct rebates to taxpayers and $50 billion to help states jump-start spending on infrastructure projects. All of this is squarely in the tradition of Democratic presidents since John F. Kennedy, who have relied on public spending and tax breaks for working people to stimulate consumption and employment during economic downturns.
These and other policies have produced not only lower unemployment under Democratic presidents but also more economic output and income growth. In fact, over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents.
Of course, past performance is no guarantee of what will happen when the next president takes office. However, given the striking fidelity of both presidential candidates to their parties' traditional economic priorities, the profound impact of partisan politics on the economic fortunes of American families over more than half a century ought to weigh heavily in the minds of voters.
• Larry M. Bartels directs the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is the author of "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age."
from Christian Science Monitor:
Thanks to Angelina Jolie, having lots of kids is hip Build steam for nuclear power Lettters to the Editor US national security's challenge: communication Read all the columns »
Princeton, N.J. – John McCain is a maverick and Barack Obama is a postpartisan problem-solver. But you wouldn't know it by looking at their economic plans. Both candidates' proposals faithfully reflect the traditional economic priorities of their respective parties. That makes the track records of past Democratic and Republican administrations a very useful benchmark for assessing how the economy might perform under a President McCain or a President Obama. The bottom line: During the past 60 years, Democrats have presided over much less unemployment and much more robust income growth.
The $52.5 billion plan Senator McCain announced last week includes $36 billion in tax breaks for senior citizens withdrawing funds from retirement accounts and $10 billion for a reduction in the capital gains tax. Those are perks for investors, most of whom are relatively affluent. (McCain is also proposing a two-year suspension of taxes on unemployment benefits, but that's a fraction of the plan's cost.) He also favors broader tax cuts for businesses and wants to extend President Bush's massive tax cuts indefinitely, even for people earning more than $250,000 per year.
McCain's proposals reflect the traditional Republican emphasis on cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy people in hopes of stimulating investment – "trickle down" economics, as it came to be called during Ronald Reagan's administration. But will proposals of this sort really "stop and reverse the rise of unemployment" and "create millions of new jobs" as McCain has claimed? The historical record suggests not.
President Bush's multitrillion-dollar tax cuts, which were strongly tilted toward the rich, could not prevent (and may even have contributed to) significant job losses. On the other hand, when Bill Clinton raised taxes on affluent people to balance the federal budget (while significantly expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor people), unemployment declined substantially. Under Clinton's watch, 22 million jobs were created.
Prefer a broader historical comparison? In the past three decades, since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil price shocks of the mid-1970s and the Republican turn toward "supply side" economics, the average unemployment rate under Republican presidents has been 6.7 percent – substantially higher than the 5.5 percent average under Democratic presidents. (The official unemployment rate takes no account of people who have given up looking for work or taken substantial pay cuts to stay in the labor force.) Over an even broader time period, since the late 1940s, unemployment has averaged 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents but 6.3 percent – almost one-third higher – under Republican presidents.
Lower unemployment under Democratic presidents has contributed substantially to the real incomes of middle-class and working poor families. Job losses hurt everyone – not just those without work. In fact, every percentage point of unemployment has the effect of reducing middle-class income growth by about $300 per family per year. And the effects are long term, unlike the temporary boost in income from a stimulus check. Compounded over an eight-year period, a persistent one-point difference in unemployment is worth about $10,000 to a middle-class family. The dollar values are smaller for working poor families, but in relative terms their incomes are even more sensitive to unemployment. In contrast, income growth for affluent people is much more sensitive to inflation, which has been a perennial target of Republican economic policies.
Although McCain portrays Senator Obama as a "job killing" tax-and-spend liberal, the new $60 billion plan Obama unveiled last week also has a tax break as its centerpiece – a tax break specifically tailored to create jobs by offering employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire over the next two years. Obama's proposal would also extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for those who remain jobless, as well as match McCain's in suspending taxes on unemployment benefits.
Obama's new proposal complements $115 billion in economic stimulus measures he had already announced, including $65 billion in direct rebates to taxpayers and $50 billion to help states jump-start spending on infrastructure projects. All of this is squarely in the tradition of Democratic presidents since John F. Kennedy, who have relied on public spending and tax breaks for working people to stimulate consumption and employment during economic downturns.
These and other policies have produced not only lower unemployment under Democratic presidents but also more economic output and income growth. In fact, over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents.
Of course, past performance is no guarantee of what will happen when the next president takes office. However, given the striking fidelity of both presidential candidates to their parties' traditional economic priorities, the profound impact of partisan politics on the economic fortunes of American families over more than half a century ought to weigh heavily in the minds of voters.
• Larry M. Bartels directs the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is the author of "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"How Can We Trust Either of You..."
I went to watch the debate with a group called, The Stonewall Democrats, with a friend I made at Outmusic Open mike. It was at a bar and wasn't the best place because of the noise. People probably talked more during McCain's talking and paid better attention while Barack was talking.
What got me about that, and I mentioned it to my friend, is that McCain is still in this race; he may be our next President. If we don't know what he is planning to do, then we can't make an informed decision on our vote and subsequent votes that are coming up that have to do with our local government.
McCain talks so much of a spending freeze BUT he continues to talk about "buying up these bad loans". He continually talks about "reaching across the aisle" BUT he's reached across to vote on some of the worst bills to come up that are AGAINST early child education, AGAINST tax cuts for the poor, AGAINST oversight on Medicaid spending, AGAINST a woman's right to change, AGAINST civil liberties for gays in America, AGAINST new energy alternatives.
McCain continually says that he knows how to fix our problems; he knows how to win wars; he knows how to keep people in their homes. Do you believe him? He's been in the Senate for over 20 years and we've seen him vote AGAINST these things again and again.
What's the real deal?
What got me about that, and I mentioned it to my friend, is that McCain is still in this race; he may be our next President. If we don't know what he is planning to do, then we can't make an informed decision on our vote and subsequent votes that are coming up that have to do with our local government.
McCain talks so much of a spending freeze BUT he continues to talk about "buying up these bad loans". He continually talks about "reaching across the aisle" BUT he's reached across to vote on some of the worst bills to come up that are AGAINST early child education, AGAINST tax cuts for the poor, AGAINST oversight on Medicaid spending, AGAINST a woman's right to change, AGAINST civil liberties for gays in America, AGAINST new energy alternatives.
McCain continually says that he knows how to fix our problems; he knows how to win wars; he knows how to keep people in their homes. Do you believe him? He's been in the Senate for over 20 years and we've seen him vote AGAINST these things again and again.
What's the real deal?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
McCain has too many skeletons to throw stones
Smoke and Mirrors: The Sequel - 2 Peas in a Pod...
So, in an act of FINAL DESPERATION, the McCain Campaign, with no plan and no solutions, unleashes a swift-boat-like smear campaign. The thing is they have miscalculated this time. By trying to scare people about Barak Obama by LYING about his association with Bill Ayers, they have opened up their own can of worms. This is just one.
Take a good look at this man with John McCain:
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Phil Gramm.
If you don't already know who he is, Phil Gramm is the Texas Senator who is likely more responsible for this present financial crisis than any other single politician. And, he is co-chair of McCain's Campaign. You may recall that in response to the mortgage crisis, Gramm referred US as a "nation of whiners", but this is really not his biggest problem...
You see, in 2000 senator Gramm started the foundation for our present economic crisis when he slipped a provision into a spending bill called the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act". This was the beginning of the very deregulation that allowed credit default swaps. This provision also deregulated the energy trading market. These acts of deregulation are what allowed this crisis to start in the first place. They were put in so corporations could make more money at the expense of the public and resulted in irresponsible loans and futures trading on oil. The trading on the basis of speculation rather than on profit has artificially raised the price of oil well beyond the effects of supply and demand.
As the markets continue to fall after an irresponsible bail out package was approved, you can thank Phil Gramm. And remember, he is one of John McCain's friends, adviser and confident. This is not a loose association; This is a long and intimate relationship that continues to this very day..
So, if McCain wants to to pronounce guilt by association, he really needs to look in the mirror first, if he can possibly see through all the smoke his campaign is blowing as it goes up in flames.....
Andrew
P.S. If you want some more info about this, read this recent FORBES. COM ARTICLE.
So, in an act of FINAL DESPERATION, the McCain Campaign, with no plan and no solutions, unleashes a swift-boat-like smear campaign. The thing is they have miscalculated this time. By trying to scare people about Barak Obama by LYING about his association with Bill Ayers, they have opened up their own can of worms. This is just one.
Take a good look at this man with John McCain:
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Phil Gramm.
If you don't already know who he is, Phil Gramm is the Texas Senator who is likely more responsible for this present financial crisis than any other single politician. And, he is co-chair of McCain's Campaign. You may recall that in response to the mortgage crisis, Gramm referred US as a "nation of whiners", but this is really not his biggest problem...
You see, in 2000 senator Gramm started the foundation for our present economic crisis when he slipped a provision into a spending bill called the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act". This was the beginning of the very deregulation that allowed credit default swaps. This provision also deregulated the energy trading market. These acts of deregulation are what allowed this crisis to start in the first place. They were put in so corporations could make more money at the expense of the public and resulted in irresponsible loans and futures trading on oil. The trading on the basis of speculation rather than on profit has artificially raised the price of oil well beyond the effects of supply and demand.
As the markets continue to fall after an irresponsible bail out package was approved, you can thank Phil Gramm. And remember, he is one of John McCain's friends, adviser and confident. This is not a loose association; This is a long and intimate relationship that continues to this very day..
So, if McCain wants to to pronounce guilt by association, he really needs to look in the mirror first, if he can possibly see through all the smoke his campaign is blowing as it goes up in flames.....
Andrew
P.S. If you want some more info about this, read this recent FORBES. COM ARTICLE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)