"THEM THAT'S GOT -- GETS"

  

"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated” was an incredible understatement not long ago from President Trump – a fact that for years everybody but him seemed to have recognized to be true.  Why else would it have taken his Republican Party legislators, after seven or so years of legislative dawdling, an inability to create a plan to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) , aka Obama Care?   But what did they create by throwing together a last minute plan when they suddenly had to fulfill their President’s campaign promise? 

This blues tune was written by and is identified with jazz singer Lady Day -- Billie Holiday.    The unique vocalist Eva Cassidy, with a style all her own, performs this arrangement.  She died much too young due to melanoma.   "God Bless The Child" 

from Eva's album "American Tune" (2003).

"Them that's got shall get

Them that's not shall lose                                            

So the Bible said and it still is news"

The lyrics seem most applicable to the Trump/Ryan Health Care Act, formally known as the American Health Care Act.   The details, kept hidden so long from the public, were finally revealed at the last minute, rushing the Budget Office to assess the particulars.   We finally learned the real beneficiaries of this health care bill are for "them that's got" from this administration.     "Them that's not shall lose" evidences in the fact that those who can least afford the costs -- and even more millions who will lose health insurance -- will be the people most heavily hurt.    Where are the compassionate Republicans?   But – when selecting legislators -- will 2018 voters remember?

Gradually, I would think eyes are being opened to the fact that those with the least, also seniors,  middle class, are all going to have even less, maybe nothing at all,  or more expense -- not what the minority of citizens whose votes enabled this administration to acquire extreme power were led to believe would occur.   But – when selecting legislators -- will 2018 voters remember?

We "ain't seen nuthin' yet" -- cuz when we get to tax reduction, other plans in the works, we can only wish we could reap such benefits like the wealthy 2%  will – nothing more than token reductions, if at all, will be thrown to the vast majority of citizens.  Who was it once said “let them eat cake”?   But – when selecting legislators -- will 2018 voters remember?

Meanwhile plans are being worked up to reduce consumer protections, eliminate financial safeguards under the guise of needing to eliminate regulations to free up the business and financial world to --- rip us off.  But – when selecting legislators – will 2018 voters remember? 

There’s so much more, but I’ll save it for another time when there are sure to be even new matters to address.   Meanwhile, I maintain my sanity by finding the humor in the ridiculousness of much that is happening, some of which is predictably unpredictable.  I recognize the seriousness of the situation.  I continue to be committed to preserving our democratic republic.  I persist in resisting the inequities. 

* * *

Behind the scenes information about those who bankroll, influence, our political candidates, even “call the shots”, or all three, can be interesting.    Here’s a link to one such article just published introducing a family some may find to be of interest written by Vicky Ward:  “The Blow-It-All-Up Billionaires”.  

SO MANY QUESTIONS!

What will be the final outcome of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union? 

Will the petition for a second referendum on remaining or leaving the EU prevail? 

Will Scotland and/or Ireland withdraw from the UK to join the EU?

Will other countries leave the EU, too?

What will be the effect on European unity? 

These are the kind of times when individuals and groups that no majority in a country wants to assume power manage to slip in -- sometimes stealing a nation's government right out from under them.    When it's too late citizens wonder how this could be allowed to happen, but it occurred in Europe beginning in the 1920's/1930s.    This could occur in the United States -- make no mistake -- if we aren't vigilant.   We should be concerned.  Prevention of such an evolution is the answer!

Consider this, too, staunch conservative commentator and columnist George Will is reported by news media to have stated he is leaving the Republican Party and is urging others to do the same.  Better late than never --  as I believe the handwriting on this wall has been present for many years when we consider how this party has performed in our legislature with little done to correct their ineffectual governing and numerous legislators poor job performance.  Voters failed to throw them out.

Think about this too ........

Billionaires Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch met in Scotland I noticed -- just to socialize?

Remember what transpired in Great Britain with Rupert Murdoch's foray into media ownership there -- employee's activities -- accusations of questionable governmental political relationships?

The U.S. has the distinction of Mr. Murdoch having become a citizen, being allowed to acquire the right to use our airwaves, then, by some analysts criteria, lowering factual news broadcasting standards on the network his company owns.      

He purchased the Wall Street Journal....has reportedly been dedicated to preserving newspapers though his publishing history in his home country of Australia and what occurred in Great Britain caused many concern over the quality of his publications.

Huffington Post's Michael Levin interviewing author Sarah Ellison in 2015 regarding the WSJ -- "The editorial page has stayed true to itself..." which some had been concerned might not occur.  There were ongoing legal matters in Great Britain at the takeover time which some reportedly thought might have taken precedence on his time.

Former WSJ employee Ms Ellison further observed:
" It [WSJ] used to be a watchdog on the corporate world, on American business"...now "...much more interested in the geopolitical landscape and finance."
 
" It’s tilted rightward politically."   Previously the WSJ was thought by many to lean to the left.

USA Today June 2015 article describing what Mr. Murdoch owns "....Everything".  I strongly recommend you read this article listing that includes the broadcast media he owns.  

I wonder if Mr. Murdoch will provide Mr. Trump financial backing and/or what else for future campaigning? 

Would Mr. Murdoch want anything in return for his support of Mr. Trump?

Billionaires in charge will certainly have the average citizen's best interests at heart -- or will they???

Is my concern premature?  It is just conjecture presently, or maybe even unjustified?   

Pay attention to what transpires with politicians and their supporters in the U.S. as we  move toward and through the July political party presidential nominating conventions.

I think there will be little doubt after the conventions who the candidate is -- that I haven't even named here -- who we'll need to support to keep our nation stable at home and in the world.

We, the people, can make a difference to preserve this nation and move progressively forward into the future.  

OBAMA FOLDING ON SOCIAL SECURITY?

OBAMA SELLING OUT ..... ELDERS and MIDDLE CLASS?  

Is President Obama negotiating Social Security cuts and essentially increased taxes for the middle class?

Read this Huffington Post account:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/obama-social-security-fiscal-cliff_n_2319850.html

What is Chained CPI and what does it do to Social Security cost of living increases?

Read this:  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/wp/2012/12/17/what-is-chained-cpi/

Social Security and the 2013 Cola were discussed by Ronni Bennett at "Time Goes By" in October during the Presidential campaign.  

"Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit!" Bernie Sanders has explained.

Another instance requiring we express our views to our Senators and Representatives.

"OCCUPY" ROSE PARADE Up Date

"Occupy" marchers did follow the Rose Parade as described in the previous post but none of the television stations provided live video coverage. Audio mention was made earlier in these corporate-owned station's commercial broadcasts. An all-news local radio station provided brief reports confirming "Occupy" presence and post-parade march. Later news coverage, if any, remains to be known.

* * * * *
Here's a link to CBS-TV news accounts:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57350999/rose-bowl-parade-gets-occupied/

Huffington Post provides photos of the "Occupy" march:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/occupy-the-rose-parade-pr_n_1179519.html

Los Angeles local news accounts report "Occupy" leaders say 4000 supporters present; police estimate 400.

Here's a video account of "Occupy" preparation, group panels from insideoutnews.org:

Compromising, Categories & Labeling

Political "Ooching"

Writers, talking heads and so many others reference categorizing terms with names like conservative, liberal, ultra conservative or ultra liberal, just plain left or right, far right, or far left, extremists – left and right, radical right and left, religious right (is there a religious left (?) and I'm sure there are more such labels. Frankly, I don't think many of these terms are very well defined despite the efforts of various groups to do so. Individuals and groups devise their own criteria, which are fine if clearly stated so that everyone who encounters them understands.

I've taken several of what I call "whiz-bang" Internet short tests with questionnaires purported to determine which of certain labels applies to the test-taker. Most I've seen must be considered fun experiences at best, but I've enjoyed taking them just out of curiosity. Sometimes I take a test more than once varying one answer just to see how easily the resultant designated label can be altered. The tests value is questionable in my mind other than for entertainment purposes.

I've always had a problem with how readily we variously categorize people and their beliefs or behaviors, but then trying to find common grouping characteristics is one system by which we try to make sense of our world. Also, those kinds of groupings are one of the ways our brain stores much information we gather into our memories.

I was prompted to think about the language of categorization when I read Bob Frank's recent blog at "Eclectic World."

Bob refers to one publication's approach to making their point about political positions. They make a strong case that presidential candidate Barack Obama should be very careful to not waver on his previously stated positions. They caution there are great risks to his election should he do so. They present positions they state as being Obama's. (Another blogger questioned in a private email exchange with me whether the publication's position list in some instances may actually be a projection of what the publication and supporters want Obama's positions to be, contrary to what has been stated on his website as his position on some of these issues. You can decide for yourself by checking links there.)

The emphasis in this post is on political labeling and candidates wavering. I read print and hear broadcasters views suggesting the other candidate, John McCain, is wavering on some of his positions, also. The "why" of altering or "ooching," as I call it, on issues is an election campaign activity sometimes used in the belief the candidate will attract a new voter group hesitating in endorsement, or one previously not supportive. Often the issue move is toward the middle or more moderate view. Is there a middle of the road or center view on issues?

I've thought of myself as being independent, generally having moderate views on many topics. Yet when I state my view on some issues there are those who would label me as having a liberal viewpoint. Other issues I support would garner me a label by some others as being conservative. Naturally, I think my views have been formed from intelligent, well-considered information resulting in logical conclusions. I believe labeling me by applying to all my beliefs and political positions the same, but only one, all-encompassing label is a false description and can be a gross misrepresentation of my views. Yet, often that is what occurs. Individuals are labeled on the basis of one or a few positions alone.

My focus of interest here is the link in Bob Frank's post to some ideas expressed by George Lakoff, professor of linguistics, in his book Thinking Points. He argues in chapter two entitled "Biconceptualism" that the existence of an ideological center is a myth. Don't let this academic-sounding terminology discourage anyone from considering reading this online short 6 pgg accessible chapter. (Note: excerpts of this chapter are also currently accessible on "The Huffington Post" with a repeat post there from 9/27/06.)

Frank says at his blog with links to George Lakoff's discussion on biconceptualism and the "Mythical Center":

"Compromise is a mark of a skillful politician. But not compromising on core values or on issues that appear to be core values. It appears that presidential candidates want to move their positions to an ideological "center". George Lakoff, professor of linguistics, in his book "Thinking Points" argues that this "center" is a myth. He claims that progressive candidates weaken themselves by moving to the "Mythical Center" because people vote, "...on the basis of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity with issues used symbolically to reflect values."

I want my candidate to be strong in presenting his core values. I want there to be no question about the issues for which I am voting. I think in this election, perhaps as in none other in my lifetime, most of the voting public agrees.