McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
Number of posts: 13,774
Number of posts: 13,774
Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/
Back before women had effective birth control and a right to abortion, back in the days when women were excluded from many high paying jobs because of their biological “differences” and help wanted ads were segregated by gender, we did not make 79 cents on the dollar that a man in the same job made. We were lucky to get paid half of what our fathers, brothers, sons and husbands made.
Then, in 1963, “Fair Pay” became the law of the land. Laws limiting our reproductive freedom were struck down. Equal educational opportunities were offered. And slowly---oh, so slowly----we climbed out of the pink collar ghetto.
Now, Mitt Romney stands ready to plant his foot in our collective faces and kick us back into the hole. This is his not so secret plan to bring jobs back to America. No single, childless man would accept the kind of wages and work conditions that they tolerate in China. But, if American women can be saddled with a couple of kids while in high school---because abortion has been outlawed and birth control is beyond their reach---and if those young mothers can be thrown into the work force as low skill workers whose children are absolutely dependent upon their mom’s pittance wage for survival, then companies stand to make a killing. Wages can be slashed by a half or more. The possibility of pregnancy can be used as an excuse to keep women out of managerial or skilled jobs---they are too unreliable. They have to leave early to “fix dinner.” Single mothers living in poverty will become the whipping boy---sorry, the whipping girl of society, responsible for every ill from violent crime to drug addiction. “Men only need apply” will become legal again, as businesses declare “We can’t be responsible for the safety of our female employee’s unborn children.” Educational progams can discriminate by saying "It is silly to invest so much in training a woman to be a ____when pregnancy will force her out of the workforce. We need to invest our money in reliable workers. We need more professional men."
The Koch Brothers do not love your unborn fetus any more than they love you, my sisters. What they love is the prospect of hiring you at less than minimum wage to slave for the rest of your days in one of their Dixie Cup factories.
And Mitt Romney---a bishop within his church---does not value you as a person. Your only path to Mormon heaven is as a wife or servant of a Mormon man. So, whatever you do, don’t interrupt him or try to correct him. One day, he is going to be a God with his own world, his own Creation, and your salvation or damnation will depend upon how low to you bowed to him in this life.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Oct 17, 2012, 05:57 PM (0 replies)
It took me a while to get over my initial disbelief and outrage.
“Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” (Romney) said. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care.”
After thirty years in the medical profession, I have seen every horror story you can imagine. A 50 year old woman without insurance who knew that the tumor in her breast was most likely cancer, but, uninsured, working in a service sector job with a family to support, she had no way to get a biopsy or treatment. She finally came to the emergency room by ambulance after her tumor had spread to her heart, causing it to fail. She was dying.
A young diabetic, in his 20s, who had managed his condition as best he could with insulin (which you can buy over the counter) but without medical care. By the time he suspected that something was wrong, his kidneys had shut down completely and he had a bacterial infection in his blood. He never made it to dialysis. The trip by ambulance to the emergency room his final journey.
Sometimes they don’t make it as far as the hospital. An ambulance ride costs over $1000, and the ambulance company will collect from you, no matter what it takes. Sometimes, the man—the father, the breadwinner--- sits at home on the couch and tells himself that the chest pain is indigestion---until his heart stops and his school aged child calls 911, and he is pronounced dead in his own apartment.
Emergency rooms are required to treat all comers, whether they are insured or not. This is NOT because our nation wants to provide them with health care. Those who live in Ivory Towers, like Romney do not want to see those without insurance die on the street, where the sight of man in his death agony might disturb their kids or take away their enjoyment in their double latte.
If you want to teach your kids compassion, have them volunteer in an emergency room. It will open their eyes and probably their hearts, so that they don't grow up to be like Romney, a man who might as well be from another planet for all the understanding he has of life in middle class America.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:10 PM (0 replies)
Republican candidates rely upon election fraud. That is because their base, though loyal, is small. So they have to "help out" the vote, by throwing in extra votes for their candidate and erasing votes for the Democrat. This is not a new thing. I remember a life long politically active Republican telling me her polling place vote stealing strategies back in 1976 (she thought I was a Republican). Back then, it was insert a finger under the lever in the back if a known Democrat was casting a ballot. That kept the Dem's vote from being tabulated. Now it is e-voting machine "sleep overs" and phony death lists and polling place challenges. Many of these tactics are illegal.
If Romney is way behind in the polls, GOP election operatives on the ground will hesitate to steal votes, for fear of being caught and prosecuted by the Obama administration. If they think Romney could win, they will go all out, secure in the knowledge that Romney's attorney general will turn a blind eye to their criminal activity the way that Ashcroft and Gonzo did.
So, Team Romney has a very strong incentive to encourage lots of sloppy polling that puts him ahead. That way, they know that their election workers will work extra hard for him. And if he loses and they all end up going to jail for nothing? He won't care. He'll still be a millionaire.
The reason I wonder about the credibility of some of these polls is that they just don't make sense. One predicts that Latino turnout will be down---even though it has been rising steadily for two decades. Another has Jewish voters favoring Romney two to one. While the polling firms would never knowingly lie, there is nothing to stop casino mogul Sheldon Adelson from bribing a number cruncher. And of course, if just one poll out of many shows Romney up because of normal statistical variation, the right wing press will seize upon and and tell the country "He's ahead!" without combining the results of all the polls, which is what is usually done.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Oct 11, 2012, 05:44 PM (0 replies)
…over 20,000 U.S. servicemen died. Tricky Dick Nixon ran on a platform of “I have a secret plan to end the war.” Little did Americans know that he had no intention of moving our soldiers out of Southeast Asia. Instead, he bribed Henry Kissinger into sabotaging the peace talks that LBJ worked so tirelessly on in 1968. Nixon vowed to end the war, but instead he escalated it and even dragged Laos and Cambodia into the conflict. As a result, tens of thousands of our troops died---and countless more were injured, shell shocked and broken. And for what? We still lost the war.
Mitt Romney has vowed 1) not to touch your abortion rights 2) to cover pre-existing conditions 3) not to cut taxes for the rich 4) not to eliminate your mortgage exemption 5) not to dismantle Medicare and 6) to bring jobs home And yet, he is on record as supporting the overturn of Roe V. Wade, tax cuts for the rich, taxes hikes for the middle class, the end of Medicare as we know it, and outsourcing of American jobs.
Mitt Romney says that if you are poor, elderly or unemployed, he cares about you. But he is on record as saying that that he does not care at all.
Mitt Romney wants you to think of him as a second Ronald Reagan, wise, strong, fatherly. But what kind of father smashes his own kids' faces into food? What kind of caring individual attacks and tortures a fellow college student?
In 1968, Americans could argue that they had no way of knowing that Dick Nixon was a liar or that Henry Kissinger was a GOP mole within the LBJ administration.
This time, we have been warned. If we reward a candidate for being a bully, a braggart and a liar, do not be surprised if we end up with a bully, a braggart and a liar as president.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Oct 11, 2012, 05:23 PM (2 replies)
Abstract: This is a long thread, so I post my conclusion right here. The recent Pew presidential poll that everyone is so excited about predicts that both Hispanics and Blacks are going to stay home this election, while white men will follow the old adage “Vote early, vote often.”
Team Romney must be jumping for joy. The latest Pew Poll shows him surging ahead of Obama among likely voters, 49 to 45% in the wake of last week’s debate. Sure, Romney lied and lied and again. But, we are told, America secretly wants a braggart and a bully to be its leader----
Excuse me, make that white America. Male white America. But America is no longer overwhelming white. Minorities are set to become the new “majority” sometime in the near future. And as their numbers rise, their political clout rises, too.
I decided to do a little investigating, so I turned to a reliable polling firm---Pew--- to see how the rising percentage of minority (nonwhite) voters has affected presidential races in the recent past. Here is a tabulation of votes cast by race from 1988 to 2008. Note that the total percentage was 82% white in 1988. By 2008 that number had fallen to 73.4 percent. Minority participation went up, with 24% of the votes cast in 2008 coming from Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Black women, in particular, saw their participation rise.
The levels of participation by black, Hispanic and Asian eligible voters all increased from 2004 to 2008, reducing the voter participation gap between themselves and white eligible voters. This was particularly true for black eligible voters. Their voter turnout rate increased 4.9 percentage points, from 60.3% in 2004 to 65.3% in 2008, nearly matching the voter turnout rate of white eligible voters (66.1%). For Hispanics, participation levels also increased, with the voter turnout rate rising 2.7 percentage points, from 47.2% in 2004 to 49.9% in 2008. Among Asians, voter participation rates increased from 44.6% in 2004 to 47.0% in 2008. Meanwhile, among white eligible voters, the voter turnout rate fell slightly, from 67.2% in 2004 to 66.1% in 2008.
Now, let’s do what most of us never do. Let’s look at the makeup of the so called “likely” voters that Pew polled last week. To do so, we have to turn to page two (something we really ought to do before we start talking about poll numbers). According to Pew, this year minority voters are going to become apathetic, while white voters will develop a re-surging interest in presidential politics.
Pew says that Latino voter turnout is going to be bad. In 2008, Hispanics cast 7.4% of the vote. This year, despite their growing numbers, they will count for only 7% of the vote----even though their percentage participation has been growing steadily for the last decade. (Go, look at the numbers). The curve suggests that with steady population growth and participation, Latinos should make up 9% of the votes cast.
Blacks are also planning to stay home, according to Pew, with their 12% in 2008 dropping to 11% this year. Why? Are they really so disgusted by the abolition of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, that they plan to send Obama a strong message by allowing a Mormon to become president? I think we all know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ problems with Black folks. Whom do African-Americans fear more? Gays in the military or a member of a Church who was brought up to believe that they are a cursed race?
“Other Non-Hispanic”---a new group for Pew which replaces Asian in 2008 jumps from 2.5 to 5%. Who are the “Other Non-Hispanics”? Asians? Native Americans? People of mixed race (Latino plus Black, Black plus white)? Wish I knew. If we just lump them in with minority voters, then Pew is projecting that 23% of the votes cast will be from non-European-Americans—a slight increase from 2008. If the increase is made up of people who just wouldn’t say, or maybe whites who are proud that their great grandmother was Cherokee, then Pew is guessing that minorities are going to stay home---or else have their votes challenged in such great number by poll workers that their population gains will mean nothing.
Now, if you pay attention to population demographics, you are probably wondering “What about that surge in Latinos that we keep reading about?” According to the U.S. Census, the number of Hispanics in the U.S grew from 35 million to 50 million between 2000 and 2010. In 2008, those voters went 2 out of 3 for Obama.
Polls this year suggest that Latinos still favor Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1. Too bad for Obama that Pew thinks they are sitting this one out.
Two point five percent here and two percent there and one percent way over there really adds up when you are talking about a five point lead. Maybe Pew needs to repeat their poll and this time make sure that the ethnic demographics take into count the trend towards rising minority voter participation. Unless they are convinced that the GOP’s suppress the vote campaign is going to be massively successful.
Addendum: I don't want to give the impression that Pew "fixed" their poll. However, I wonder if they were so excited at finding any likely voters when they sampled cell phone users that they got sloppy on their other demographics. It is so much easier to find people on landlines.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:37 PM (9 replies)
There isn't an easy, tactful way to say this, so I am going to be blunt. The GOP loves to repeat itself. Romney thinks he is Ronald Reagan and Obama is Jimmy Carter. And we all know (from past experience) that the military and the intelligence community play (GOP) politics. Sometimes members of the administration play GOP politics---I am thinking of Henry Kissinger who deliberately stabbed LBJ in the back re: Vietnam peace in 1968 to help Dick Nixon. Therefore....
Be extra careful about any "secret" military missions being planned between now and election day. Assume that any such missions are public knowledge----and that the oil lobby will use that knowledge to forewarn its Saudi allies who will forewarn their Al Qaeda allies for the purpose of putting US citizens at risk and the Obama administration in the political hot seat.
I would really hate to see another round of Hostages for Votes ,wouldn't you?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:06 AM (3 replies)
A lot of words were tossed back and forth tonight, but it wasn't the words that determined the winner or loser. It was the camera. Poor Romney. When the president spoke, we got a split screen with Romney on the left. Now, if you know anything about neurophysiology, you realize that our two eyes see the world in very different ways. The left eye feeds information to the right brain---which judges facial expressions. That means every time that Romney smirked---you know, that little self satisfied look he gets with his mouth stretched tight and his eyes all beady and squinting---it went straight into my right brain, which said What a dick!.
As I was taking notes, I made note of the smirks. I counted thirteen of them. That means thirteen opportunities for the collective right brain of America to say to itself What a dick!
Not the impression Team Romney was striving for, I think.
While I am on the subject of body language, was it just me or did Romney morph from stiff to rabid bear to rabid weasel? As the 90 minutes passed, his speech became increasingly pressured. His stutter---
---became worse. Sadly, the only time he showed any real enthusiasm was when describing the way that regulation is strangling business. This, we could see, was something he cared about. Business strangulation is a pretty serious crime, in Mitt Romney's eyes.
Kept waiting to hear those zingers that Team Romney promised us.
Substance wise, this debate was Romney's to lose, since the economy that Bush left in the toilet is still trying to crawl out of that toilet. However, if I did not know either man and if I did not speak English, I would have remarked upon Obama's sincere expression and his spontaneous smiles. And I would have wondered what kind of used car the fast talking, tight lipped squint eyed man to the left was trying to sell me.
Note to Team Romney---next time give your man a wire. Not to feed him facts. He's good with facts. Every time he smirks send him an electric shock. Maybe you can break him of that habit.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:57 PM (4 replies)
Romney's campaign is the gift that keeps on giving---to Obama. Today, in advance of the first debate, they want us all to remember that in 2007, then Senator Obama accused the Bush administration---you know, the last Republican administration---of deliberately turning its back on NOLA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Obama was not the only one to reach this conclusion. Remember Anderson Cooper in New Orleans? Remember the massive anti-war protest in the fall of 2005 that turned into a massive Pro-NOLA, anti-Bush protest? I do. I was there. Remember how we cried seeing one of the nation's most beloved cities abandoned by the feds, because its citizens were mostly Democrats?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:41 PM (5 replies)
Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday that President Barack Obama is “selling seething anger” and even implied that Obama likes violence.
Be sure to watch the “incriminating” video before you comment upon it.
I don’t know what Rush and Team Romney thought they heard, but what I heard was then Senator Obama discussing empathy for a minute and a half. Which is a minute and a half more empathy than Romney has ever shown.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:31 PM (1 replies)
I am one of the 47%. I am definitely going to vote for Obama. So will my mother and her husband. My husband and my 21 year old son plan to vote for him as well. So will my sister and her adult daughter. That makes all of us part of the 47%. What do we have in common (besides a desire to see Obama serve a second term)? According to Mitt Romney, we are "dependent on government" and "believe that (we)are entitled to health care, to food, to housing".
Let’s analyze these claims one at a time, starting with health care. I have employer sponsored health care that covers me, my husband and my 21 year old college age son, so none of us gets healthcare from the “government”. Obamacare will allow my healthy son to stay on my insurance for five more years, but I am not sure that counts as being “dependent on government” for his health care. My mom’s husband is covered by his aerospace industry employer. My mother, a NASA retiree, is covered by NASA, Medicare and her husband’s insurance. That makes her super-insured. Is Romney trying to claim that her Medicare is a government handout? Does he think that federal agencies like NASA should not provide retirement insurance? My sister gets insurance for her and her two kids (one college aged) from her employer, a petrochemical refinery. She has a union and good benefits, but no one could call her insurance a government handout.
On to food. None of us gets food stamps. On the contrary, we donate to area food banks. None of our kids gets free school lunches. The only “free” food we get is that which we grow in our own gardens. Romney and Ryan may complain that the food my mother buy’s with her Social Security check is a government handout. But she is over 70 years old and worked her entire adult life paying into the Social Security system, so I tend to think of it as retirement income.
My home is paid for. My mother’s home is paid for. My sister is still paying a mortgage on her new home, but no one helps her make her payments.
I guess you could say that we are “dependent on government” since we use the roads and if we have a fire, we call the fire department and the public health department sprays for mosquitoes when West Nile is a problem and we rely on the FDA to make sure the food (which we buy with our own money) is safe to eat. But we aren’t getting any government services for “free”. All of us pay taxes. We pay income tax. We pay sales tax. We pay property tax. We pay fuel taxes and alcohol taxes. And when all the taxes are paid, we give to charity, too---
Come to think of it, we are not dependent upon the government. The government is dependent upon us. And we want to be sure that our tax dollars are spent wisely. We want to see our taxes spent on roads and disease prevention and good schools and clean air and water and national security and all the other things that government is supposed to provide. We absolutely do not want to see our tax dollars diverted into the accounts of people who are so rich they will never be able to spend all their money.
You know how I define the so called “47%”? We are the ones who want to have some control over how our country is run and our tax dollars are spent. We are the ones who think America is worth investing in. And Romney/Ryan despise us because we are too smart to buy their "trust us, we can pay for those tax cuts and still balance the budget" line.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:15 PM (11 replies)