As for Chris Christie, I wrote a blog in praise of him a few months ago. He’s a good, reliable person. I saw him shake hands with President Obama a few days ago. Both were visibly very concerned for United States citizens whose homes were destroyed by Sandy. As we used to say, they seemed “on the save wavelength,” i.e. the people, shattered people.
Henri Fantin-Latour (14 January 1836 – 25 August 1904) was born in Grenoble (Isère). He studied at l’École de Dessin (from 1850) under Lecoq de Boisbaudran and at l’École des Beaux-Arts, in Paris, beginning in 1854. As did many students registered at l’École des Beaux-Arts, he copied the masters in the Louvre.
Fantin-Latour befriended many artists, some of whom became prominent Impressionists or transitional figures, such as Édouard Manet. For his part, Fantin-Latour chose to paint in a more conservative and crisper manner and worked with Gustave Courbet. But Fantin-Latour also met American-born British artist James MacNeill Whistler who very much admired Fantin-Latour still-lifes and introduced Fantin-Latour to a British public. Fantin-Latour was so successful in Britain that he became better known in England than in France.
Fantin-Latour married Victoria Dubourg, an artist, and spent his summers at her family’s country estate near Orne, Normandy. So, by and large, he lived a very stable life which is reflected in his art. He never reached stardom, but his art has endured and will no doubt continue to endure.
In 1875, aged 68, Fantin-Latour died of lyme disease, a tick-borne disease that was almost impossible to treat before antibiotics became available.
Yesterday’s Blog: Tough Leadership
Yesterday’s blog depicted what I would call “tough leadership.” The October Crisisof 1970 was a major event in Canadian history. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau implemented the War Measures Act which had never been done in peacetime. His “Just watch me” has remained as famous as his “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,” a statement he made at the time the Omnibus Bill (Bill C-150) or the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, designed when Pierre Trudeau was Minister of Justice and the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson (23 April 1897 – 27 December 1972), Canada’s Prime Minister and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his role in defusing the Suez Crisis.
These words are uttered by the philosopher or person who uses reason only. He always sleeps peacefully. He is not endowed with the pity/compassion that moderates self-love (l’amour-propre or l’amour de soi-même) in the savage. (Part One, more than two paragraphs after Note 15)
The Romney-Ryan Team
Allow me to place in the proper mouths, the mouths of extremists in the Republican Party, Rousseau’s “Perish if you wish; I am safe.” I may be wrong, but I suspect that the reason these Republicans can speak like choir-boys on the subject of planned parenthood is that they are sufficiently wealthy to fly to countries where birth-control is available and inexpensive as well as to countries where abortions are not criminalized. They can also pay a doctor the “right” fee. In other words, I suspect a substantial degree of hypocrisy: “Perish if you wish: I am safe.” (On rape, see The Washington Post). On the “Gag Rule,” see The Huffington Post).
In fact, hypocrisy may not be the only sin. We are also looking at inequality and at an unjust society. The rich and wealthy will have a freedom that will be denied the poor. As I have indicated in earlier blogs, the rich and the wealthy do not need health-insurance. They can pay for medical treatment and medication. Well, let’s raise that curtain again: the wealthy, wealthy women, need not give up controlling how many children they will have and when these children will be born. This is again something they can buy. In fact, they can also afford several children and help galore, in which they are very fortunate (no pun intended). They are therefore saying: “Perish if you wish; I am safe.”
So it could be that the debate is not about morality
In other words, if Republicans are against planned parenthood and abortion, I am inclined to think it has little to do with morality. I hope I’m wrong, but the debate about abortions seems such a convenient front. Extremists among Republicans will attract the votes of persons who are against abortion and who think naively that because a party does not criminalize abortion, members of that party are for abortion. This is not the case and there are very real drawbacks to criminalizing abortion. For instance, what are doctors to do when an abortion is an imperative?
Tying up the hands of doctors: unfit women
An abortion may indeed be an imperative. What does a doctor do—assuming a woman can afford to see a doctor—if a woman’s life is at risk, if the fetus is abnormal, if she is taking medication that can harm the child, if she is taking drugs or is an alcoholic, if the pregnant patient is much too young to bear a child or if a women cannot otherwise face a pregnancy, etc. Under privatized health-insurance, it may again be privatized, not only will these unfit women be told that they are suffering from a pre-existing condition, but if an unfit woman consents to an abortion and a doctor intervenes, he or she, i.e. the doctor, and the unfit patient will face criminal charges. “Perish if you wish; I am safe.”
A few years ago, I met a woman who had not slept since giving birth. Her son was three years old but she could not look after him. Nor could she work. Fortunately, she lived in Canada so all that could be done, medically-speaking, was done at no cost to her. However, I doubt that a doctor would have allowed a second pregnancy. She was sick: severe postpartum depression. Doctors need a little leeway.
Would that matters had been as they are now when my mother was having her babies. My poor mother carried a child every year knowing that the child would probably die in infancy of a congenital blood disease. Her first children survived. But she buried all the others. I will spare you the number. To make matters worse, in those days, a good Catholic woman could not say “no” to her husband. Sexual intercourse was a duty (un devoir). It was called: le devoir conjugal. I fail to see what was good in having babies that would die. This was cruelty. And I also fail to see what was good in our attending a funeral or two every year.
Saying “no” as the only recourse
If Mr Romney is elected to the office of President of the United States, the only recourse women who are poor and “women of humble means” will have is the word, “no” both outside and inside marriage. There are husbands, such as Charles de Gaulle (rumor has it), who will not ask their spouse to engage in sexual intercourse if she is not prepared to carry a child and give birth to this child.
That is rather noble, but it isn’t very realistic in the case of most couples. After a fine meal and, perhaps, one or two glasses of wine, hormones tend to take over, crippling intellectual resolve, particularly in younger people. In fact, even we, older folks, snuggle up from time to time and just may be induced to “play doctor.”
The above poster: reality
The above poster goes a long way into describing the situation poor and raped women will face (there is no “legitimate rape”) if planned parenthood is criminalized. Before abortion was decriminalized in Canada, women, particularly unmarried women, who could not face a pregnancy, sometimes used tools that killed (metallic coat hangers) or went to charlatans and, in many cases, they committed suicide. In the Quebec of my childhood, to avoid bringing shame on their family, young girls who got pregnant were sent to special institutions and when the baby was born, it was taken from them. The babies were raised in an orphanage or adopted. It would appear that some were sold.
So allow me to say that when it comes to a woman’s right to choose when and if she will have a child and her right to undergo an abortion when an abortion is necessary, I take matters very seriously. It would be my view that a woman
should not be forced into a pregnancy, especially if she has been raped (there are no “legitimate rape”), including rape within marriage;
that she should act responsibly when she engages in sexual intercourse, as should her husband or partner. Pregnancies can usually be avoided. And I would like to point out
that there are cases when a doctor, with the consent of his or her patient, should be allowed to end a pregnancy.
On Day One: shackling women
However, if Republicans get into office, “On Day One,” not only will Mitt Romney call the Chinese “currency manipulators” and end the health-care reforms introduced by President Obama, but he will also shackle women who are poor and women of “humble means.” Poor women and women of “humble means” will not have access to what is available to the rich.
The Conclusion
So scratch out most of the paragraph preceding the “On Day One,” because the conclusion is that “On Day One” women who are poor and women of humble means will be denied what will be accessible to the rich. It will again be all about money and appearing virtuous when virtue is not part of the equation, but a convenient means to an end: being elected People who are against abortions will be fooled into thinking that are voting for the morally superior party.
Such is not the case. If members of that party are elected they will impose on the poor repressive measures that seem virtuous, yet they will be hiding millions and billions, if not more, and demand tax cuts thus acting criminally. So how can these persons talk about morality? So wake up; it’s a smokescreen. What they are saying is “Perish if you wish; I am safe.”
Make sure everyone knows that if the President does not criminalize abortions, it does not mean that he is for abortion.
Canadians were lucky. In 1967, future Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau got the Omnibus Bill passed. One can access the details, including videos by clicking on Omnibus Bill, or CBC Digital Archives.
Mr Romney made it perfectly clear that, under his presidency, the United States would stand behind Israel. One cannot object to his standing behind Israel, but can he play favorites, thereby alienating the Arab world? If Mr Romney plays favorites or takes sides, the United States will remain an enemy in the eyes of other countries in the Near and Middle East. As a result, he would not be protecting but endangering Israel.
Moreover, by taking sides, he would endanger the United States. The events of 9/11 and the disastrous wars fought in the wake of these attacks dictate prudence in the Middle East. There are countries in the Arab world that harbor considerable ill feelings against the United States.
Mr Romney also stated that “[w]e need to indict Ahmadinejad.” In what capacity could the President of the United States do this? Ahmadinejad is not an American citizen and Iran is a sovereign nation. Indicting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have to be done using the proper international channels. The President of the United States does not rule the world.
China: Mr Romney
Mr Romney’s comments on China were also alarming.
“That’s why on day one, I will label them a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs. They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods.” (Mitt Romney)
The United States borrowed a great deal of money from China and may need to borrow more. If Mr Romney and other very wealthy Americans will not pay their fair share of taxes, if they deposit their money in offshore accounts, if they continue to expect tax cuts, if they export too large a number of jobs to China and other countries, thereby taking jobs away from Americans and, by the same token, depriving the US of tax-payers, how will the debt be repaid? Mr Romney may have to learn Chinese.
In short, Mr Romney is fomenting dissent in the Middle East and inviting retaliatory action from China. His behaviour suggests that he would be a reckless President and that as President of the United States, he would not give sufficient attention to domestic issues. He would in fact bully the world: sanctions here, sanctions there.
The Middle East: President Obama
“[O]ur security is at stake.” (President Obama)
Contrary to Mr Romney, President Obama’s main concern is for the safety of his people. For instance, he stated that:
his administration is “going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they [Iran] do not get a nuclear weapon. That’s in America’s national interest and that will be the case so long as I’m president.”
President Obama is right. It is in America’s national interest to make sure than Iran and other countries do not get nuclear weapons. This matter is, in fact, a global issue and should be addressed as such.
President Obama also stated that “[t]hey [Egypt] have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels.”
Leadership
According to Mr Romney, the US “should be playing the leadership role there[Libya]” not on the ground with military[,]” a statement to which President Obama’s response was that they (the US) “are playing the leadership role.”
America remains the one indispensable nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office.
English: President Obama had called on the two former Presidents to help. During their public remarks in the Rose Garden, President Clinton had said about President Bush, ‘I’ve already figured out how I can get him to do some things that he didn’t sign on for.’ Later, back in the Oval, President Bush is jokingly asking President Clinton what were those things he had in mind. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Yes the United States “remains the one indispensable nation,” but a nation where a social contract, albeit tacit, dictates that its president’s main concern be the “safety” of his nation. That notion has to inform a president’s actions and any candidate to the presidency of the United States who expresses views that stray from this tenet does not seem a suitable candidate.
So the United States now knows that if it elects Mr Romney, it may well elect a warmonger who is indeed prepared to barge into other countries thoughtlessly and will revive the image of the “ugly American:” a “pejorative term used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.Although the term is usually associated with or applied to travelers and tourists, it also applies to US corporate businesses in the international arena.” (Ugly American, Wikipedia)
After four years of careful negotiations with the Middle East and a rapprochement, America might again be sending soldiers into battle, young Americans who will lose their life or whose life may be ruined.
* * *
What comes to my mind is that picture of President elect Obama entering the White House surrounded by former presidents. The US suffered under the former president’s administration, but President Bush was President of the United States and he was President on 9/11, a calamity that can lead and led to injudicious decisions. But President Obama treated President Bush in a kind and courteous manner as he did all former presidents. The “five presidents” was a moment of mutual respect that brought me hope, and hope is the road that takes us into the future.
Famous posthumous portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
War
As I reported in my last blog, Mitt Romney seems to have entered into some alliance with Israel, which is dangerous. For the Arab World, Israel is an American presence in the Near and Middle East. As a result, hatred for the US is immense. Therefore, the US cannot take sides. It has to work with the support of the world in order to eliminate nuclear threat everywhere. This would protect Israel.
The Second Debate
With respect to the second debate (16 October 2012), I have written that Mitt Romney acted in a Machiavellian fashion. This approach is a “do-anything-to-become-President-of-the-United States.” The end justifies the means.
Some people have not had the opportunity to read Machiavelli. I will therefore introduce a word everyone will understand: bullying. It appears Mitt Romney is a bully and bullies can break people. I have discovered that others consider Mr Romney a bully. I’m not alone.
I will have to do a little digging on this issue, but I recall a statement on the part of Mr Romney to the effect that his ethnicity would give him an edge over President Obama. It had to do with Mr Romney’s ability to understand people better, white people I believe. This is a statement he made in the UK.
Combined with voter suppression, this statement leads me to believe that Mr Romney hasn’t much use for persons of color. In fact, even if my memory does not serve me well regarding the UK remark, voter suppression alone would indicate that Mitt Romney does not respect persons of colour sufficiently to be elected into the office of President of the United States. At any rate, his poor opinion of persons of colour would make it easier for him to bully President Obama.
Interrupting the debate
If the next debate turns into a quarrel, as moderator of that debate, I would end it.
Conclusion
Daniel Craig [James Bond] declare[d] his support for President Obama: ‘I trust him.’ (see deGrio.com). I’m with Daniel Craig. I trust President Obama.
For the last couple of weeks, the Israeli prime minister has been the featured player in a Republican-sponsored TV ad playing in Florida. It shows excerpts from Netanyahu’s United Nations speech last month in which he tacitly attacks President Obama for his failure to set a clear red line for Iran’s nuclear program.
“The world tells Israel: ‘Wait, there’s still time,’” he says. “And I say, wait for what? Wait until when?”
No, Netanyahu didn’t plan or buy the campaign ad. Secure America Now, a group run by longtime Republican strategists, put it up. But Florida is filled with Israeli emigres and American Jews. There’s no question that Netanyahu knows all about the ad and has made no effort to criticize or blunt it. An anonymous Israeli official did tell the news media that the prime minister’s office had nothing to do with the ad and did not approve of it. That’s all.
On Tuesday, Netanyahu called for early elections to take place early next year. How would he like it if an opponent began airing TV ads that showed Obama openly criticizing him? And then, when asked about it, an anonymous White House aide managed to say something banal, like: “Oh, we didn’t authorize that.”
If Netanyahu has no interest in taking sides in the American presidential election, then he should issue a strong statement or hold a press conference to declare that he does not support the use of his U.N. remarks in a partisan campaign ad.
But he didn’t say a word. Not one. And the reason is clear: He does not like Obama, and Obama doesn’t like him. Remember the Group of 20 summit in France late last year, when Obama was overheard chatting with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president? Neither knew the mike was open.
“Netanyahu, I can’t stand him,” Sarkozy leaned over and told Obama. “He’s a liar.”
Obama responded, “You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.
“Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.”
I suggested that the above statement be rephrased: “The world must stand firmly in opposing nuclear threat.” In fact, the original statement (NY Times) is not altogether accurate. The United States is opposing nuclear threat, but it cannot create the impression that Israel is an American presence in the midst of the Arab world. (See The Ottawa Citizen).
How does Mr Romney expect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will react? Moreover, in what capacity did Mr Romney talk with Mr Netanyahu. Mr Romney is not the President of the United States. This seems an “I’ll-stoop-to-anything-to-get-votes” scenario, the Machiavellian scenario.
The Diplomatic Way
It would be my opinion that the diplomatic way of dealing with factions in the Middle East is not to take sides. Under the Bush (R) administration, the US waged two disastrous wars in the Middle East. That was a mistake, but the 9/11 attacks were destabilizing. President Bush found himself in a real dilemma. However, the time has come for the United States to mend fences, which the US has done from the time Mr Obama was elected to the presidency of his country and Hillary Clinton accepted to be his Secretary of State.
Mr Romney adopted a Machiavellian approach during the last debate, the debate that took place on October 16th, acting rather dishonorably. But given that he may have entered into some alliance with Israel, I believe he may also be a threat to the United States.
composer: Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (18 March 1844 – 21 June 1908)
piece: Scheherazade 3rd movement – The Young Prince & Princess
performers: Berliner Philharmoniker & Michel Schwalbé
conductor: Herbert von Karajan
I have been working on a blog, now nearly finished. However, it is difficult for me to concentrate on a subject other than current events in the United States. We are nearing the elections and I cannot even send my five dollars to help the Obama/Biden campaign. I am not an American citizen. My grandfather was, but that does not count.
Since July 2011, I have been watching the United States. One of the phenomena I noticed is considerable obstructionism. Please read the Daily Complaint‘s article. Since the 2010 mid-term election, Tea Party members have sat in Congress saying no to all that President Obama was advocating. And they did so systematically.
This is a game and a nasty one. Individuals, in this case extremists in the Republican Party—such as Tea Party members—prevented (obstructionism) President Obama from bringing remedial action to a severe problem and now, come election time, they are blaming (scapegoating) President Obama for not having taken action which they prevented him from carrying out. I am speaking of the stimulus package.
The Debate
During the debate that took place on October 16th, 2012, Mr Romney found so many faults in the manner the President had managed the economy that it sounded as if the Democrats had fought two useless wars and brought the United States to the brink of a financial collapsed. As my nieces would say: gross!
In the early fall of 2008, I lost a third of my pension fund. I have now recovered that money, but at the time, I considered stepping off the planet. I could not afford to lose that money because I could not go back to work. TARP saved me as it saved many citizens of the United States and the citizens of its financial partners. Now my losses occurred at the end of a Republican administration, not during the presidency of Mr Obama.
So Mitt Romney…
So Mitt Romney cannot possibly attack President Obama where the economy is concerned. President Obama was not allowed the stimulus package he requested and there have nevertheless been improvements. My pension fund has climbed back to its August 2008 amount, but I cannot trust the Republicans.
In my view, Mr Romney and other rich Americans who are deposit their money in offshore accounts are harming the United States. One has to pay one’s taxes: that is the “freedom we surrender” (Thomas Hobbes). So, given that he hasn’t paid his dues as a citizen of the United States, I wonder if Mr Romney should be seeking the Presidency of the United States. Mr Romney was part of the problem. As matters stand in the United States, he has not been paying his fair share of taxes.
Regulation
I perceive a need for robust regulation in many areas, one of which is taxation. Just how much money can one keep under the table. Moreover, there should also be a limit to the number of jobs the rich can export. Deregulation can hurt and it has.
Here is a list of the articles I have posted on the US. It may not be complete, but I have difficulty making such lists, so I would ask for your indulgence. I will try to collect the missing posts and will listen to the Debate once again. I didn’t like President Obama’s “you’re lying,” but there are times when provocation invites a fiery response.
VP’s Top Economic Advisor Discusses Links Between The Great Recession And The Social Contract (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)
“I transfer my right of governing myself to X (the sovereign) if you do too.” (Thomas Hobbes)
The Social Contract: “equal imposition of taxes”
Examining the social contract has helped me understand why electing Mr Romney to the Presidency of the United States could be a mistake. The problem has to do with anti-tax extremism and individualism run amuck. What he has expressed throughout his campaign is a wish not to “burden” the rich with taxes: tax cuts for the rich while the middle-class and the poor have difficulty making ends meet. In a civil society, the society described by the three political philosophers whose theories we have glimpsed, paying one’s taxes is the “freedom we surrender” as individuals to make sure collective needs are attended to and that we live in safety.
“Hobbes believed that equal justice includes the equal imposition of taxes. The equality of taxes doesn’t depend on equality of wealth, but on the equality of the debt that every man owes to the commonwealth for his defence and the maintenance of therule of law.” (Leviathan, Wikipedia)
Human Rights: the Right to a Job
Our human rights now include affordable health care, affordable medication, employment insurance, benefits to the disabled, veterans, and seniors, affordable education and affordable housing, and I do not mean shacks, not to mention the right to a job.
“Hobbes also supported public support for those unable to maintain themselves by labour, which would presumably be funded by taxation. He advocated public encouragement of works of Navigation etc. to usefully employ the poor who could work.” (Leviathan, Wikipedia)
So Hobbes raises the subject of unemployment. Please consider that the unemployed cannot contribute taxes to the government. This means that they do not have any “freedom to surrender,” which weakens the social contract in that there cannot be enough money to ensure the safety of the “whole.”
Individual and Collective Needs
And, as mentioned earlier, the rich will not enter into the above-named social contract by paying their fair share of taxes which, in their case, would be a substantial amount. If the rich will not pay taxes, they have failed to understand that in a society there are individual as well as collective needs.
So the constant demand for tax-cuts on the part of the rich can only lead to a dysfunctional society. It is a myopic view of nationhood and if Americans’s basic human rights, such as health care, are not attended to, those who will not pay taxes are displaying a rather distorted view of nationhood, one that expresses a profound lack of compassion.
For instance, if Mr Romney does abolish the health-care reforms introduced by President Obama and privatizes health insurance, a possible scenario, he may create a situation where having paid their premiums persons who are diagnosed with cancer, or diabetes, or some other disease, are refused the support they have paid for. That would be a severe encroachment on a social contract and people could die and die in pain, which in my opinion is criminal.
The US is not poor: the budget and taxes, again
Despite its debt, the US is not poor, but I believe it may be allocating too much money to the Defense Department. The enemy is an enemy within: greed and ill-conceived nationhood. It may therefore be wise to direct some of the money allocated the Military to a program that would boost a now fragile economy by creating jobs and thereby produce tax-payers.
In short, it is imperative that the rich start looking upon themselves as part of a society, or collectivity, and pay their fair share of taxes, i.e. their dues. They would thereby act in their own best interest and in the best interest of the United States. They have to enter into a social contract which means surrendering some freedom, if it is freedom, by paying their fair share of taxes.
Mitt Romney may be an anti-birth-controlextremist and an anti-pro-choice extremist and would force the victim of a rape to carry the child of her rapist and give birth to his child, but US voters have a choice. They need not elect into the office of President of the United States of America a person who would deny an abortion to a woman who got pregnant as a result of rape. Exercise the privilege democracy affords everyone: the right to vote for the candidate who, without advocating abortion, will at least make it available promptly when circumstances call for this kind of intervention.
Get organized, donate if you can, make sure your neighbour gets to the election polls, and re-elect President Obama. If President Obama is not re-elected, the world will stand in complete disbelief as it will no longer be dealing with a person who respects all human beings, whatever their ethnicity, and promotes peace. The world remembers that the former President brought the US and its partners to the brink of bankruptcy. And these same Republicans would now make women carry the child of a rapist.
Sandra Fluke, I have received your email and fully agree with you that a woman whose pregnancy was caused by rape should not be forced to carry her rapist‘s child and give birth to that child. I therefore oppose the above-mentioned extremist discourse which are:
And I oppose these extremist positions because what Republicans are proposing violates the dignity of a human being and because raped and pregnant woman are likely to commit suicide. For hundreds of years, women have used clothes hangers and other contraptions to free their body from a cruel form of intrusion and have died. For a very long time, women have also sought the services of backstreet abortionists who have caused their death.
Moreover, as strange as this may seem, the insensitive and intolerant legislation Republicans are contemplating regarding women may reveal a thwarted view of human sexuality. I believe that such individuals as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan look upon sexual intercourse as dirty. Why else would they be anti-birth-control extremists and anti-pro-choice extremists. The problem is, however, that women pay the price.
Again, as strange as this may seem, morality the Republican way appears to begin and end with denying women access to birth-control or to an abortion, if an abortion is necessary. We cannot limit morality to this one criterion.
But the citizens of the United States have a choice. They can choose to defeat the Republicans come 6 November 2012. They can say “no.”
Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) has chosen Paul Davis Ryan (born January 29, 1970) as his vice-presidential running mate. According to The Telegraph, Mitt Romney’s vice-president pick, Paul Ryan, is an “unknown quantity.” At the moment, we cannot know who Mr Ryan really is. Lying is turning into an epidemic.
However, in the age of the internet, it is somewhat difficult to remain an “unknown quantity” for long. We know, for instance, that Paul Ryan is an ultra-conservative.
An Ultra-Conservative
So, what is an “ultra-conservative?”
According to Dan Lavigne of the Avon-AvonLakePatch, “Tea Party members are ultra-conservative and one wonders whether or not they are Christians.” So let us look at Mr Lavigne’s description of Tea Party members. “Tea Party members are
-White at least 55 years old
-Ultra Conservative
-Evangelical Christian
-Fairly wealthy
Per an interview with a Tea Party person last year in the state of Indiana and what they stand for:
-Against all religions except Christian
-Against all labor unions
-Against gays and lesbians
-Against all government social programs (for women-children-elderly)
-Against Planned Parenthood
According to Mr Lavigne, “Repulican members of the House (Tea Party) voted last week to cut $16 billion from the food stamp program. That would eliminate benefits for at least 2 million people and cut more than 200,000 kids from the free-lunch program. It would not cut farm subsidies.”
It is best not to be an alarmist. However prudence is essential. Will this gentleman work for the people? Will he be compassionate? Will he maintain the health-care reforms brought in by President Obama? Will he work at putting into place other social programmes? Will he discourage shipping outside the US too large a number of jobs. Will he be active in supporting job creation?
And, what will he do for women? What will he do for children, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the veterans, and other people in need? Will he make sure people of colour can exercise their right to vote? Will he keep Wall Street and Banks on a short leash? Will he be a man of peace?
Or will he support tax-cuts for the rich, destroy the long-awaited health-care reforms, let greedy insurance companies remain just that. Will he allow the middle-class to continue disappearing while the very rich deposit too large a proportion of their money in off-shore accounts.
Will he let the current assault on the environment continue? Will he know that we cannot eat our grandchildren’s bread?
Micheline Walker©
November 3rd, 2012
WordPress
Micheline's Blog 
