I was shocked at Donald Trump Jr’s tone in making the case for his father. I taught that the younger Trump would have taken a more sedate tone and a better approach in making the case for his father. Instead he went down the same road as his father in hurling insult after insult at the President, the “others” and the potential democratic nominee Hilary Clinton. It is obvious that like his father he has no interest in bringing people of all stripes together. In fact I was so shocked at bellicose tone that I watched the whole speech with my mouth wide opened. In addition to the rhetoric and the moxie, I noticed that his eyes were very red and I thought that he sounded angry more than anything else. If this were my year to vote for a Republican, that tone and rhetoric coming from a member of the nominee’s family, would have turned me off.
To highlight that side of him as he touted his father, as a mentor is to say to the public that this is how he was raised and taught to think and that he was just as arrogant as the elder Trump. In addition, his rhetoric suggested that all the nastiness that his father has been portraying, along the campaign trail, is ok with him.
This leads me to ask this question. Are these the kind of people that you want in the Whitehouse, or should I say (from the looks of things) as potential airs to the impending “throne?”
Paul Ryan endorses the bigot, why is anyone surprise? We have known all along that the GOP are bigots. They want the white house so bad that they are going with someone whose mantra: “Make America Great Again is code word for make America work only for people that look like him. You know, like how it was when they were snatching people from the Ivory Coast to work for them in servitude at their big gaudy mansions. What is next for these people? Bring back aunt Jemima in the head rap, the rapes, the whippings, the indentured servants; Drop an A bomb in the Middle East; continue to give authenticity to gun ownership even as it gets into terrorist hands whose sole intention is to murder us; roll back the clock on: Roe vs. Wade; gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights. Roll back President Obama’s achievements; pander to the rich while highlighting the shortcomings of the poor. Shame on Paul Ryan for selling his soul!! When Secretary Clinton wins and she will, it will be the end of them and the intensity of their repugnance.
There was quite a bit of criticism recently, over the escape of a shoplifting suspect while in police custody. People snickered and made snide remarks that accused the cops of being negligent. Furthermore, the authorities shut down the subway system for a couple of hours to hunt for an adolescent in handcuff that posed no danger to them or anyone else. I do not condone stealing however the sad thing about this was that no one saw this from a humanitarian point of view. The fact is that the job market today is very tough which contributes to many people being unemployed and therefore unable to sustain themselves or their families financially. As a result, some brave sole might think that stealing is his only option to feeding himself. Everyone was concerned that the suspect got away. In my opinion this man was being treated like someone who had committed a more serious crime.
As someone with humanitarian values, I question why he was put in handcuffs to begin with. I think there is an imbalance in the criminal justice system when cops slap speeding drivers with a ticket, but give petty larceny offenders a record by making them do jail time. Who poses more of a threat to your well being a shoplifter or a speeding driver? Then there is the question of the thousands of dollars that it might cost taxpayers to keep someone locked up for stealing a $20 item. The only individuals that benefit from this is for profit prisons. Indeed, the neoliberalism capitalists who owns them get to fleece the government through subsidies in the form of monies paid to keep them locked up. Moreover, they also profit from the outsourcing of the labor of their prisoners. In contrast, prisoners are paid only pennies on the dollar for their labor. As Michele Alexander puts it: it is the “New Jim Crow.” Indeed, when analyzed from the other end of the spectrum, you see that the life of someone has been ruined over a petty larceny. The offender will now have difficulty in finding work after his eventual release, and will not be able to provide for himself or his family. You have rendered him useless to himself and society and in a way have set him up to become a repeat offender.
I take my hat off to Secretary Clinton for her amazing performance in spite of the RepuGNicants, who are doing nothing but take her down a partisan road to nowhere. Perhaps the Obama Administration should revise their decision not to bring Bush up on war crimes over the Iraq debacle. Furthermore, why was there no 911 special committee convened to find out why the Bush administration did not follow up on intelligence about an imminent threat to us by Al qaeda? It was because he dropped the ball that more than three thousand Americans lost their lives on our soil on September 11, 2001. Indeed, Bush dropped the ball but there was no 911 special committee to make sure he doesn’t get a second term as president or even to impeach him. Could it be that it was because the Democrats held the house majority at the time and at the time was more interested in unity for our country rather than divisiveness?
If the RepuGNicants think that this overreach and public spectacle, which they are making of themselves, over the Benghazi attacks is going to put it together for them to take back the white house in 2016, then they surely did not think things through. It is about time that they come to terms with the fact that the country is tired of them highlighting things that tend to divide, rather than unite us.
Shell has conducted an assault on the Arctic Ocean for seven years and to the tune of 7 billion dollars. But we have learned yesterday, September 28, 2015, that their efforts did not return enough oil. As a result, they have determined that it would not be profitable enough for them to keep the pursuit going.
For those of us who side with the environmentalists, and the environmentalists themselves this is a huge win. On the other hand, there is a gaping hole in the Arctic Ocean that should not have been put there in the first place. This makes it no longer a pure place that was developed by nature, but one maimed by capitalists who sought to use it as a means of making themselves wealthier ‘than they already are.’ Besides, it is a well-known fact that carbon emissions to the atmosphere, which would be the eventuality of this product, are a problem for our ecosystem. Moreover, it is a great disrespect to this system, when greed causes capitalists such as Shell to disregard the consequences of oil and gas emissions in order to make a profit. Shell should spend some of its already vast wealth investing in ways that reduce carbon emissions, rather than in ways that seek to grow oil, so that they can sell it cheaper and therefore attract buyers. At a time when we need to lessen the number of cars on our roads, bridges and tunnels, Shell should not be seeking to sell oil cheaper, since that would only encourage them.
There are those who would argue that the expansion would mean more jobs, but as far as I am concerned, in this kind of situation, the end does not justify the means. Indeed, to me, shell’s biggest misstep was to throw 7 billion dollars down the hole of a barren space instead of using it to feed the many hungry people, here in the United States and around the world.
Shell found no oil
http://activists hang from bridge