Laura Richardson honors Whitney Houston

Congresswoman, Laura Richardson, representing California, 37th District rose to praise Whitney Houston, asking for a moment of silence. Read full text at her website.  She did likewise for Soul Train's Don Cornelius. Some people are as mad about that as they are about Governor Christie lowering the flag to honor Whitney.

I want to write this, not research the number of times a celebrity was honored in Congress or rather by a Congress person. I fault Richardson (and Governor) for not mentioning government related good deeds done by Ms. Houston.

She performed two concerts in Washington, D.C. donating a quarter million proceeds to the Children's Defense Fund.  Some consider former President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act a failure, but it involves Congress, thus worth noting when Richardson sung Houston's praises.

Whitney also raised a million dollars for NYC firefighters disaster fund and police fund following the WTC attacks, by declining royalties on sales of her chart topping rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. Definitely worth a mention at a Congress session.

Then there was her Welcome Home Heroes concert honoring troops returning home from Desert Storm.

Perhaps citizens would not get so angry if media and elected representatives honored the singer for her good deeds, not just for her career awards, which were impressive. It seems most are just aware of the drug abuse and sensationalism by tabloids which is enough for them to loathe the singer, feeling she is not deserving praise for her accomplishments.

I find it sad that she got caught up in drugs and that her life ended much too young. And, oh, yes, I live in the 37th district.

For more info about Ms. Houston's charitable works see Whitney-Fan dot com.

Half-staff flags in New Jersey

Governor Chris Christie ordered flags lowered half-staff (I always thought it was half-mast) to honor Whitney Houston. Washington Post article says Gov. Christie is defending his decision against criticism, saying she is deserving of the honor as a "daughter of New Jersey" and due to her huge cultural impact.

I thought flag lowering was reserved for military or government dignitaries, not for citizens. I do not agree nor disagree with honoring Houston with a flag lowering; do find it a bit extreme. Being a Jersey girl, the news interest me. Plus I first learned that Whitney was from East Orange New Jersey and cousin of Dionne Warwick from one of my daughter's classmates. The girl was a classmate at Pocono Mountain High School, in Pennsylvania, but originally from East Orange.

I think my distant relatives lived in West Orange; I was so young when visiting, and only ever saw the great-aunts or father's cousins at weddings and funerals as I aged. My mother liked to shop in Newark, and as a teen, I dated a boy from that city. More memories of Newark, then the Oranges.

I understand the governor's desire to pay homage to a Jersey born and raised super-star. People make jokes about Jersey and its people. I was not fond of living there ~ I moved 3,000 miles away, yet get a kick out of  knowing Jersey bred some famous artists. It is like: okay poke fun at us, but we produced Frank Sinatra, Jon Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen. And a whole lot more celebrities.

Truly, I am not a flag waver, so do not quite understand state pride. Maybe it is like name-dropping: yeah, I walked the streets of Philadelphia; hung out in Asbury; Sayreville? Yeah been there. My online friend's parents attended the same church as President Obama. Franke Previte played basketball in the backyard with my brothers.

Violence Against Women Act

"The Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized in 2005 by unanimous consent in the Senate and with 415 votes in favor in the House, and signed by George W. Bush. It's up for reauthorization again now, and of course, this time, Republicans have a problem with it. The bill—which is actually cosponsored by Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo—received no Republican votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063489/-Senate-Republicans-push-to-weaken-Violence-Against-Women-Act?detail=hide

I am not familiar with the Violence Against Women Act, so take Daily Kos author's word for it. I do not know that the Act was changed from what it was in 2005. If not, it is a clear indication that those Congress people voting against it now, are doing so to thwart President Obama.

Until I read the Act, I can not say if I am for or agin it. I am against violence to all people, not just violence against women. And children. I am for anything that empowers females ~ well, most everything. Women, like African slaves, were not considered human beings for a long, long time. Even after women were given the right to vote, slavery was abolished, Negroes were granted the right to vote, both groups were treated as less than men.

It especially irritates me that corporations were (and still are) deemed human beings deserving of citizen rights, when females and persons of color were not. We, the people, meant, we the men, white men; took too many years to change people to include other human beings. The struggle continues for lesbians and homosexuals. Oh, they have lots of rights others take for granted; always have. The right to pay taxes for instance, or if male, own property and so on.

Yet, being law-abiding tax-paying U.S.A. citizens does not give them the liberty to marry, if their loved one is of the same gender. They are denied tax breaks that heterosexual married couples receive. It seems those elected to represent all citizens, are taking exception to the VAWA on account of it including people who are gay or transgender, or illegal immigrants.

Mistreating females (and persons of color) was acceptable because they were not considered human beings with rights, same as men. If he beat her, she deserved it, was a common sentiment. Beating children is condoned by the Bible. Well, the Bible does not say "beat your children", it is those who do who point to Bible as reason it is acceptable: Spare the rod, spoil the child, kind of thinking.

Thus any Act that says, no, it is not okay to beat or rape a women, is favorable to me. I also think a lesbian should be just as protected under the law. And transgenders, and yes, even illegal immigrants, despite me not approving of illegal immigration. I do not blame Republican elected officials for their war on women. It is being demanded of them by groups of citizens, including, those who label themselves Christian conservative women.   The fools ~ no female needs to send all of us back to those days when we were nothing in the eyes of the law and men.

Joke

Cleaning papers today. This joke is from Readers Digest 11/10. Since I am ditching papers, recording it here.

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave him his business card and told him to stop by for a job. He took $20. out of his pocket and handed it to him.

The Democrat was impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided it was his turn to help. So he reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless man $50.

Walter Mosley on Newt Gingrich

Walter Mosley wrote  "We are not enemies. If someone has a better plan he or she should ascend to our presidency. If they have lied we should know it. If they are corrupt it must come out. But we cannot allow our emotions to be ignited by hidden messages of fear and hatred. This election is about us working together to implement our brightest potentials, not our basest natures"

Comment lifted without site's permission:

Cdog3 

Wow,  another black guy using the race card. Is there alot more people on foodstmps than before he got into office. If so, than he is

.

 

The comment tells me Cdog3 is a bigot. All he got from the article is that Walter Mosley is black. Why not Walter Mosley is speaking from a white/Hebrew perspective? More white people (non-Hispanic) are using the SNAP program than African/Americans, but who do people visualize when hearing the words "welfare" or "food stamps"? How then, is "a shout-out to racism" playing a race card?

I would ask Cdog3 those questions by posting my own comment on the article, except I have no idea what my log in info is. CNN clearly has my full name posted in upper right hand corner, with the words "Log out" next to it. Yet comments tells me to log in or sign up to comment. Not worth the bother ~  Cdog3's intelligence is clouded by his (or her) basest nature.

If anything, it is Gingrich playing a race card; Mosley is just talking truth ~ appeal to people's emotions, control their actions. It is a well-known sales tactic ~ want to sell locks, first create fear of robbery, offer safety. It works. Nothing to do with skin color or ethnic backgrounds ~ a black person can be just as fearful as a German person of being robbed or having their home broken into. An Australian can be just as greedy as an Italian.

Men and women all over the world are concerned about appealing to the opposite sex and are quick to buy overpriced products advertised specifically to reach that base nature within them.

President Obama had nothing to do with the rising cost of gasoline; that started during the Bush years, as did record numbers of home foreclosures. The cost of fuel to run vehicles increased the cost of everything delivered, which means more people had less ability to buy food. Would Gingrich or anyone have called former President GW Bush a "food stamp president" because more and more people started getting government help to eat? Not likely because it would have less impact of appealing to bigots basest instincts.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/opinion/mosley-gingrich-food-stamp-president/index.html

State of the Union

Prior to President Obama's  State of the Union address last night, I glanced at news headlines, proclaiming the president was going to use the traditional presidential speech as a re-election campaign tool. I did not read those articles. I am sure every president up for re-election would use the speech in the same manner.

The live stream White House video stopped working about mid-way through the speech. Obama would say a few words, the buffering circle appeared; Obama turns his head slightly; the buffering starts anew. Quite annoying. So annoying, I logged off the Internet and rebooted my computer. Made me wish I still had a television set to watch the speech, start to finish, uninterrupted.

I find State of the Union speeches boring. Due to the Internet, I generally do not watch them at all ~ just read the transcript later, and view highlights on posted videos. Always, not just with the SOTU address, news reporters, misquote whomever spoke, take things out of context, put their own spin on stuff ~ which is why I do take time to read a boring transcript.

Sure enough, minutes after the speech was finished, I saw a big news headline proclaiming President Obama did not tell the nation what state our union is in, but rather was campaigning. Sigh.

What is the state of our union?

Disharmony, is it not always in that state; united? I think not.

Early in his State of the Union address, President Obama told citizens (and anyone else who cared to listen) that all our troops are out of Iraq. He mentioned how military co-operates to complete missions. I questioned if they actually do. I think any group has dissenting points of views, stubborn demands to do it "my way", and competitions over who is "best" between different divisions ~ such as Army vs. Navy vs. Air Force vs. Marines. Highly unlikely it could be all smooth sailing and co-operation within the military organization.

Yet a nice analogy and suggestion that the U.S. federal government might serve citizens better if Congress and executive branch had that same spirit of co-operation to complete tasks that need doing.

Obama also told us about the state of employment, unemployment, debt, be it national or personal. I need to re-read transcript to see if he mentioned state of health care.

He told us Bin Laden is gone, Al Qaeda top lieutenants have been disabled. He spoke about Afghanistan, American manufacturing, oil, energy dependence, imports, outsourcing and so on.

President Obama did his job; he told citizens about the state of our union (as if most of us are not aware). He never mentioned "If you elect me, I will..." blah, blah, blah. It was not a campaign speech. A percentage of citizens will believe media who proclaim otherwise.

Food Stamps

On the one hand a loud vocal group of citizens insist "we are a Christian country" saying our Constitution was based on Christian principles. On the other hand that same loud vocal group thinks the food stamp program is an entitlement program for the lazy who want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

According to John the Baptist: "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

In explaining the 2nd coming it is recorded that Jesus said: The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

To wit:
'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Or it seems to me if we are a country based on Christian principles we are obligated to feed the hungry, not complain about the food stamp program costing us tax dollars.

SNAP

Actually food stamps are a thing of the past. People who receive food assistance money are issued an EBT card. Money is deposited to the card, the card is used to pay for food purchases in the same manner a debit card works. The program is named: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.

Sure the system gets abused. A person with an EBT card will approach a shopper in a store, ask shopper to let them pay for the groceries with the EBT card; shopper than gives person the cash equivalent. As an incentive, EBT holder may offer to accept less cash then the total spent on groceries. Or a cashier, usually at a small mom and pop type store, will ring up alcoholic beverages using a food register key. Or hand over cash, less a fee, to then use the EBT card to run up fake charges.

It is not that the people who do that are too lazy to get a job or that they are not hungry. It usually means they are hooked on drugs or alcohol.

The Christian Bible also warns about judging people. Currently the income for a family of four needs to be under about $29,000.  a year and they can not have more than $2,000. in savings. Not for me to judge who among those that participate in SNAP are truly hungry or who are abusing the system.

Those tax dollars used to feed people are put back into the economy via the grocery store or fast food chain that accepts them. The people who administer the program also benefit ~ they have jobs that likely pay enough for them to buy their own food. Even with the cheats I would prefer my tax dollars go towards feeding people than towards killing innocent citizens in other countries.

SOPA

Embarrassing moment: after seeing Stop SOPA a number of times I had to get educated. These old eyes of mine (song to old Isley Brother tune) read Stop Online Privacy Act. I further misread the explanation that SOPA was a group of people dedicated to stopping the Online Privacy Act. Get educated did I say? Bad enough that I thought it was about privacy, and the bill name is Stop Online Piracy Act, I had to comment on it ~ why would anyone want to stop a group dedicated to stopping online privacy, was my reasoning. Oy, vey.

If I had went straight to Thomas online, read the bill, rather than reading about SOPA on a trusted site, I would have been better informed. When my Facebook friends started posting opposition to SOPA, I did go to Thomas and read the bill. I do not get the opposition. Disabling crooks seems like a good thing to me.

I found article Q & A On Contested Internet anti-Piracy Bill. Hope the link remains active.

I am still not clear why people think the bill, if passed, would restrict freedom of speech. The Associated Press article published Jan. 18, 2012 states:  "Leahy responded that there is nothing in the legislation that would require websites, Internet service providers, search engines, ad networks, payment processors or others to monitor their networks. He said his bill protects third parties from liability that may arise from actions to comply with a court order."
And:  "Michael O'Leary, a senior vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America, a key supporter of the legislation, said his industry is built upon a vibrant First Amendment. "We would never support any legislation that would limit this fundamental American right," he said. Neither PIPA nor SOPA "implicate free expression but focus solely on illegal conduct, which is not free speech." ..."

Yesterday I posted a link to the act, pondering how many people read it. Today more of my Facebook friends are posting links to a petition protesting SOPA. I am not opposed to the bill. I did not find anything in the bill that restricts freedom of speech, nor put undue pressure on search engines and other websites.

Of course my link goes nowhere, seeing it was the result of a query (I guess). Anyone who wants to read it, go to Thomas and search for bill H.R.3261.

Match-o-Matic

My ABC News, Politics, 'Otus, Match-o-Matic results.

Use image without site's consent ~ the "share" gave two choices: Facebook or Twitter. I do try to avoid political discussions on Facebook. Some of my friends despise President Obama, others worship Ron Paul. No reasoning with either, as one might reason with someone who is less extreme. Also, things like this go away in time and I wanted to keep a record of my results.

Highly unlikely ABC will stumble upon this post, but if you do, and usage of image is in violation of  a copyright, please let me know and I will promptly remove it. Thank you.

I already ruled out Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry, my number two and three matches.

Problem with quizzes like this, two of the questions, my truthful answer was: none of the above, which was not a choice. A third question, I had no opinion; lack knowledge to form one. The multiple choice questions provides quotes from candidates. I found one question which did not truly reflect President Obama's stance on an issue. Judging from statements attributed to candidates, it is likely the issue that had me quickly dismiss both Huntsman and Perry as my potential candidate of choice.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fullpage?id=15177995