"Unforgiven?"

Let me preface this by saying I have been a Clint Eastwood fan for longer than most of my readers have been alive. This is the first time I've ever felt sorry for him. I am just disappointed in him, but I am apalled at the RNC for allowing theselves to sink so low. This is rather like the NRA having Charlton Heston, well advanced into Alheimer's, give the keynote speech in Denver, years ago. If you are the RNC and you want someone to do what Eastwood did, shouldn't you at least pick someone who holds values at least similar to the Party's stated ideals of "Family Values," as Republican's understand that phrase. The man they chose to allow to humiliate himself in public is far from the ideal choice, here's why:

Eastwood has fathered at least seven children by five different women and been described as a "serial womanizer." He had affairs with actresses Catherine Deneuve Jill Banner Jamie Rose, Inger Stevens, Jo Ann Harris, Jean Seberg, script analyst Megan Rose, James Brolin's former wife Jane, columnist Bridget Byrne, and swimming champion Anita Lhoest.

Eastwood first married Maggie Johnson on December 19, 1953, six months after they met on a blind date While separated, bg not divorced, from Johnson, Eastwood had an affair with dancer Roxanne Tunis, with whom he had his first child, Kimber Tunis. He did not publicly acknowledge her until 1996. After a reconciliation, he had two children with Johnson: Kyle Eastwood and Aison Eastwood . Eastwood filed for divorce in 1979, but the divorce settlement was not finalized until May 1984.

Never one to batch it, Eastwoodtwood entered a relationship with actress Sondra Locke in 1975 (again while still married) They lived together for fourteen years, despite the fact that Locke remained married to her gay husband, Gordon Anderson. Locke had two abortions and a tubal ligation within the first four years of the relationship.

On April 10, 1989, while Locke was directing the film Impulse, Eastwood changed the locks on their Bel Air home, had many of her possessions removed and placed in storage. Locke filed a palimony suit against Eastwood, then sued him a second time for fraud, regarding a phony directing contract he set up for her in settlement of the first lawsuit. Eastwood and Locke finally resolved the dispute with a non-public settlement in 1999. Her autobiography, The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly, includes a harrowing account of Eastwood's treatment of her during the events surrounding their separation.

During the last four years of his cohabitation with Locke, Eastwood had an intermittent, hidden affair with flight attendant Jacelyn Reeves. According to biographers, the two met at a pub in Carmel, and conceived a son, Scott Reeves (born March 21, 1986), at the premiere of Pale Rider. They also had a daughter, Kathryn Reeves (born February 2, 1988. The birth certificates for both children stated "Father declined." Although they were mentioned in exposé articles as early as 1997, Eastwood did not present his and Reeves' children to the public until 2002.

In 1990, Eastwood began living with actress Frances Fisher, whom he had met on the set of Pink Cadillac (1989). They co-starred in Unforgiven, and had a daughter, Francesca Fisher-Eastwood (born August 7, 1993. The couple ended their relationship in early 1995.

Eastwood subsequently began dating Dina Ruiz, a television news anchor 35 years his junior, whom he had first met when she interviewed him in 1993. They married on March 31, 1996, when Eastwood surprised her with a private ceremony at a home on the Shadow Creek Golf Course in Las Vegas. After their wedding, Dina commented "The fact that I am only the second woman he has married really touches me." (very interesting because Ol' Clint has apparently touched many in a very real and personal fashion) The couple have one daughter, Morgan Eastwood (born December 12, 1996). Other than the marriage part, Eastwood makes Mitt's Mormon Polygamist ancestors seem chaste.

To is credit, Eastwood has been very vocal regarding his support for same sex marriage. He, by his actions also is pro-choice, and regards the institution of marriage very lightly.

So. Mitt and Paul, is this the family values plank in your platform or do you remain. as ever, characterless vote whores?

An Attempt to Demistify a Curious Phenemenon

                  

I guess what I find confusing in all the rhetoric flying about in these election year months is that the most ardent and violently partisan of the far right are really arguing against their own best interests! It also is interesting that the most vociferous fans of Mr. Romney (evangelicals and others) have no real idea of what his faith is, what its core  beliefs are, and how radically different from main stream Christianity they stray. This matters little to me, but by their own doctrines  should matter greatly to them, but apparently in the Boss's words, they have been "Blinded by the Light."

I've remarked on this before, but it bears another examination, I think. I'm going to start with a generalization and then deal with some representative specifics, else this will run to ten or 12 pages. The generalization is this: "Many middle class and below persons (Tea Party Neanderthals chief among them) support and parrot the Republican rhetoric about taxes, deficit,  Medicare, The Affordable Health Care Act, and all the other surface reasons for disliking the current administration's attempts to reduce the deficit and make all Americans pay their fair share. In the vast majority of cases, the issues they decry will never have any impact on their own lives. What this tells me is that the lords of the manor (so to speak - the 1%) have actually convinced the serfs that they,  they feudal magnates (the Romneys,  the Trumps, etc) care truly, deeply and passionately about the poor in spite of contraindicative  actions and lifestyles."         

      The examples I choose have no particular order or precedence.

 The claim:   A current "chain spam" e-mail circulating (and forwarded by persons whose intelligence I never questioned until now!) claims that  "there  will be a 3.8% real estate tax on all real estate transactions, as a part of the Affordable health care Act (hereafter referred to as the AHCA)"  The article goes on to say that this will apply to all transactions and will cost the seller of a $350,000 home  about $13k right off the top.

The reality:  The tax (a Medicare tax) applies to only those capital gains in excess of  $500k annually. If the proceeds of sale are used to buy another house, it isn't a capital gain. If a family has over half a million in  income from capital gains, they are not representative of the average American family by a long shot , and can well afford it.   Why are Tea Partiers, most of whom can't even conceive of investment income of over, say "nada," k  annually, complaining about this?

The claim: The ACHA has a provision which would limit expenditures from flexible health care spending accounts to prescription drugs or medical/dental costs.

The reality: true, but:  From the screams, you'd think a child had died, but think about it; do you, or anyone you know use flexible spending account money to buy a bottle of Robitussin or other OTC meds?  I know no one who does this, but there have been many cases of fraud where the CVS bill has been paid by tax free money and includes  diet drinks, magazines, etc.  Not the aim, I think, of flex spending accounts. So who is affected? Very few of us, and cheats, primarily.

The claim: The AHCA  increases the threshold for medical expense deduction from 7.5% to 10%, which will adversely affect millions of Americans.

The reality: The first part is true, the conclusion is bullshit! Of those taxpayers who choose to itemize, most do not claim medical expenses as deductions on their Schedule A. In fact, for the latest years that the IRS has made the data available, medical expenses were not the most popular Schedule A deduction – that would be taxes paid. They also were not the second, third or fourth most popular – those would be charitable deductions, home mortgage interest and miscellaneous deductions , respectively. According to the IRS, a mere 17% of taxpayers who itemized deductions in 2001 claimed medical expenses. If you do the quick math, that works out to about 6% of all taxpayers. It’s a rather unimpressive number. Of course, it’s not hard to understand why this happens when you look at the demographics and the restrictions. Most itemizers tend to be middle to upper income taxpayers since to hit the standard deduction limits requires generally – though not always – a certain level of income to support those expenses. The primary method by which those who do claim medical cost deductions reach this level is Health Insurance costs which is because the rich have Cadillac plans which cost a fortune (defined as in excess of 27k annually for a family!!!)  The "fun fact" here is that the rate used to be 3% of gross income until raised by another president. No, not Clinton or Carter. Reagan increased tax threshold for medical cost deductions by a factor of 2.5 (3% to 7.5%), Obama by factor of .33, (7.5% to 10%)! Those who weep at the memory of Ronnie have no clue.

The claim: The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

The reality: again True, BUT:  Simple solution, buy health insurance and stop being a drain on society. If you're a pack a day smoker - stop smoking and save double plus the cost of health coverage Buy health insurance, get checkups, preventive care, don't use the ER as a primary physician. No one who has cost issues will be forced into bankruptcy by this and most will be better off.  The key here is that the middle class whiners won't even be affected by it, so why whine?  Of course, if like the Ron Paul supporters  at the Republican primary debates, who shouted "Let 'em die"  (and who, I am almost certain regard themselves as fine, Christian folk) you have lost sight of morality altogether, you suffer from Conscience Deficit Disorder.

 The claim: The Republican Party is united in support of a platform. Corollary 1, the Republican Party supports women.

The reality: Clint Eastwood, who lamentably whored himself out in the "empty chair" charade in Tampa, has been  a  frequent and vocal supporter of same sex marriage, which is certainly not consistent with the 2012 platform. Regarding women's issues. Paul Ryan's voting record in Congress is as anti woman as is possible. He even rejected the "equal pay for equal work" Act.

  The claim: President Obama has increased the Deficit (and of course the debt) far beyond what Republicans (would have/have) done  

The reality: Sorry for the graphs, but they save a slew of words and will be easier for Republican readers (if any) to understand

 In 1981, the supply siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency (assisted by the fact that Reagan refused to listen to even the most conservative real economists)  and instituted their "Voodoo economics", as Bush senior had called it in 1980. As shown in the graph, the "magic" failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20-years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased.  Bush senior fought against it, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to supply-side economics.

G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Currently supply siders are still in full control of the Republican party. The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time." Conservatives were (and are) , naturally,  quite embarrassed by this performance, so they  invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for.

             Debt and Deficit   Details grounded in Fact, not emotion and ill concealed "other" issues

·         Income tax payments dropped 51% for corporations and 23% for people. So the government had to borrow.   Bush signed the FY 2009 budget and the TARP bank bailout,But, the Recession itself caused most of the deficit. It took off under Bush, because the recession caused it.

·         Obama's job stimulus barely got started before the FY 2009 budget ended on Sept. 30, and by then the deficit had exploded.

                                      What Are the Four Causes?

So what are the causes of the deficit; who's to blame?  There are four distinctly identifiable causes.

 1.The biggest cause: Reduced tax payments, due to business slowdown, triggered by: insufficient regulation of financial markets which allowed (among other things totally unregulated instruments like hedge funds and derivatives) weak mortgages to be bundled and considered as if they were real money instead of risky IOUs.

 2. Second: Automatic increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps, and people starting social security early because they couldn't (can't)  find jobs.

 3. Military spending also increased (Bush's war), but is now fading.

 4. Bush's TARP and Obama's Jobs Stimulus (top layer) account for little of the deficit, and they are temporary.  • The deficit is from the safety-net helping the poor and the unemployed in a terrible recession, and helping all of us  (including businesses!) with lower taxes.

        Facts regarding employment and jobs growth.

The claim:  This by Mr. Ryan - Medicare and Social Security are "entitlements" (in other words gifts we expect from the Government)

The reality: Working Americans pay into both Social Security and Medicare throughout their working lives. For those reaching retirement, these are simply returns on investment. As an employed American for 48 years, I paid into Social Security (SS) all my working life and as a percentage of my entire salary (about 6.2%, matched by my employer). Medicare after 1966 was the same process. Of course, I paid that same 6.2% of income into SS all year, every year, because I never exceeded the income level where I could stop paying for the rest of the year. Mitt Romney, of course hit the cutoff in February and paid none the rest of the year! As far as solvency, SS payout is based on income during working life.  In 1936, 65 was old!  Many Americans didn't live to draw SS. To "fix" SS today simply requires the guts to increase eligibility window to reflect current life expectancy. In 1900, combined male female life expectancy was about 49 years of age, in 1930, about 59, in 2002, 77 years plus. Additionally, the life span of those who reached  65 increased, albeit more modestly, about 5 years longer. In plain speak, the average American didn't live to collect SS in 1935, but now that is no longer true. A good starting point would be (just my suggestion) early SS at 68, full SS at 72 unless disabled. If I leave college today and pay at current rates from my $50,000 annual salary for 45 working years and assume (hugely low) no pay increase for the period, I will have paid $145,000 into SS. At even a modest 5% yield, that equates to $447,000. Don't you dare tell me it's an "entitlement!"

As far as Medicare, mandate insurance (like the AHCA), which will radically lower Medicaid costs, and provide earlier, much cheaper interventions. Secondly, jail cheaters like Florida governor Rick Scott. Remove medical licenses for MDs who are Medicare cheats.  Just don't tell me that the benefits of Government mandated health care payments over my working life are now an entitlement!

And I do believe that's all I have to say about that, for now.

I'm here to help!!

In these troubled political times, it's hard sometimes to figure out what's what and who you support. Accordingly, using the wisdom of my years, I've prepared a top ten list to help you.

                           Top ten ways to know if you are a Republican

10.  You believe the Government has never done anything good.

9.  You believe that, left alone, businesses will always act honorably and not just to further profits, no matter whom they hurt.

8.  You think (convicted felon) Oliver North is an American hero and Colin Powell is an "Uncle Tom."

7.  You dislike Hispanics, Blacks and Asians unless they are successful, in which case you suck up to them.

6.  If Male, you want the government to leave you alone,  but to police every uterus in America.

5.  You believe that same sex couples in committed relations should not marry or raise children, but each of Rush Limbaugh's  four unions was sacred.

4.  Your attitude toward the poor and health care can be summarized as:  "F**k  'em, I've got mine."

3. You think Lyndon Johnson was a borderline Commie  for pushing  Medicare,  Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  but loved that Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the carnage it spawned.

2.  You secretly just can't shake the feeling that every rape victim was "asking for it" and deserves to be punished.

1.  You say you believe children are a gift from God,  but after they're born  are just a drain on the system. It's ok if they starve to death or die of a childhood disease, but don't you dare touch a 150 cell mindless blob in the womb.

It's not THAT the wind is blowin'.....!

I've often wondered why the media outlets treat us as if we were candidates for the short bus. This storm season has provided us with yet one more example of the reason. They treat their own staffers that way!  Submitted as proof are the pictures below

 There is no reason known to the mind of man that makes this report more reliable than if the cam showed the storm and the reporter was safe in the studio. It's almost as if the Weather Channel is holding your hand to the stove to prove that it's hot. If you as a reputable weather observer tell me the wind velocity is 125 mph, I will take it on faith without seeing some poor sacrificial reporter get a small tree driven through his spleen!

 Poor Jim Cantore, the Weather Channel's poster child for daring the elements, seems to relish being blown, shaken (not stirred) and pushed around. I guess they'll keep on doing it until a sheet of corrugated roofing cuts a reporter in half, and then we'll hail them as a fallen hero rather than a dumbass without the sense to come in out of the rain. The whole concept of having to be on the scene makes little sense if video accompanies the analysis.

 I believed Walter Cronkite and he stayed behind his desk, and I wouldn't believe Sean Hannity if he were on the scene. It's about who you are, not where you are. A second layer of imbecility is the "eyewitness" interview by the "Action News" on scene reporter who apparently searches for the most mentally challenged individual in the crowd of gawkers following a tragedy and questions them as if they actually expect an intelligent/intelligible response. These guys must use the same selection criteria as those aliens, who faced with an entire population of humans, choose some nose picker from a trailer park in Arkansas

Top Ten Ways to enjoy the Republican National Comvention in Tampa

               Top ten ways to enjoy  the Republican National     
                        Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida

10.  Order 300 pizzas for the entire Romney family.

 9.   Order 300 pizzas for Chris Christie

 8.   Guess which batch of pizzas is gone first.

 7.  Remind Romney that his wife likes equestrians, laugh at him when he says, "no, really, she's       straight!"

6.  Sit in the stall next to Paul Ryan and tap out "Ave Maria" with your foot.  Have him arrested if he answers back.

5.  Put crazy glue in all the Fox News anchor's chairs and on their microphones.

4.  Rig the teleprompter so that in the middle of Ann Romney's speech it scrolls "OK, who farted?"

3.  Fill the balloons for the balloon drop with Orange Juice.

2. Replace the balloons for the balloon drop with condoms filled with cottage cheese.

1. Go to Las Vegas.

Hairspray!

Took a while to figure out how to do this, but here's a clip of the finale of the great production of "Hairspray" done as a communty theater project by St. Luke's UMC in Orlando. This cast could have done this on any stage and it would have rocked!! I actually liked the Tracy and Edna characters better than the movie version. So much talent, high school age through 60s (the guy that played Tracy's dad has legit Broadway credits) fabulous direction by Steve MacKinnon, kudos to all

Finally! (with reservations)

 

 

      I submitted this last Thursday to the Villages Daily Sun, our "news" paper in the Villages. All editorials are from the extreme right, featuring the likes of  Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Thomas Sowell, and others all far right, three of them persons of color, who are probably, along with Clarence Thomas, the smallest minority in America if you discount wheelchair bound lesbian Eskimos with 11 toes. I didn't expect the paper to run the letter, but they did, after carefully editing the last little bit which I will show you at the end of the post.

"A  column entitled"Obama Governs United States like Banana Republic Dictator" is certain to grab one's attention. What heinous act could precipitate such a scathing headline? As it turns out, the column was written by the aged (ed. note: he's 83) African American ultra- conservative, Thomas Sowell and ran in Thursday's edition of the Daily Sun.  Sowell's academic credentials are impeccable,which, makes his point of view and lack of veracity in this case much more troublesome. 

The focus of the column is the use by President Obama of  Executive Orders, which Sowell implies are unconstitutional  and enable the president to run and "end-around" on Congress. He complains about several  Executive Orders he doesn't like and, for good measure throws in the Affordable Health Care Act  which, in true far right style, he calls Obamacare, even though it was passed by a majority of Congress and is a law, not an Executive Order. He finishes the tirade with a slam at the US Supreme Courtwhich he laments will "rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5-4 majority." 

The problem here is that Sowell hasn't done his homework.Using the number of Executive Orders (issued by The President to date) and extrapolating to the end of his current term, President Obama will have issued far fewer (and most far less controversial)  than  Presidents Reagan and Clinton and significantly fewer than President G.W. Bush.  The issue grows murkier when one factors in that the Reagan administration actually did support several  "Banana  Republic Dictators," including El Salvador's brutal regime (yeah, the one that jails any woman who has had an abortion for any reason, with the express connivance of the Church!) 

 Apparently it isn'treally the use of Executive Orders,  but the subject matter, that troubles Sowell.

Here is where they cut it. below is the rest of it:

  "It is disappointing that the Daily Sun runs columns by three persons of color, all of whom are ultra conservative and yet can't seem to find space for opposing points of view on the Op-Ed page for the likes of a Eugene  Robinson, Brent Staples, Leonard Pitts or Mary Mitchell. This community would be better served by at least an illusion of a level playing field on the op-ed page." 

Oh well... half a loaf, etc.