Why the special treatment for the “n” word? Going forward all married men can now refer to their wife as a “c***sucker” so long as this marital definition is restricted to their wife alone, by them alone, and no one else refers to their wife as one. I am sure the life span of all marriages will significantly decrease if this behavior is adopted, because women will be hard pressed to understand this declaration.

If I as an Italian American refer to a fellow Italian as a Guinea or WHOP, that doesn’t make me a person expressing my anger within my own element, it makes me a classless individual.

There is no reason to use the “n” word, or any other derogatory expression in speaking to one another; it is not a cultural definition, it is animalistic behavior.

Sadly, Whoopi Goldberg is suffering not from a shriveling up of her “punjamba,” or “moonjambo,” or whatever she calls her special place; she is experiencing flashbacks from her years on the street which is now having an effect on her brain pan.

People who grew up in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s worked too hard to get people together, acknowledging we are one, and discarding the hate words, and beliefs, of the past. We lived through the sounds of the O’Jays, Marvin Gaye, Gladys Knight, Aretha Franklin and the soul sounds of Philadelphia that taught us about peace and love and living together.

There is no acceptable reason, no cultural definition, to restore such degrading and debasing words or images. It simply displays the limitations of the person who cannot express themselves positively, or is simply full of hate.

David DiBello

 

 

Long before the Republican think tank, led by the free talking articulate Phil Gramm, revealed their true mindset, being we workin’ folk are nothing more than a bunch of whining er…witches, the common belief of the GOP is that they stand for big business only. Yet under the rules of “give them another chance” we fell for the big talk of mom and apple pie under the guise of anti flag burning and “save our straight marriages” amendment, and were enthralled with the heavy handed John Wayne / Ronald Reagan cowboy mentality, even if John Wayne and Ronald Reagan only served in the movies. Republicans certainly talk the talk, but are rarely there to do the heavy lifting.

Their new savior, or snake oil salesman, was George W. Bush, a one term governor who seemed to work well with the other side of the aisle (being outnumbered in Texas)and spoke of a conservatism that reached out to the people Phil Gramm has a distaste. We believed the big tent would include us wee folk, the kind that do the daily grind getting those profits for the aristocracy, because candidate Bush spoke of fairness and inclusion in the American dream.

First we had to stand lock step for a big tax cut, the kind we saw during Reaganomics which was great for awhile, then ended in a Black Monday overdose in 1987. A funny thing happened on the way to supply side heaven this time: we weren’t getting trickled on. The Global Economy panacea worked against the American wage earner, the little guy with eyes glowing and hands held out in anticipation. The big guy got the first slice of the pie – a big slice – but this time there were no crumbs leftover.

The remedy? We tightened restrictions on the filing of bankruptcies by irresponsible people, the 80% who ran up credit debt to cover medical bills under our current healthcare arrangement that needed to be reined in. What about the usury of lending institutions? Nothing. When it comes to big business and interest – the sky is the limit.

There was some light. We munchkins were awarded a Medicare prescription program because George suddenly could feel our pain, that and he couldn’t get the Republicans in Congress to block Americans from buying overseas drugs.

When big business is at risk, no amount of Government intervention, the kind that causes an enormous overdraft of the nations’ checking account, is unwarranted. Why not, with the current tax cut plan, the wealthy won’t foot the bill, at least not in proportion to what they should. They want a flat rate tax with no sacrifice of paying extra on behalf of the country, although they talk of sacrifice regarding military service – where they are also AWOL. A win-win for the big guys!

A Bear Stearns bailout? No problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – come on down! It seems Government intervention is only bad for the little guy, like with Katrina, or stagnant Pell Grants and Minimum Wage, or the 47 million uninsured, or people who lose their pensions due to corporate malfeasance, or when jobs are shipped overseas and there is no relief for the American worker.

When Thailand was ravaged with a typhoon, it seems America was lagging in a response until some bad press. What was the rush; there were no oil wells there, no threats of nuclear proliferation, no need for regime change?

Whenever government bails out big business with taxpayer money, the little people are used as a dangling carrot, threatened with their own financial demise if they do not support such an effort.  One can say extortion. If business is failing, as with Citigroup and numerous financial institutions, who gets laid off first, the CEO or those far below?

We are at the end of another supply side movie, the part that holds the morale of the whole story. Only this time we had a stingy con artist in the lead role, one who forgot you have to give a little to get a lot. We are currently in a stock market free fall, and the fluid in our half full economic glass is shrinking. We have a future consisting of energy, healthcare and tuition crisis totally ignored for eight years. We have a war that has gone on for too long because instead of addressing it with the right troop level in the beginning, Republicans went for simultaneous tax cuts, limiting our fighting resources. Makes one wonder exactly who bore the sacrifice of this war the past seven years?

Really, we weren’t expecting a kinder, gentler conservatism now, were we? Sen. Gramm is right on one accord.  We tend to whine and complain, but there is only one glaring reality - We voted for them.

Now go ahead…vote McCain. He offers the same.

David DiBello

 

 

The right wing wealthy in this country are raising the specter of unfairness in claiming that Democrats are seeking to tax them and give their hard earned money to the lower class of the population. They are waging a Robin Hood defense, skimming over the fact that their class, as in the ‘80’s decade of greed, have benefited overwhelmingly while only representing a small fraction of the country. In actuality the working class is questioning how they got those earnings in the first place.

Bill O’Reilly nightly bemoans taking “his money” but little is mentioned by any of this ilk about hard working people losing health coverage or the victimization of minimum wage workers who haven’t gotten an increase in 16 years and work hard for below poverty wages. No mention is made about unchecked CEO pay, agreed upon via the collusion of non employee board members who themselves are of the same ilk as the candidate CEO – wealthy white males mostly – to the ignorance of the stockholders.

The wealthy have manipulated corporations into not only paying golden parachutes, but golden coffins for those executives who die in office. Not only do CEO’s enjoy higher proceeds from life insurance policies, their estate receives salaries if they die where the working class would be left flailing in the wind, with lower death benefits to boost.

Everything is done to protect the wealth of this class. Not only do they benefit by paying significantly less these past eight years, they have no representation in the military. It’s a win-win; don’t fight and enjoy your money while others do the fighting for you. A kind of income protection at socialized government level wages, with veterans treated as yesterday’s news when fighting ends. Their sacrifice, if any, is limited to the pin of a flag lapel piercing their Armani suit and a hand held over their heart as they recite diatribe they will never live up to.

Thanks to capitalism, the “haves” always have the upper hand. Capitalism, while being the best form of economics, also needs to be tweaked.  We created rules to eliminate monopolies, a direct violation of the competition addendum, to the behest of business, which seems to like unfairness when it is to their advantage. They have beaten down the working class by eliminating their defined pension plans and reducing more employee health premiums via payroll deduction.

The nature of capitalism dictates that money makes money, so those with more money watch their nest egg grow multiple times faster than those scrimping to save in a "rich get richer" ponzi scheme. This is why our economy is now based on wealth not work, and old money is dictating the rules over the working class struggling to survive, many times at the expense of their very own children. We have not only rich versus poor, but generations now pitted against one another.

Suppose the working class got wise and boycotted outlandishly priced items like Yankees tickets, or clothing and electronics, or automobiles. If we cancelled our cable and Fox News' revenue decreased, Mr. O'Reilly would eventually find out whose money he does have, after his assistants get laid off first. The haves will threaten layoffs not of their own, management or high priced prima donnas making more money in one year than twenty men in a lifetime, but of the vendors and ticket takers first – high class blackmail termed “negotiation” when done from behind a white collar. Of course with the addiction of wanting one’s son to see a ballgame, the “haves” can revel like drug dealers at the trough. Protection is needed to defend against the inequities and injustices perpetrated by the wealthy.

There’s a solution. Restore Clinton era tax schedules, the ones where the budget was balanced while the economy was humming along, with the exclusion of the first $20,000 of income for all taxpayers in calculating tax obligation. On paper there can be no declaration of unfairness, yet the wealthy will argue that the first $20,000 means nothing to them. They still want the inequity that currently exists on the tail end, the level of income few Americans get to reach thanks to the fact that the purse strings of American firms are held by the “haves,” and they don’t want to see anyone touch their nest egg, no matter how unfair. They rather pit working class against each other, giving them the illusion that they can one day be at their level with hard work, a scam due to current cost of living increases along with our induction into a global economy with no protection for the American worker who currently competes with third world wages.

Let’s forget all that. Here’s an alternative theory perhaps the wealthy could understand – it’s the working class’ turn.

David DiBello

I was amazed  to listen to the evangelist James Dobson call Obama's stance on abortion a "fruitcake" position. I can't recall any of my priests ever using such degrading termionology, but then again they didn't spend time justifying tax cuts or defending the absense of the word "audit" in the Bible as part of their vocation.

We are constantly told by Republicans the worn out theory that if government provided health insurance for those who don’t have it, then it would stand in line America provide housing and food as well. This is a smokescreen playing at Libertarian heartstrings at the expense of basic human decency.

No one is asking for Government to babysit Americans. I believe healthcare coverage should be available for all Americans as a moral minimum standard. We shouldn’t leave who lives or dies up to how much we make for a living, for then we truly have a Darwinian economy – survival of the richest.  

We never should have made healthcare a profit center, but since we have, we should, as the greatest country on the face of the earth, make sure that one’s very existence is maintained regardless of financial status. We are talking about life sustaining procedures where there is imminent danger, a basic safety net, a sign of our humanity. This is especially important in this capitalistic society where more and more people are either losing their coverage, or paying more for coverage from funds they don’t have. Eighty percent of all bankruptcies are due to health items that were charged and cannot be paid back.

Otherwise, without guaranteed coverage, we must admit we are animals. It’s baffling to hear the continued diatribe and subterfuge of “if we pay for this what next?” Especially from a party that espouses family values and believes God is a stockholder on their side.

Charitable contributions are wonderful, but government has to look at the needs of the whole, and count on sufficient revenues to protect their citizenry. Government must rely on a fixed revenue stream, not a variable prayer, and cannot function or be held hostage to the whims of charity. We are talking about basic needs provided for those sick and in pain, rather than hanging them out to dry. That is the measure of a great country.

David DiBello

Are Republcians aware of today's economy or totally out of touch when they cling to the standard stump speech of "55 months of continuous GDP growth," a growth that did not filter down in wages to the working class due to foreign competition via the global economy?
  
Can one pay tuition with that GDP growth? Or healthcare? Or rising prices for basic staples? Or pay down mortgages or provide for one's pension? Can we now tell our landlord "but we had 55 months of unprecedented GDP growth," or would the landlord be more interested in collecting the rent?
  
Where did it go? Better yet, where was it to begin? We couldn't even get trickled on this supply side go-round that will be ending like the last supply side economy - debt, foreclosures and unemployment.
  
Do Republicans really think we are sitting around saying "yeah, wow!" Are they under the impression that sticking to that standard line is going to get them re-elected? That was then and this is now. Where is the 55 months?
  
This November we will ask one question: Are we better off than we were four years ago?
  
Perhaps though, we should ask of the Republicans: "Do you really think we're that stupid?"
  
  
  David DiBello

Knowing Imus, what he said is what he meant in that he was focuing on the fact that Pacman Jones was arrested again, and maybe, maybe, singled out because he was black, although I disagree. It could be he was a celebrity, or he's 6'10" and stands out, or he has a tendancy towards getting into trouble time and again. There is the theory that people cause trouble because they have a streak of malice and disrespect in them regardless of color, sex or religious persuasion.
  
  There is a big difference now then when Imus made the ridiculous remark under the guise of humor a year and a half ago. He, like Howard Stern before him, now has African Americans in his employ, part of his concession in coming back to the airwaves. It is thus assumed that no one could be rascist when they are surrounded by people of different ethnic persuasions, although again, Imus, who runs a ranch for children with terminal illness for all races, along with many charities benefiting all such as SIDS research, did not saying anything racial - quite the opposite.
  
  David DiBello