Sunday, January 31, 2016




If you're on the right side of the political stage, vote for Donald Trump!

If you lean to the left of the political spectrum, vote for Bernie Sanders!

Believe it or not Trump and Sanders have much in common when compared to the "Establishment."

Both say what they want to say, not what some want to hear even if it rustles the Establishment feathers.

Neither Sanders or Trump are dependent on "Citizens United" money whereas the Establishment can not survive without begging and scraping on bended knee for a handout from the moguls they pander to; Democrat and Republican alike.

Trump has his own billion dollar piggy bank to dip into and Sanders is stampeding on the $3.00 per person money train mad up of everyone on Main Street America who have had more than enough, are "mad as hell,"and not willing to take it anymore.

Not since Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have Americans had this opportunity to clean up a political system that is morally bankrupt,barely functions and not even remotely resembles what was once know as a Democracy where opportunity, justice, and equality was available to all; rich and poor alike.

In it's present state the Establisment operates like a brothel where politicians are nothing more than political whores selling their favors to whoever walks in with a wad of cash to throw at them. Establishment politicians will say what they are told to say. Vote the way they are told to vote regardless if it is good or bad for our country or their constituents.

Take, for example healthcare in America. Even though they would go about it differently, both Trump and Sanders agree that no one should go without healthcare and people that need help should get it.

Both Trump and Sanders want to "make America great again" Different ideology? Yes! Different solutions? Yes!  But, both agree the system is "rigged" and that, in it's present state, it is in a severe need of an overhaul. In short, America is broken and it's time Americans did something to fix it.

We have reached a crossroads in our history. For all the achievements and
riches of our time, the world has never been so unequal or more unjust. A
century ago, at the time of the First World War, the richest 20% of the
world’s population earned eleven times more than the poorest 20%. By
the end of the twentieth century they earned seventy-four times as much.
Today, despite seven decades of international development, three
decades of the Washington Consensus, and a decade and a half of
Millennium Development Goals, our world is even more divided among the
haves, the have-nots, and—as President George W. Bush once quipped in an
after-dinner speech—the have-mores.

When it comes to wealth, rather than income, the picture is more extreme.
Globally, the richest 1% now own nearly half of all the world’s wealth.
The poorest 50% of the world, by contrast—fully 3 billion people—own
less than 1% of its wealth. Anyone with assets of more than $10,000 a
year is an exception to the global norm and is better off than 70% of
everyone else alive. Yet most of us are so preoccupied by the relative
few with more that we rarely stop to notice this. There is growing
awareness today of the consequences in rich countries of rising income
inequality: we know what it means to talk of the 1% there. But when it
comes to the much greater gaps between rich and poor the world over, we
confine ourselves still to talk of “global poverty.”

How often are we told that, if only we could see what life is like in a cramped slum
in Dhaka or on some scrabble of land in rural Chad, we would be moved to
help? But the problem is not one of our empathy. We are all familiar
with the shape of a human body in hunger. The details, like glass paper,
scarcely catch the imagination any more. It is not one of distance,
either. A growing number of the wealthiest people in this world live in
high-rise apartments that tower up and over the slums below—and they
know only too well that before all the “beautiful forevers” will be
lived a thousand impossible todays.

The problem, rather, is one of perspective, of what we choose not to see.
There is no shortage ofbooks telling us “why nations fail” or what “the bottom billion”
on this planet must do to succeed, no shortage of policy papers from the World
Bank or the International Monetary Fund saying much the same. But we
still have not properly confronted how the poverty and suffering of a
great many are connected to the wealth and privilege of a few.

Weare slow to admit that the problem is one not of poverty traps at the
bottom of the pyramid but of a great confinement of wealth at the top.
Total global wealth was estimated at $263 trillion in mid-2014, up from
$117 trillion in 2000. That was the same year that the world agreed to
bind itself to achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 (with
the headline ambition of halving the proportion of people living on less
than $1.25 a day). Those goals end this year, in 2015, in many cases
not having been met. Meanwhile, global wealth keeps on growing: by 8.3%
from mid-2013 to mid-2014 alone.

There is a politics to this, but it is all too often ignored in a debate which to date
has preferred to focus on the economics of who has what. The primary purpose of
this book is to paint this wider political context back into the picture, since
our problems stem less from market forces than from the failed policies
behind them. If this is partly cause for despair, then it is also cause
for hope: our present predicaments are more amenable to change than we
are often encouraged to believe.

The game is completely rigged: The 1 percent has more than ever — and the system is too broken to deal with it


In the last presidential elections Republicans claimed that President Obama's healthcare plan was creating death panels. As it turns out, just the opposite is true. There are 17 states in the USA that refuse to provide healthcare for their disenfranchised (poor) citizens.

It should come as no surprise that these 17 states are ruled by Republicans who's priorities are to pander to the rich (cut taxes) at the expense of the working class, poor, and disenfranchised who, as a result of a depleted tax base, being subjected to a crumbling infrastructure, and lack of public services which results in horrific life threatening disasters like the poisoned waters of Flint, which some say is just the tip of the iceberg. 

How can it be that in the most powerful and richest country in the world people are left  to suffer from chronic illnesses and shortened life spans in order to save a few bucks for those at the top?

The following 17 states are the worse offenders;
  • Florida: The Florida Senate in 2015 approved a Medicaid expansion plan, but it was rejected
    by Gov. Rick Scott (R) and the state House. The state government almost
    shut down over a budget impasse linked to the issue, but state
    lawmakers in June 2015 reached an agreement on a final budget deal without an expansion. State lawmakers expect to debate Medicaid expansion again in 2016.

  • Georgia: Gov. Nathan Deal (R) on Jan. 16, 2013, confirmed he does not support Medicaid expansion. On March 28, 2013, both the House and Senate adjourned for the 2013 session. A bill to encourage Deal to consider expanding Medicaid died in the House in February 2013. Deal in May 2013 signed legislation creating
    the Joint Study Committee on Medicaid Reform, but it was "for the
    purposes of determining an appropriate plan for Medicaid reform," not
    specifically expanding the program under the ACA.

  • Idaho: Gov. Butch Otter (R) on Jan. 7, 2013, in his state-of-the-state address said Idaho would not expand Medicaid. The state House and Senate both adjourned on April 4, 2013.

  • Kansas: Gov. Sam Brownback (R) punted the decision on expanding Medicaid to state lawmakers, and the state Legislature wrapped up its session for the year on June 2, 2013, without taking action on any expansion proposals.

  • Maine: On June 17, 2013, Gov. Paul LePage (R) vetoed a bill (LD 1066)
    that would have expanded the state's Medicaid program. LePage objected
    to the cost of expansion and also noted that previous hikes to Medicaid
    eligibility—which he termed "a
    massive increase in welfare expansion"—have not worked to reduce the
    number of uninsured in the state. Two days later, on June 19, 2013,
    House lawmakers failed to gain the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.

  • Mississippi: Republicans in the Legislature in June 2013 blocked plans to expand Medicaid to an additional 300,000 state residents under the ACA.

  • Missouri: In February 2014, the state Senate defeated
    an effort to expand Medicaid in Missouri. However, at least one
    Republican lawmaker in the state says that the issue isn't over; State
    Senator Ryan Silvey says he has the support for an expansion proposal. Gov. Jay Nixon (D) favors expanding Medicaid.

  • Nebraska: In May 2013, Republicans in the Legislature filibustered the
    Medicaid expansion, which was also opposed by then-Gov. Dave Heineman
    (R). The expansion could have extended Medicaid coverage to up to 80,000
    residents. Another—more conservative—expansion act (LB 887)
    was introduced January 14, 2014, received a majority vote, but failed
    to meet the 33 votes needed to jump the filibuster and was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2014.

  • North Carolina: In 2013, the state's General Assembly passed a bill banning Medicaid expansion, but in October Gov. Pat McCrory (R) in October 2014 said that he would consider expanding Medicaid to an estimated 500,000 state residents. Specifically, he said,
    "I'm also trying to figure out what to do with Medicaid and whether to
    expand that or not, because the feds are offering all this money, and
    yet I’ve got to be concerned with the bureaucracy that could be grown
    because of that."

  • Oklahoma: Gov. Mary Fallin (R) rejected the
    Medicaid expansion in November 2012 and has not proposed an alternate
    model for expanding insurance coverage for low-income state residents.

  • South Carolina: On March 12, 2013, the state House Republican majority rejected an
    expansion of Medicaid, opting instead to allocate $80 million in state
    and federal funding in South Carolina's budget for a hospital incentive
    payment program. Gov. Nikki Haley (R) announced in July 2012 that she
    opposes expansion.

  • Tennessee: Gov. Bill Haslam (R) on Dec. 15, 2014, announced an alternative plan to expand the state's Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act. The plan would use
    federal funds to extend coverage to an additional 200,000 low-income
    state residents by helping them to purchase health plans offered by
    their employers or by placing them in the state's Medicaid program.
    State residents with annual incomes up to $16,100, or 138% of the
    federal poverty level, would be eligible
    for the program. The plan must be approved by the state's
    Republican-led Legislature and HHS to take effect, but Haslam said he
    already has received "verbal approval" from the administration. However,
    a key Senate committee in February 2015 voted against the proposal.

  • Texas: Gov. Rick Perry (R) and the Republican majority in the state Legislature have unanimously rejected the Medicaid expansion, although Democrats have introduced legislation (HB 3791) that would establish a strategy to expand Medicaid. The bill is pending in the House.

  • Utah: Gov. Gary Herbert (R) in December 2014 outlined his plan
    to expand Medicaid in his state, but the proposal was rejected by a
    Utah House committee in 2015. On July 17, 2015, Gov. Gary Herbert (R)
    and state Republican lawmakers announced an agreement on a broad framework for expanding Medicaid through the ACA. The state will ask
    hospitals, physicians, and drugmakers to fund the expansion after the
    federal government stops covering 100% of expansion costs. Under the
    proposal, the state would provide subsidized private coverage for as
    many as 126,500 newly eligible residents. Before the plan could be
    implemented, it would need to pass in the Legislature and be approved by
    HHS. However, state lawmakers in October 2015 firmly rejected a compromise plan, leaving the state without a "clear path forward" for expansion, Peter Sullivan reports for The Hill.

  • Virginia: Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has pushed for
    Medicaid expansion in Virginia, but the Virginia Legislature in June
    2014 passed a budget that did not include expansion. In December 2014,
    McAuliffe presented a budget proposal that included an expansion provision, but lawmakers are not expected to accept the provision.

  • Wisconsin: Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Feb. 13, 2013, said Wisconsin
    will not participate in the ACA Medicaid expansion, but will pursue its
    own strategy to expand health coverage across the state. In addition,
    the legislature's Joint Finance Committee in June 2013 voted against the expansion.

  • Wyoming: The state's Wyoming's Department of Health in November 2014 proposed
    an alternative Medicaid expansion plan that would extend the program to
    about 18,000 state residents with incomes up to 138% of the federal
    poverty level.The expansion plan, which has the support of Gov. Matt
    Mead (R), calls for
    a federal waiver to allow the state to charge monthly premiums and
    copayments to low-income individuals who choose to participate. However,
    the state Senate and House in February 2015 voted against the expansion plan, tabling the proposal for the rest of the legislative session.

Saturday, January 30, 2016


 The time for the same-o, same-o in how and who we elect as President is over. Democrats and Republicans alike are saying, "we are mad as hell and are not going to take it any more!"

So much so that two dark horses; one from each party, has come out of nowhere and taken center stage. The Republicans are railing against the system with a wild out of control Donald Trump, who is admittedly crazy but does say it like it is which goes completely against the grain when it comes to political correctness. Trumps message is, "let's make America great again" but falls flat when explaining how he would make that happen.

Democrats have come out in droves to propel Bernie Sanders to center stage. A wise/old (I say that with praise) man who says it like it is and has a clear coherent plan on how to return America to it's people and dismantle the corrupt dysfunctional political machine that brought America to it's knees in 2008 and continues keep the country on the edge of the precipice which insures another disaster will come sooner than later.

Both Trump and Sanders have refused to fall into line and both are not pandering to the "monied' establishment fed by moguls like the Koch brothers, Vegas tycoon Adilsen, and similar counterparts  on the Democratic side.

What's different about Trump and Sanders, is that Donald is tapping into his own billion dollar piggy bank while Bernie is being bankrolled by $3.00 donors all over America. Bernie is calling for a political "revolution" and the people are answering the call.

Bernie is determined to retake the high ground from the elite class that owns almost every politician running or holding office.

 The game is completely rigged: The 1 percent has more than ever — and the system is too broken to deal with it

trickle-down fallacy that currently seems to underpin economic policy
in the US fails to take into account the fact that the American economy
is still strongly tied to consumer spending. Most of the US companies
that you can think of do business by creating goods or services that are
purchased by consumers (or goods or services that cater to the
companies that provide consumer goods/services).
been fed the idea for decades that as the wealthy get more wealthy,
these "job creators" will invest their money back into the economy and
generate wealth for all. The data, however, doesn't support this. We've
been giving tax breaks and loopholes to the top earners for years and
what we've seen is this:
is wage policies have favored the richest Americans,
those top 1% of earners have become wealthier while everyone else has
had their incomes remain static. Now, this wouldn't be so bad except for
the fact that cost of living has risen substantially. This is most
stark in housing, healthcare, and education.
plans are actually some of the most economically sound because they
have long-term sustainability. Current policies and those being proposed
by other candidates continue to favor corporations and the wealthiest
Americans. Continuing those is not sustainable since cost of living will
continue to rise and wages will remain stagnant, causing more and more
Americans will slip into poverty. Even those that don't will see their
purchasing power continue to diminish, which will hurt businesses across
the country and people buy fewer goods and services. 
raising the minimum wage (although $15 might be too big of a jump to do
right away and might cause more harm than good...a letter from a group
of economists to President Obama recommended jumping to $10.10...then we
can raise it slowly from there), creating a comprehensive healthcare
system, and lowering the cost of education, the Sanders plans would
create more purchasing power for the bottom 90% of Americans. With more
money in hand, Americans will be able to spend more on goods and
services, something that would revitalize the economy far better than
having all of that wealth sucked up to the top (347 million
decently-paid Americans are going to be buying a lot more goods than a
few million super-rich Americans...).
what about paying for these programs? Bringing taxes back to where they
were under Reagan or so and closing loopholes for corporations and the
wealthiest would certainly help. There is also an interesting set of
articles on Forbes that talk about how government spending is actually
very beneficial to the economy (including the private sector) and how
paying for it isn't actually that's not entirely intuitive
because a lot of the analogies that have been used on us (household
finances/corporate finances) aren't actually applicable:
How to Destroy the US Economy? Balance the Budget (this wasn't the one I originally found but it says some of the same things)
Sanders is offering a set of programs and policies that would put more
spending power into the hands of the vast majority of Americans.
Unfortunately, many people see this as a zero-sum game...if we slow or
stop the current wealth redistribution to the very top, it will benefit
the others but harm the very rich! But remember, many of those top 1%
get their money from capital gains and the success of businesses
(oftentimes by having freakishly high salaries or some financial
trickery...but that's another discussion)...that means that having more
Americans spending more would be good for them too! 

Friday, January 29, 2016

Bernie Sanders on Instagram: “"Hillary Clinton says Democrats should look at which candidate is most electable. We couldn't agree more." - Jeff Weaver. #FeelTheBern”

Bernie Sanders on Instagram: “"Hillary Clinton says Democrats should look at which candidate is most electable. We couldn't agree more." - Jeff Weaver. #FeelTheBern”




FRANCIS sends a message to the proud, rich and powerful: Help the poor, or you’ll go to hell | CathNewsUSA

Francis does not pull any punches when he confronts the 1%

Pope Francis warned the “proud, rich, and powerful” that if they ignore the poor at their door — who represent Christ himself — they’ll end up in the solitude of hell.

The pope’s annual message was an appeal for all Christians to use the 40-day season that starts Feb. 10 leading up to Easter to “overcome our existential alienation” by listening to God and practicing the spiritual and corporal works of mercy.

According to the Gospel, Francis wrote, those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the infirm, give counsel, and practice forgiveness do so as though to Christ himself.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016


Republicans are the first to blow hard about defending and protecting our Constitution and enforcing the Rule of Law until it comes to actually walking the talk.

And, that's where it all falls apart. They stand behind and support a handful of armed so-called patriots who want to forcefully take "public" lands for their own personal gain.

Republicans react to news of Oregon standoff with wild conspiracy theories and bizarre comparisons to Jesus




A bad combination. Allowing armed citizens intending to do harm and threatening the government of the United States (it's citizens) should not be tolerated anymore than other forms of terrorism form outside our borders. As any "constitutional zealot" will tell you, this is a country that abides by the Rule of Law.

These clowns seem to have forgotten that. 

Tuesday, January 26, 2016


Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist" who in a "representative democracy" is elected by, and represents, the  American (voters) "people."

The people that understand what Bernie Sanders stands for are, young, smart, and more passionate than the previous generation.Young Democrats Prefer Bernie Sanders, New Poll Finds

The "Millennials" are determined to take America back from what has come to be known as the "shadow" government that is now in power; A new book further explores the "red thread" that connects the war on terror, the militarization of America's foreign policy, rising inequality and the dysfunction that plagues our government.

These Americans believe that America is not for sale and that it's time for a political revolution in order to rescue the country from the Oligarchs that are devouring it for their own self-gain.

His opponents; mostly Republicans claim this is bad for Americans, but who are the Americans they represent? The Plutocrats Are Winning! The vast inequality they are creating is a death sentence for government by consent of the people. 

These power brokers are known as the "donor" class;

Ah, yes. The donor class! Those deep pockets flung open even wider by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision just six years ago, permitting the richest of the rich to pour even more of their fortunes into control of our electoral process. Brooks was saying openly what many of them are thinking privately: Only we can save the party from the megalomania of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and protect our precious status quo.

How best to do this? Brooks suggested that panicked “state legislators who are Republicans, congressmen, senators, local committeemen” should join with the donors “so they don’t send the party into suicide.” Makes sense — many of those very same folks already are deep in hock to the donors, their contributions often laundered via entities with high-falutin’ names – ALEC, for one, the American Legislative Exchange Council that lends a helping corporate hand to legislators eager to write favorable laws, provide tax breaks, dismember public employee unions and privatize government services.

Monday, January 25, 2016

CAN-U-FEEL-IT ????????

 WANT TO FEEL THE BERN? CLICK HERE; to watch and share this short video now so we can help show the country why folks are so excited about Bernie Sanders’ bid for the presidency?

Sanders said, “The truth is, you can’t change a corrupt system by taking its money. It’s called a rigged economy, and this is how it works. Most new wealth flows to the top 1 percent. It’s a system held in place by corrupt politics where Wall Street banks and billionaires buy elections. My campaign is powered by over a million small contributions from people like you who want to fight back.”

Sen. Sanders is putting the money raised by his 800,000 small donors to work spreading the message that America’s corrupt campaign finance system is the mechanism that is allowing income inequality to grow. If elected officials are accountable to their big donors instead of voters, the government stops belonging to the people.

The Bernie Sanders presidential campaign is dangerous to Wall Street and the billionaires because they aren’t owned by big money donors. Sanders doesn’t belong to the billionaires, which means that he is free to speak the truth. The truth is that our current political system is being corrupted by outside money and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

These ads can inform the public and for that reason Wall Street and billionaire oligarchs should be very afraid.


Sunday, January 24, 2016


Electing Republicans to political office is a disaster waiting to happen. Here's why.

The Republicans have a formula for governing that can be broken down in 3 ways;

#1: CUT TAXES for the rich, of course which has the disastrous affects of creating INCOME INEQUALITY where the rich get richer while the working middle class gets poorer.

If you have 5 minutes to spare it might be worth your while watching this video; 

Wealth Inequality in America  

# 2: CUT THE BUDGET which for Republicans means cutting and/or reducing "not for profit" social programs like healthcare, where a large number of RED states have refused to expand healthcare services to the working class and poor; (Here's a look at the 50 states health care coverage.)

Weaken consumer and environmental protection agencies that result in disasters like we are seeing in Flint MI where again the working class and poor are targeted;

Michigan’s pollution crisis

Republicans have no problem with a bloated budget when it comes to "for profit" projects like the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) that funds a juggernaut military machine that is larger than the military of most of the rest of the world's developed countries "combined."

Another "for profit" program Republicans support and fund is the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC)
where the focus is on "retention" and "recidivism" (keeping the beds full) in order to make a profit;

According to statistics from 1990 to 2005, a new state or federal correctional facility was built in the United States once every 10 days, amounting to around 544 new prisons over 15 years.

More about US prisons:
  • Twenty-five percent of the total world prison population is comprised of US prisoners, even though the US makes up just 5% of the total global population. In 2013, there were about 2.2 million adults in local, state, or federal custody in the United States.

  • There are 770,000 people who work for US prisons in some capacity (such as parole officers, prison guards, construction, health care, and more) - almost as many as work in the automobile manufacturing industry.
#3: CUT GOVERNMENT which for Republicans means weakening our "representative" Democratic form of  government" and strengthening an  "elitist" Plutocratic form of government.

In a true democracy big and strong government that represents ALL of it's citizens; rich, working, and poor, alike is a prerequisite to a strong and productive society. A small weaken government that panders to a select elitist few (the rich) is the preferred choice for Republicans who have been diligent on degrading the political system with things like Gerrymandering and Citizens United. 

It's not that Republicans are anti-government more than they are anti-democratic.
It's time Americans stop and think about what Republicans mean when they say they want to cut taxes, reduce the budget deficit, and rid us of big government. Because it's not so much what they say, but what it means to the average American that's important if we are to preserve our way of life. 

It's all about money: 

You might say the US Congress is a bit compromised.

The same lucrative financial ties that exist between politicians and the "health-care" industry exist between politicians and for-profit prison companies, oil companies, gun companies, sugar companies, other big agribusiness and Wall Street's bankers, advisers, and hedge fund and private equity managers.
Congress is inundated with money spent by very large corporations in return for political action designed to maximize corporate profits.

Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, gave $2,217,066 in political campaign donations during the 2014 election cycle (the most recent year for which data is available), and $9,483,000 more in political lobbying. As of 2014, 40 members of Congress held stock in the pharmaceutical giant.

Congress also happens to be doing nothing to stop Pfizer from charging Americans some of the highest drug prices in the world.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is another pharmaceutical behemoth charging Americans inflated drug prices while funneling money to Congress. In 2014, the company spent $259,450 in campaign contributions, and $2,745,000 in lobbying. Twenty-five members of Congress hold stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Another Big Pharma company, Johnson & Johnson, gave $757,788 in political campaign contributions in 2014, and spent $5,980,000 more in lobbying. Forty members of Congress hold stock in Johnson & Johnson.

While millions of Americans fight to afford their medications, 11 corporate leviathans (all of which donate to or lobby Congress) have wrested more than $711 billion in profits for their investors.
As members of Congress constitute some of those investors, the lax regulation that allows the American people to be extorted is actually good for the politicians in charge of representing the best interests of the people.

This throws into light the reason why, unlike any other body of legislators in the world, US federal lawmakers do not regulate or restrain massive pharmaceutical companies from engaging in predatory pricing practices.
  As instance after instance shows, Congress does not, in fact, represent the people of the United States, but rich CEOs. On both sides of the aisle, campaign donations, super PACs and corporate lobbying have morphed this country into an oligarchy, controlled by the wealthy few.
As Sanders says, the issue is not that "the Republicans and Democrats hate each other. That's a mythology from the media."

The real problem, which Sanders has correctly identified, is that "Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do."


Friday, January 22, 2016


 The headlines read:

Let's compare the promise to overhaul the Academy with what is actually being proposed by crunching a few numbers;

Let's start at the top -

The board of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is overwhelmingly white and male 

The board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is almost entirely Caucasian — and an overwhelming majority of the board is white men, a Daily News survey of the iconic organization found.

The only exceptions are board president Cheryl Boone Isaacs — the lone woman of color — and board member cinematographer Daryn Okada, the only minority male.

The 52-member board breaks down this way:

37 white men

13 white women

1 black woman

1 Asian man.

That’s 96.1% white and 71% white male.

Then, there's the Academy;

Last year, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the Academy as a whole is 76% male and 94% white.


 In Hollywood, “prestige” still means white: Academy scrambles to fix ongoing Oscar diversity problem — but this goes deeper than voting rules 

For a long time, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has had a problem: Its membership has been older, whiter, and more male than the nation and the film audience as a whole. In recent years, this has gone from being something people had a vague sense of to an inescapable fact. And this year, that fact caught fire, and the #OscarsSoWhite movement has become a cultural adjunct to #BlackLivesMatter.

But what does the Academy do now, as protests, frustrations, and boycotts mount over the all-white acting slate for this year’s awards? A New York Times story describes what might be in store:

The "promise" is to double the number of minorities by 2020 which would look like this;

In 2020 the 52-member board breaks down this way:

35 white men

13 white women

2 black woman

2 Asian man.

That’s 96.1% white and 71% white male.

And the Academy which today is 94% white and 76% male would look like this ;

If, in 2020, you doubled the minority representation by adding 24% more females and 6% more minorities it would add up to 52% male and 88% white. Hardly historic.

Thursday, January 21, 2016


In Hollywood, “prestige” still means white: Academy scrambles to fix ongoing Oscar diversity problem — but this goes deeper than voting rules

For a long time, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has had a problem: Its membership has been older, whiter, and more male than the nation and the film audience as a whole. In recent years, this has gone from being something people had a vague sense of to an inescapable fact. And this year, that fact caught fire, and the #OscarsSoWhite movement has become a cultural adjunct to #BlackLivesMatter.

Monday, January 18, 2016

1927 -2016 Academy on Oscars Controversy:179 Years of racism in the ranks

This institution was created in 1927 and it's taken 179 years for them to come to the conclusion that something needs to be done about the racism that thrives in their ranks. 

Academy President On Oscars Diversity Controversy: "We need to do more, and better and more quickly."

Isaacs’ full statement is below.
I’d like to acknowledge the wonderful work of this year’s nominees. While we celebrate their extraordinary achievements, I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion. This is a difficult but important conversation, and it’s time for big changes. The Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership. In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond.

As many of you know, we have implemented changes to diversify our membership in the last four years. But the change is not coming as fast as we would like. We need to do more, and better and more quickly.

This isn’t unprecedented for the Academy. In the ‘60s and ‘70s it was about recruiting younger members to stay vital and relevant. In 2016, the mandate is inclusion in all of its facets: gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We recognize the very real concerns of our community, and I so appreciate all of you who have reached out to me in our effort to move forward together.

Friday, January 15, 2016


Bernie Sanders is a "democratic socialist" while those who oppose him are nothing other than "capitalistic socialists"

He would end the following examples of corporate welfare which is nothing more than socialism for the rich!

The US can't pay for social programs for the rest of America as long as it keeps giving tens of billions of tax breaks to massive mega corporations and subsidies to already established and profitable sectors.


That's Socialism for The Rich, and Capitalism for everyone else.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
And then there's subsidies; 

Even the Oil industry gets ~$38 billion in subsidies yearly. Oil, this is. Not Alternative Energy.

Then there is the military spending,  

SOURCE: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, April 2015. Data are for 2014. Compiled by PGPF. NOTE: Figures are in U.S. dollars, converted from local currencies using market exchange rates.


Thursday, January 14, 2016


Looks like Ted Cruz had so little grass roots support in his 2012 run for the US Senate he needed the "big banks" to bail him out.

Politicians that can't garner enough financial support from those that vote for them should not be elected to public office especially when it comes to  these "by my own boot straps" ranters like Cruz. Needing banks to "finance" your campaign starts out smelling rotten and the stink just gets worse as they go on to get elected.

Reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016


I know! I know! It's the person, not the gun.

But then, imagine if this poor guy didn't own one. One less gun would have prevented one less tragic and preventable death.

Cincinnati man shoots 14-year-old son dead after teen unexpectedly returns after leaving for school