Rilaly's Blog
Simple Truths

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Bob Kerry will run for Nebraska’s Senate seat

February 29, 2012

The moment we Nebraskans have been crossing our fingers over for so long that we nearly went blind is finally here! Bob Kerry has informed Democrats to inform MSNBC to inform people to inform people from Nebraska that he has decided to run for the Senate seat that Nebraskans allowed Ben Nelson to occupy for twelve years. For those broken hearted Democrats that have longed for this day, after being rejected so many times for better opportunies, Bob is apparently ready to scrape the bottom of the barrel and give us his representation.

Gas prices in the age of Obama

February 24, 2012

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a complicated problem solving technique that went something like this: “If one thing doesn’t work try another.” The Obama Administration appears to be doing much of the same when it comes to gas prices: ‘If inflating your tires more doesn’t work, we can try solar panels. If that doesn’t work, we [...]

Who’s keeping them honest? The relationships between the media and politics

February 17, 2012

How many in the media had an absolute fit when former Fox News broadcaster Tony Snow was hired as the press secretary for George W. Bush? How many of them had a fit when Karl Rove was hired by Fox as a commentator? How many of those same people had a problem with James Carville and George Stephanopoulos going into the media?

When Snow was hired as press secretary, the liberal media proclaimed that this was evidence of the fact that he was always biased. They claimed that if there wasn’t an incestuous relationship betweeen Fox News and the Bush Administration, there was at least collusion. Then when Karl Rove was hired as a commentator for Fox News, the liberal media proclaimed that this was evidence that Fox News was biased all along. When Clinton advisors Carville and Stephanopoulos were hired by the CNN and ABC respectively, if the liberal media said anything about it at all they said Tim Russert worked for Moynihan and Mario Cuomo and Diane Sawyer worked for Nixon. These incestuous relationships have been occurring a lot lately, and it only appears to be getting worse.

Charley Reese’s final column on how Washington D.C. operates

February 15, 2012

There is an op-ed that is flying around the internet lately? It has gone viral as they say. Author Charley Reese, formerly of the Orlando Sentinel, calls it the Frankenstein column. He says he calls it that, because people rewrite and update it with current politicians’ names, but it could also be said that brilliant, common sense pieces such as this one never die.

The title of Reese’s column is 545 versus 300,000,000 people. It was Reese’s final column for the Orlando Sentinel, and it appears as though it unleashed the libertarian frustrations that had built up in him over the years regarding how our beloved country is being run.

It was written back on February 3, 1984, but you’ll swear it was written yesterday. Writing such as this is called beautiful by writers such as myself, because it’s brilliantly simplistic, and beautiful, brilliant, simplistic writing is timeless.

It was written during President Ronald Reagan’s tenure as president, but it is non-partisan in its condemnation. It was written after a tumultuous year (1983) of spending that led to a mountainous 1.4 trillion dollar debt. That was a leap in the debt of nearly 6.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from President Carter’s last days. The final amount of the debt as a percentage of the GDP that enraged Charley Reese enough to write this prescient column in 1983 was 39.9%. The debt that we currently have, as presented by the fine people at skymachines in the link below, is nearly 16 trillion, as of 12/31/2011. The final amount of the debt as a percentage of the GDP for 2011 is currently listed at 99.7, a percentage increase of 15.6% for Barack Obama thus far.

Clash of the ‘ticians 2012

February 1, 2012

Now that Romney has won Florida, it appears to be what some French would call a fait accompli. A win is a win, as they say, but with the figures we now have rolling in, we may not want to don the FA cap on Romney just yet. I’m not saying that Gingrich or Santorum have a shot at this point, but I’m talking about the celebration that would surely ensue if any other such victory by any other candidate. There is still plenty to fear with Romney.

It took Romney a ton of money to put what many consider a group of lackluster candidates away in Florida. Estimates have that figure to be roughly sixty-five to one in favor of the former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. A win is a win, and Romney did whatever it took in this case to win, but every time the Yankees have won the World Series in the past decade, the sub story has always involved how much money they spent versus their opponent and the rest of the league. The underlying story was, what happens when the Yankees run across a team that is able to spend as much as they are? When the Red Sox reached that point, they beat the Yankees as often as they lost to them. The Yankees lost their mystique. When the Yankees won the Series, however, there was never a next day, a next opponent. If Romney is the Yankees in this scenario, he just won two games, on the road, against the Royals in the Championship Series. (No offense intended to the Gingrich, Santorum and Royals fans, I’m talking money here not quality.) In this money scenario, there are no comparative Red Sox analogies, and there really are no NL analogies, for no team has spent as much as the Yankees or The Sox in the past couple decades, but let’s just say for the purpose of this scenario that the Dodgers were on a scale comparable with the Yankees economically. Let’s just say that Obama is the Dodgers. Romney has just beat the Royals twice on the road. The sub story is Romney has done nothing to connect with voters more than Gingrich or Santorum, and he has done little to nothing to combat his opponents if they were on equal footing.

Buffet cries foul on secretary’s critics

January 27, 2012

Warren Buffet, the oracle of Omaha, and chairman of the Berkshire Hathaway mutual fund, launched his secretary into the limelight by saying that it’s unfair that she pays more in federal income taxes than he does. The first question many have had is if we’re going to reform this nation’s tax code based on how much this particular secretary pays in federal income taxes, shouldn’t we know how much she makes? Both Buffet and Ms. Bosanek have said that that’s private information. Buffet did announce that she’s paying 35.8%, and he’s paying 17.4%. Based upon those numbers, the next logical question is how are each of you declaring your taxes, as total income or dividend or capital gains? Buffet’s response to these questions, thus far, has been to call them personal attacks against Ms. Bosanek. He’s amplified his response by saying these criticisms are ‘ridiculous’.

In an interview with The World-Herald, Buffet said none of the online guesses about Bosanek’s salary are right, and the critics are missing his point. The next logical question to that statement is what is your point? Do you want to raise capital gains taxes and discourage investment in this country? Knowing Mr. Buffet’s position and stature in this country, one would think that that would be anathema to him, as he should understand how vital private investment is to the companies in this nation and the nation as a whole. Buffet has decided not to illustrate his point for us in this manner. He simply wants his complaints about tax rates out there, and he wants the statements he makes about the general unfairness of the tax code to be left as a general statement.

“I’m saying she is being treated unfairly in the tax code, as are tens of millions of others, compared to me,” Buffett said. “They shouldn’t change the rates on all the other people. They should change mine.”

Bob Kerry mulls Senate run

January 24, 2012

Even in the local, Omaha media outlets one never hears who is funding ads designed to make Republicans look bad. How many Nebraska ads are characterized as those run by George Soros? When it’s a Democrat that looks bad, we get sources and characterization of those funding the ad, and we get attempts to diminish the ad before we even read the article about it.

If you’ve read the stories of Kerry’s mulling, you’d think that the only people against Kerry’s proposed run are Karl Rove and the Koch brothers. From what I hear that’s not the end of the list. People from small town Nebraska and…Omaha are saying that this guy has a long road ahead of him if he hopes to win my vote. Ask Nelson how easy it is to win a Senate seat without Omaha, ask Pete Ricketts.

Everyone knows that the only reason Ben Nelson isn’t running for re-election is his vote for Obamacare. Everyone knows that Tea Party pressure dug at Nelson to such a degree, over the vote, that he couldn’t take it anymore. Why someone who publicly supports the same health care initiative that Ben Nelson wouldn’t even consider mentioning in a pizza parlor would run for the seat Nelson once occupied has many Nebraskans scratching their head. He may as well wear a Longhorn cap to a press conference just to see if he can secure the Longhorn constiuency here. (There are some here, trust me.)

Why would the DNC turn to Kerry in a last ditch effort to secure the seat with someone more prone to vote for the Health Care bill than Nelson? Is it celebrity status? Do the Democrats think that we yokels in the cornfields will get so impressed with him that we’ll fall all over ourselves to get some star-studded representation in the Senate? Do they think that Nebraskans will greet him like Elvis returning home to Memphis?

Kerry’s new tag line is: “I’ve probably paid more income and property taxes than all the Republican candidates combined.” Ok, fair enough, you have made a ton of money in this state, but how many times, while president of the liberal New School, did you espouse conservative, Nebraska views. How many times did you even mention this state in your time in the Big Apple Bob?

Can Mitt Romney transform America?

January 19, 2012

Former Governor Mitt Romney claims he’s going to give it one, last ditch effort to try and save America. Mitt has made a claim that he’s willing to be a one-term President if it means overturning everything that’s been done the last twelve years—particularly the last four.

Personally, I’m a little tired of hearing Romney say he’s going to overturn Obamacare. It’s probably why I would not make a great politician, a musician, or an ad man. I loathe repetition. I can’t stand it, but I do know that if you want a human being to know your message, you have to repeat it over and over and over again, until it sinks home. Congressman Michele Bachman’s warning also doesn’t sit well with me when I hear Romney simply state that he will overturn this effort to transform America into a socialist country. Her warning is that this mammoth piece of legislation, we call Obamacare, cannot be overturned in the manner Romney is suggesting. She warned that by the time a Republican takes the seat, parts of Obamacare will be so entrenched that it will have to be fought line by line. Her point was that no one had the temerity, or the knowhow, to do what needed to be done to fight the leviathan. Her point was that only a legislator that knows the minutiae of legislation could successfully weed out the damage that Obamacare promises to do to this country.

The things I hate about humans

January 12, 2012

I hate people who think entirely too often with their heart. I understand that the heart, the emotive component of the brain, has a lot of say in what we do and think, but some people just let that emotive component have far too much sway in what they do and say. I’m a man who believes that logic rules. Logic, to my mind, is the idea that you try as hard as you can to view matters objectively. You attempt to view matters not only from your own perspective, but from others as well. The latter is difficult to do, because it involves viewing matters from a perspective that is not a part of your conscious and subconscious mind. It involves removing the nature of who you are and viewing it from another’s perspective, then adding the ingredient of who you are back into the equation after the fact. I like to think that this is what I do, but it’s tough to do consistently, because you are the one who has to live with the ramifications of your actions regardless what the other minds around you think. A friend of mine recently inserted a third component into the equation: the gut. Gut instinct, my friend said, introduces a combination of experiences from your conscious and subconscious mind that take into account the emotions of the heart combined with the logic of the mind that has been ingrained into the nature of the person that’s relative to that person’s upbringing, his heritage, and everything else that makes him the man who he is today. Regardless which of the latter arguments is correct, they’re both superior to the man whose thought process is ruled by the heart. The man whose mind is overruled by his heart tends to think anecdotally, and while he may resolve the matter in the short-term for the object of his affection, he does little good in the overall for the long-haul.

Mitt Romney and electability

January 7, 2012

“The idea that you pick the most right-wing candidate without any concern over who can win is suicidal,” Ann Coulter said in an apparent flip-flop over the presidential run of former Governor Mitt Romney.

Coulter is receiving a lot of flak for this comment. The reason is Coulter has been saying, for years, that Republicans shouldn’t fear electing conservatives to the White House. In recent years, she has railed against the Dole and McCain nominations. She is now saying that remaining stubborn on a right-wing candidate is suicidal. The comment is charged, of course, but what Coulter comment isn’t. The question is is she right? All of us have our issues, be they the second Amendment, Romneycare, or the silly flak developed over the $10,000 bet Romney issued to Perry. We all have our specified reason for being against Mitt Romney. For many Romney will be another, in a long list of presidential elections, in which the voter votes for the lesser of two evils (if he wins the GOP nomination of course). Others have said that they won’t vote. Whether it be their devotion to principle, or the vain pursuit of being perceived as the smartest person in the room, some have said they won’t vote at all because Romney doesn’t adhere to their pet issue in a manner that’s conservative enough. This is what, in my opinion, Coulter was referring to as suicidal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.