Archive for September, 2012

RE: “In Standoff, Latest Sign of Unions Under Siege” (TIMES, 9/11/12)

September 16, 2012

“Famously feisty” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the darling  of the limousine liberals, is doing battle with the teachers’ union in that big city.

Is anybody surprised that a Democratic hustler like Emanuel would oppose a labor union.  After all, the feisty mayor supports the middle class (the good guys) and he’s worried about “the kids.”  Of course, he is standing up to “big labor.”  Why, the unions are as bad as the Koch brothers!

If Obama is still taking advice from Democrats like Emanuel, the election is very much in question.

A. Garavente


RE: “Playing Now: Hail to Us Chiefs” by Maureen Dowd (TIMES, 9/9/12)

September 10, 2012

Kudos to Maureen Dowd for pointing out the weakness of the Democratic Party.  It was a breath of fresh air.

Let us face the facts: many Americans support the Democrats only because they aren’t Republicans.  They are voting with one hand and holding their noses with the other.

The vaunted two-party system has pitted the despicables (Republicans) against the pathetics (Democrats).  Not much can come from that.

A. Garavente

RE: “The Elevator Speech” by David Brooks (TIMES, 9/4/12)

September 10, 2012

How typical of David Brooks to be opposed to the best of the three options he thinks Obama could stress in an “elevator speech.”

Dealing with “broken capitalism” should definitely be Obama’s top priority.  Another New Deal should be the rallying cry of the Democratic Party.  That means the U.S. economy needs a massive federal jobs program.

Unfortunately, it being a presidential election year and the reactionary Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, nothing can be done now.

Does Brooks think Romney has a program of action, that he has  revealed himself better than Obama has?  Or, is he still betting on Paul Ryan?

A. Garavente

RE: “Afghans Protest Vengeful Militias” (TIMES, 9/3/12)

September 6, 2012

The situation in Afghanistan is hopeless because it is virtually impossible for the American forces to  distinguish friend from foe there.  They are wallowing in a quagmire created under the direction of Donald H. Rumsfeld when he was the secretary of defense.

Moreover, it will not be much improved by December 31, 2014, the date that all Americans are supposed to be out of Afghanistan.

If Obama is re-elected in November (still a long two months away!), that withdrawal date should be changed to June 30, 2013.  Eight months is enough time to make a safe withdrawal.  It will mean the saving of many American lives and a great deal of money too.

If the conservative hawks in Washington cannot be moved by the former, surely they would be  by the latter.  Aren’t they the ones who want to cut the budget deficit?

A. Garavente