Contact Ron Rambles

If you have a question, or if you would like to submit a story for the 99%, please use the contact form below.

And don’t forget to consider a contribution toward the 99% fund! Donate 99¢ today. Ask us how!

Contact Form:

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message

To prove you're not spam, please answer this math equation:

5+5=? 

38 comments on “Contact Ron Rambles

  1. Jay H Berman on said:

    Deb Lindstrom has obviously been paying close attention. Her reply demonstrates both a clear-minded individual & a person who has the ability to reason. Unfortunately, although she is undoubtedly correct in her summation. The gentleman whose wife is ill would likely feel no better even if his take on who exactly to blame for our current failures were different. The fact is, for too many folks, life is hell at present.

    My heart goes out to this man & his spouse, & I too have been negatively impacted by some of our societal ills. Is the answer an all volunteer public service as Ms. Lindstrom suggests. She is probably also correct to state that this may be improbable if not impossible to create. However, it reminds of a question I’ve had for an awfully long time about the U.S. Congress.

    It is simply this. Why do they not have term limits, as Presidents do? Maybe this would decrease if not entirely eliminate some of the cronyism. That’s a question I’d like to have answered! Thank you Ron for generously providing this platform,

    Jay Berman, FL.

  2. Jay H. Berman on said:

    We are not yet over the tragedy in Connecticut yet. For both individuals who suffered personal loss & the nation as a whole, we still grieve. The whole truth is that some of us will never get over it. Such acts of violence are nearly incomprehensible. Yesterdays bombings in Boston again left the nation in shock. We know that no less than 3 persons are dead, & according to reports from the Associated Press & other major media outlets, (including The Boston Globe), as many as 140 other people were injured, some critically. Reports from first-responders were that many limbs had been severed & others were seriously injured by flying glass & shrapnel.
    But the worst news, many will say is that an 8 year old child was killed. Our hearts go out to all the victim’s families.

    It is not surprising that government officials, from POTUS on down to local enforcement are reluctant to speculate on whom or why this was done. As I write this, we don’t know if the horrific action was the work of a single person working alone, or a group of individuals. We don’t know if an extremist group like Al Qaeda was involved, & we don’t know if it was the result of something entirely different from that type of scenario.

    But, as in all incidents of this nature – when no one steps forward claiming responsibility, (& as of this writing no one has) – there will likely be all the usual speculation, supposition, conjecture & finger pointing. Conspiracy theorists abound & self-proclaimed experts join political pundits in a charade of opportunism to sensationalize a terrible day in the personal lives of those directly affected.

    However, if indeed this turns out to be the work of an extremist or fundamentalist group bent on inflicting as much damage to the U.S. as it can, some folks will naturally give voice to an examination of motives. Many question, (& take heat from others in doing so), the actions taken by the U.S. government. There are patriotic American citizens who speak out against certain actions & policies. In the news of late is the question of the use of drone attacks.

    While the subject itself is not entirely new – heated discussions have multiples recently. We know for example that hundreds of innocents inside Afghanistan & in the border region alongside Pakistan have been killed by drone attacks. As such, it is not unreasonable to speak out against the policy of the U.S., when civilian death & injuries are so severe.

    So, tonight, as I pray for the families who are hurting, I also wonder, what happened today?
    Was this act of terror retaliation on the part of people in those faraway lands? Of course, I just don’t know. But I do know that the U.S. is not free from guilt respecting civilian tragedy. I do know that those families, (where our military has caused collateral damage & who lost loved ones), are hurting too, as are those in Boston. We all know as a nation that both wars & domestic violence here in our cities, our neighborhoods & our schools cannot go on forever.

    We also know that the U.S. does not have carte blanche to fly around the planet at will exercising its military might. We must not & cannot allow our elected officials & military leaders to leave an ocean of the blood of civilians in its wake!

  3. Jay H. Berman on said:

    This time I’m sorry Ron – but I respectfully disagree. Why? Simple. Tens of millions of todays seniors worked their tail off for 40-50-even 60 years at low paying jobs with no pension , no benefits. Their puny S.S. checks barely allow them to get by. Many are at, near, or below the nat’l. poverty level & nowhere even close to the median income of today’s worker.

    Do you want Grandma to continue eaing cat food? Consumer prices of essentials like food & over the counter health care needs, (not covered by Medicare)get more & more expensive. Minus S.S. increases tied to CPI may push Grandma to the food bank, soup kitchen, or possibly even homelessness.

    An awful lot of low income seniors like these have NO OTHER source of income Ron. They were never able to afford to put money into investments for their future retirement. I personally know dozens who work bagging groceries at minimum wage at the AGE of 65, 70, & ABOVE! They don’t do it for fun. I find this morally repugnant! “What Golden Years?!”

    Others barely got by during decades of back breaking work, never ever took a vacation, own no expensive jewelry or fancy designer labels. They shop in thrifts & flea markets. They buy cat food & eat that, because they can’t afford better. Tens of thousands lost homes that they’d paid off mortgages on because costs of property taxes,(over time)- homeowners insurance, maintenance & minimun living costs have gotten out of hand.

    Now, they have lost their equity, & pay ridiculously high residential rental rates. No Ron, you’re dead wrong. You want to raise improve the quality of life for current workers, don’t do it AT GRANDMA’S EXPENSE!

    Finally, you totally contradict yourself. In the opening two paragraphs you explain that every POTUS must deal with the fact that Congress holds the purse strings. That’s correct – but then you lay blame at POTUS feet if economic disaster ensues. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways – for that is totally illogical.

    Thanks for letting me rant. Besides, I reserve the right to be wrong. Maybe I am. It certainly would not be the first time. It’s not likely to be the last, either.

    Still a loyal reader & fan of yours. I love the fact that you don’t shy away from the tough issues. That sir – is commendable & more than I can say for our elected Congressional leaders. But, not for POTUS, who consistently takes on challenges & takes the heat!

  4. 50 million Americans make 10.00 an hour or less. 25% of America’s children are in poverty. Slowing the increases to our senior citizens is not inhumane. Politcal and economic reality.

  5. Jay H. Berman on said:

    Today Ron sounds an awful lot more like a right leaning individual than fair-minded Independent. He leaves out three huge & vital parts of the conversation about entitlements.

    First, he talks about cuts to Medicare, but what cuts exactly? We are left wondering.

    Second, he fails to point out that millions of seniors living on SS & nothing else – are still forced to subsist on barely enough food each day! In addition, more than 1 million disabled Americans subsist on nothing more than SSI. In my state of Florida this is exactly $710.00 per month. Can you live on that?

    Hey Ron, all Americans sharing the burden sounds great in theory. But reality is something else entirely.

    Finally, tying cost of living increases is imperative for most seniors. Most do not possess wealth, & as food & other essential needs always increse in price as time goes by, freezing the amount of fixed income places seniors & disabled citizens at great risk!!!

    NO, THIS IS NOT FAIRNESS. IT IS INHUMANE.

  6. Jay H. Berman on said:

    Obama & Democrats are still fighting with Republicans, aka No Budget agreement

    Unfortunately, this time, Ron Tenin is dead wrong! Fiscal policy divide remains as wide as ever between Democrats and Republicans.

    Obama announced changes in entitlement programs – including Social Security, (reduction of retirement benefits), along with premiums that upper-income Medicare beneficiaries pay for coverage. Support from certain Republicans is plausible. But, House Speaker Boehner said, “If the president says modest entitlement savings help these programs, they cannot be combined with more tax hikes.”

    The 2014 Obama budget announced Friday proves, “A grand bargain” is a long way away! The president’s plan may pass the Senate (yet many disagree), but the problem is as always- the House. Agreement to additional revenues, (higher taxes) by the House GOP risks its majority. What the Senate GOP decides will not make any difference. House Republicans remain steadfastly convinced increased revenue will not be used for deficit reduction, and conversely insist they’ll be used instead to pay for new entitlements.

    Three different budget proposals can be looked at side by side. Obama, Senate Democrats and House Republicans compare:

    Some economists state decreased unemployment numbers only indicate that many people have simply given up on looking for jobs. Obama’s Economic Council insists the White House budget will help the jobs numbers. Their plan calls for higher taxes by eliminating particular tax deductions for upper-income people, additional costs by upper-income people for Medicare benefits and reductions in Social Security benefits tied to CPI. Senate Democrats also call for higher taxes by elimination of tax breaks for upper-income people, but only small changes to Medicare.

    Compare both to House GOP proposals: Lowering tax rates but no additional revenue spending, with greater effectiveness of the tax code. They also want to change Medicare in 2024 or later with a market-based system. Republicans consistent message is economic growth, more jobs, and deficit reduction.

    We are left with basically the same old story, although POTUS is now ready to “cave” on Social Security. We are witnessing 2011 yet again. A deal between Obama and Boehner resulted back then as DOA!

    But Obama stated at the end of 2012 higher income tax rates are off the table in the future. He agreed, “higher taxes would be very damaging – since higher revenues will be needed over the next few decades.”

    . . .”Hmm, sounds like a Republican proposal, doesn’t it?!”

  7. I lean left… but I call them the way I see it. At the moment..the GOP is a disaster. Maybe you should read more. Called for a cut to ss and medicare. Thanks for your comments

  8. David Welch on said:

    My webpage address is:
    http://www.stoptheinsanitytarget2014.com
    Let me know if you’d like to discuss issues, perhaps on my blog radio show?
    David

  9. David Welch on said:

    Ron, Was disappointed. Your blog title is interesting but dishonest. From what I read you seem to be a ‘locked in, close minded Liberal’ and not an Independent Free Thinker at all.
    The Republicans are a problem but so are the Democrats, perhaps even more. See my webpage for true Independent thought.
    David

  10. Jay H. Berman on said:

    Ron Tenin has outdone himself! His always consistent fair & reasonable voice hit an all-time high note today. I was deeply touched to read of his illness & personal challenges.

    I cannot say that I have read the entire Affordable Care Act, as I am still in the process of studying it. But if it only contained one single positive provision & nothing else – Ron successfully defined it.

    Pre-existing conditions used as a legal tool by insurance companies to deny coverage – is one of the worst failures of the private health care insurance industry. It has led to loss by homeowners of their property, often bankruptcy & even death! Ron is correct, POTUS Barack Obama pulled off a major political coup; since administrations dating all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt tackled this threat to society & failed.

    I don’t know if it saves financial resources in the long-run & I doubt many other people do either. I would wager that few have taken the time to read the actual legislation & further researched the findings of the independent Congressional Budget Office in order to acertain fact versus ideology that only seeks to promore their agenda – & does so telling routinely terrific lies.

    Millions scream their heads off disrespectfully calling it Obamacare. I would call it Obama Cares!

    Thank you Ron, for having the courage to speak from personal experience & only speak the absolute truth!

    Jay H. Berman
    Author, Consumer Advocate & Political Activist

  11. cccam server on said:

    Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have really
    enjoyed surfing around your weblog posts.
    After all I’ll be subscribing in your feed and I hope you write once more very soon!

  12. Jay H. Berman on said:

    I Do Not Want To Live In A Nation of Injustice, Ignorance & Inequality.
    Do You?
    By, Jay H. Berman

    It is indeed a pathetic state of affairs when we find our nation populated by supposedly educated persons who nevertheless demonstrate a vile repugnant and blatant disregard for human decency. A person who spews venom based upon illogic, ignorance and misrepresentation of facts, and does so with impunity represents the very worst in undesirable character, placing their own reputation alongside those who embraced slavery as correct and vast ownership of human beings a sense of prideful financial power and self-righteous indignation.

    Today, in an age of scientific progress far beyond the imagination of previous generations, we have been repulsed in these fine pages by a vicious voice common to an America of centuries past, where human beings were relegated by others,( who deemed it rightfully lawful), to be tortured by purposeful practices of instituting a society based upon inequality and violent attacks to ensure dominance and a subservient life of misery for the man, woman or child that was so unfortunate to have been born with black skin while living in a nation founded upon democratic principles.

    Some guy named Cooper holds an advanced degree in science and refers to himself as an environmental scientist and author. Does this mean he possesses immeasurable knowledge of what is positive versus that which is negative pertaining to the environment in which living things reside? Academically and professionally the answer is yes to both with an extremely vital barrier to correct definition. This guy is schooled in environmental science as it relates to chemistry, biology and physics. There is no existence of any evidence whatsoever that he has any knowledge of law, government, political science, English composition, sociology, anthropology, psychology or medicine.

    The title he chose to regurgitate his indecent attitude toward people he considers beneath contempt is “Marriage Madness.” As an avid reader of Ron Tenin, the reasonable independent fair-minded creator and publisher of ronrambles.com, when I glanced momentarily upon this wording, my natural assumption was that we were to be treated to some light-hearted satire, possibly poking fun at the renowned CNN host Larry King, a gentleman of so many marriages and resulting divorces, even he himself has lost count. Possibly, we were in store for witty repartee’ a la someone like Jon Stewart perhaps. Even better, a scathing indictment of the fallacies of conventional marital tranquility as exposed by the world famous award winning play write Mr. Edward Albee, who so brilliantly authored, “The Goat.”

    I read no further than the first paragraph as I easily surmised the author to be no more than a pretender to the fine art of written composition. These are the utterances of the simpleton because he sophomorically makes his lack of serious societal understanding immediately known. Cooper fails miserably in a foolish attempt to impart legal knowledge of binding contract law and the relationship of such to government. He has the temerity to compare the marriage contract to articles of incorporation for an organizational enterprise. I suppose this should not be surprising from an individual who rants about gay-marriage being unacceptable in a lengthy composition about the act and institution of marriage, minus a single mention of the one word more commonly invoked in all of literature than any other, both poetry and prose, . . . “Love!”

    It further precludes that he whose brain is fully dysfunctional and has reached puberty, cannot know of the greatest and highest of all human conditions, that my dear fellow fans of Ron Tenin, is of course “Love.” Sterile definition of marriage as analogous to corporate finance, whether it be for profit or non-profit, relegates the relationship to the dung heap of heterosexual marital divorce rates that he incorporates as further proof of this guys complete inability to think logically. He caustically denigrates gay couples seeking marriage as foolhardy, for he asks the question, “Why would they wish to enter into a contractual agreement that in our society is proven to be a failure no less than fifty percent of the time?”

    Why indeed Mr. Voice of Intolerance? Could it possibly be perchance that it is for the exact same reason that heterosexual couples wish to marry? Well, oh goodness gracious, they must in both instances be equally human after all, because the answer is, of course, because the two human beings are in love. They are not forming a corporation! They are making a lawful agreement, “to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, till death do us part!”

    Those words do not and never have, appeared in any contractual article of incorporation in history. They are written and orally proclaimed before witnesses when a marriage contract is entered into. By this guy’s logic, marriage itself should be banned for the good of society, by virtue of his expertise as an astute learned man of what is best for our environment. He says he is after all, an environmental scientist. “I must please humbly excuse myself fellow readers, as the uproarious laughter brought upon by this Cooper fellow has caused me to be short of breath for a moment!”

    “Oh my – oh my, kindly accept my apologies for the brief interruption dearest ladies and fine gentleman.”

    Back at Crawford Ranch, or chicken Cooper, morality is defined by injustice, inequality and blatant disregard for our highest of all laws, The Constitution of The United States of America. The problem is that like the residents of Crawford, Texas’s most famous ranch, ol’Coop flips the bird at this document. This is a testament to his mental incapacitation and moral deficiency. Illogically citing law and governmental practice which he purposefully manipulates for his own prejudicial ignorant biased indecency – this guy conveniently fails to pay tribute to legal statues for ALL, not the one’s he chooses. Apparently, back in science lab they forgot to teach logic.

    The following is the exact educational materials pertaining to sexual orientation determined by the American Psychological Association. It represents the most up to date medical science available, and is quoted verbatim:

    Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual *(having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

    *Authors note: Please refer to the commonality attached to all three so referenced categories. I point the reader now to these words, (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to members of . . .). Hey, Coop – we ALL share the same human traits. Gee, does that mean it really is okay to share a common environment?

    Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, “sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and *ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual.” Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

    *Authors note: Cooper does not know that non-heterosexual couples enjoy the much valued societal bonding agent of personal commitment. Apparently, this is of no consequence to him, because he jokingly chides gay-couples by reminding them of the dangers of marriage. According to Cooper, if a gay couple gets married in the same way as heterosexuals, there is the terrible likelihood that their commitment to one another may be destroyed in the process.

    *Sexual orientation discrimination takes many forms. Severe antigay prejudice is reflected in the high rate of harassment and violence directed toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in American society. Numerous surveys indicate that verbal harassment and abuse are nearly universal experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

    *Authors Note: Discrimination, harassment and abuse are unlawful acts in all fifty states of The United States of America. This notation is made for the benefit of homophobes nationwide, so that when they appear in a court of law for adjudication, they may possibly begin to get some inkling of why they are there! Because such individuals like Cooper are not generally too intelligent, I am pleased to provide free assistance. Adjudicate, is a verb which means, to hear and settle a case by judicial procedure. Glad to be of service.

    Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.* Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.

    *Authors Note: The prebious passage speaks clearly. It is easily understood by those possessing a semi-functional brain, the ability to read, and at least a sixth-grade level of education.

    In closing, I would like to take pity on people like Cooper, because it may be that prejudice and ignorance is part of their genetic makeup. Unfortunately, I cannot pity a guy who holds an advanced degree in science yet is so utterly despicable. Let these words be emblazoned upon the mind of every Cooper like person anywhere.

    “We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    - Authors Final Note: Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, & Liberty! Dear Coop, that means everyone. Even you.

    My thanks as always to Mr. Ron Tenin, who everyday contributes mightily to the greater good of our beloved nation, and it’s entire people.
    Yes chicken Coop, it’s entire peoples!

  13. Jay H. Berman on said:

    Ron Tenin has hit another home-run! My beloved Yankees who lost Monday’s Home Opener could have used his lightening quick bat in their lineup. While few other jounalists, be they the conventional proverbial mainstream type, or the more dynamic high-tech blogger, Ron once again,”comes out swinging when & where it counts most.” In the arena of public opinion – where he has few peers possessing the timely and reasoned consistency of his commentary. He pulls no punches getting right to the heart of the current predicaments & reality of the GOP at this very moment. Rather than wasting our time rehashing old worn out ideas & arguments dead on arrival, Ron is true to form in speaking to us with facts minus boring rhetoric. In his usual down to earth style, he explains the immediate reality of a party trying to regain it’s strength as it looks forward to the next showdown – the 2014 mid-terms & the ultimate in American politics, the 2016 fight for the biggest prize, the White House! Get the details without any help from this reader, because we all approach politics from our own point of view. But it’s really smart to take advantage of Ron Tenin, who always supplies the truth & facts of every issue in real time. Once again, he supplies the real deal without asking us to spend one penny to access truly intelligent fact fillled insight. “What a breath of fresh air compared to all the rest.”

  14. Jay H Berman on said:

    To all of Ron’s readers,

    As is obvious, I’m a rabid fan of Ron, as he is both kind & generous to allow for my scribbling on these fine pages. But, today I wish to thank all his readers who send their comments. The citizen journalist of the blogosphere makes The Founders smile widely, as they look down upon us from the heavens, or wherever they currently reside.

    Ron allows for all manner of opinion, be it agreeable or not. This is not equally true elsewhere, in certain instances. One his many fine traits, a dedication to fairness, opening this forum to every voice who wishes to be heard. Thank you Ron, for you sir are a patriot. In agreement or not, on any given topic, I consistently find your remarks well written & reasonable.

    Meanwhile, your readers comments & ensuing feedback is a delight to behold. We are a nation that thrives when the electorate is engaged in vital communication. For this & more, I am in your debt,

    Jay H. Berman in Florida, where it’s a chilly 72 degrees. I need a heavy woolen sweater.

  15. Jay H Berman on said:

    Dear Aunt,

    Kindly accept my apologies for such delay in responding. Spelling aside, Ron is a delight, writes well, & is consistently timely in his choice of featured content. He creates valued additions to a blogosphere littered by the mindless dullard. The duct tape reference was a feeble attempt at a wee bit of levity.

    I’ll stand by my choice of the wheel, while likewise defer to your good judgements. I don’t know about the wine, even though Elijah may have something to say about it if he ever makes his entrance. But clearly you are most correct regarding reading, and the needle, (in it’s many innovations & applications). However, electricity we know was not an invention of humanity, rather the ability to harness it – which of course is quite different.

    I wish you well, your nephew is a man of good words backed up by good works. An admirable combination indeed. Thank you so much for taking to time to read my scribbling, & further enlighten my own perspective.
    Jay, in FL.

  16. Jay H Berman on said:

    Perfect timing Ron, POTUS visit to Israel. As an American Jew I am so very grateful to you today. Your feature on the continued Israeli/Palestinian conflict is right spot on. It is beautifully composed and a more reasoned rational voice on the topic, I have not heard anywhere else. Thank you so much. I pray it is widely read! – a fan & old Jew living in America’s homeland for old Jews, So.FL.

  17. Jay H Berman on said:

    Reply to Mark:[r.e.: His post of 03/20/2013 on voting]

    I did vote, & shall continue to do so, as I have for many decades. The eerily dramatic similarities end there. For I feel the exact same emotions you succinctly expressed. Every point you make is well understood & I have no disagreement. Yet, I know far too well that to disengage while noble and courageous, (inasmuch as one throwing down the gauntlet), unfortunately tends all too often to lend itself to voter apathy.

    The singularity of your action deserves applause, & I do so right now. However, unless & until your admirable stand is duplicated by tens of millions – it sadly has unintended consequences. What we witness today contains historical precedents dating back to the late 18th. C. & early 19th. C. in America. Concentrated power & wealth along with its evil twin’s deceit & corruption have always accompanied Capitalist systems.

    Adam Smith spoke of the “exploitation of human labor.” The framers of the US Constitution consisted of the new nation’s elitist intellectuals, economically advantaged personages & politically well connected and/or officially titled. The Presidential election of 1800 remains among the foremost contentious and despicably ugly political battles ever waged in our history. An old saying, “Nothing new under the sun,” remains true despite the technological wonders of today’s society.

    All this & more, therefore rightfully begs the question, “Why vote?” The question is complex, the answer it’s opposite. I came of age with the tragic ill-fated run of the late, great Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. That terrible night in a California hotel turned my world upside down, & changed me forever. I determined that man’s cruelty to man must be fought against tooth and nail. That I shall never give up and never give in.

    It would have been easier & possibly understandable to turn my back on America’s political, economic & cultural depravities. But while my heart ached with grief that I still feel to this very day, my gut ordered me to dig in my heels & never retreat from waging war against all evils. This is a path most unpleasant, & only negligibly rewarding. The youngest brother, the late Ted Kennedy said, “Fight the good fight,” & I wholeheartedly agree. He fought inside those chambers housed beneath the splendid dome. The last of the Kennedy brothers came to be known as, “The lion of the Senate.”

    If the unionists of the industrial revolution era had disengaged, child labor laws could not have been enacted. If woman suffrage proponents had quit the fight, we would not witness an electorate whose outcomes are ultimately determined by the power women now hold. If Rosa Parks, the Freedom Riders, Roy Wilkins, Rev. Dr. M.L. King & countless millions of supporters had thrown in the towel, POTUS could never be named Obama!

    Another time worn dictum comes to mind, & can be said to encapsulate my personal views. “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” The act of turning in one’s voter registration card as a symbolic & erstwhile actual determination to take a stand is absolutely courageous & patriotic. It can be likened to the declaration of Patrick Henry. But the difficulties which lay before us require doing battles with the demons who would otherwise steal our thunder. For when mass mobilization launches all out assault upon the powers that be, (of any age), victories of the righteous have been recorded by historians.

    Decades long gone from time, but never from memory witnessed a D.C. filled to overflowing capacity by citizens from far & near. WE THE PEOPLE applied so much force & fury upon our government – we put an end to the shameful escalation and continuation of an unjust war in a faraway land named Vietnam. Then, we burned our draft cards, symbolic & courageous – metaphorically parallel to returning one’s voter registration card.

    For myself, I choose to stay and fight. Battered, bloodied & worn from decades of wear shall not deter me. Every great war includes many battles, some won, and others lost. The lion of the Senate, the late Ted Kennedy said, (& I must paraphrase here), “We have won a small victory in the course of a long war – and shall return to do battle another day.” Our forces for good, for justice, for equality, for integrity in government are huge in number. Likewise are the numbers of the forces of evil. For the tiny few who literally hold sway over our everyday lives are only able to do so by virtue of support by the dullard. These blind and deaf follow as the mindless half of an electorate torn by faction & strife.

    With all due respect, I hereby declare, the forces of societal evils are enhanced by every American citizen who chooses to take a back seat. Rosa Parks refused that vile admonition. Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King, & Anwar Sadat refused to ignore horrific and most intolerable evils. These were great men of courage, who recognized the dangers but fought with unrelenting bravery . . . and it killed them!

    We shall all die. This much we know. For me, I choose to go down fighting, until my final breath.

    With heartfelt gratitude for this open forum, my thanks to Ron for his providing the platform,
    Jay H. Berman
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

  18. Jay H Berman on said:

    Kudos to Mr. McCabe & you Ron for giving voice to his views for this audience. The esteemed author pulls no punches & I would expect no less. He didn’t disappoint as his pose comes forth with both barrels blazing! Deftly abandoning nuance while incorporating eclectic verbosity, he intertwines a narrative complete with facinating metaphorical enhancement and dialogue. Injecting personal drama heightens the commentaries excitation and allusions to McCarthty like injurious current acivities hit dead center bulls-eye. Topical, informative and exhilarating – Mr. McCabe’s talents remind this reader of the late, great Hunter Thompson. I can offer no higher compliment. Gratefully, a fan of Mr. McCabe & loyal reader of Ron Rambles, Jay H. Berman in Florida.

  19. I didn’t vote. I turned in my voter registration card to my county elections office and said in a one page letter as to why I did this, I don’t vote to promote fraud on the American People by government that operates illegally. I don’t vote in a system rigged against the average american that takes money out of peoples pockets and gives it away overseas to nations that want us dead. I don’t support any government that promotes continued wars without end. I do not support any political system that basically goes to the highest paying corporate theif to buy our government away from the people. I do not support anyone in our government who supports the lawlessness going on in washington DC.

    I do NOT VOTE and I am not proud of that but I was not left with any choice. I had to get out of this screwed up system and hope others will follow my lead and let that system collapse on itself so we can start over.

  20. rhea bertelli on said:

    I see that you are a wordsmith. Nice to be one of those, as am I. I have just joined the bloggers. I am at Rhea’s Remarks ant bloggerspot.com. I am new at this bit of technology and find I enjoy sharing what I find interesting, I am Ron’s aunt. I agree that the wheel changed history. I would choose electricity as a major change agent along with wine and the needle and reading. Good luck to you on your impact to change a bit of the world. I hope you can help Ron with his spelling!

  21. Jay H Berman on said:

    THE AUTHORS FRIEND
    By, Jay H. Berman

    My vorcious appetite for politcal commentary ventures far & wide. The citizen journalist I routinely refer to appears here and other forums. I should like to thank Ron for his consistent efforts. He performs well & with gusto! Therefore, disagreement is healthy when respectful debate & reasonable discourse intertwine. As such, none are always in agreement 100% of the time,[lest the dullards appear] and I pray not. Yet, with the meteoric proliferation of voices, I often harken back to an earlier time.

    There are many great inventions I have heard of. Most, incorporating the latest modern technologies, I’ve yet to use. People like me are commonly called Dinosaurs. But I have a secret for those who chide my woeful existence. The secret is profound in its wonderful simplicity. I can’t miss that which I have no knowledge of. There is a world of difference between wants and needs. That’s the truth, and truth is a source unavailable via mere technological knowhow. It’s said that from truth we discover wisdom.

    Some believe with wisdom we may fully know ourselves and reality. Might this be a path to enlightenment? How the hell should I know? I’m a dinosaur, and told we’re behind the curve.

    It must likewise be recognized that much good is derived from the myriad of technological contraptions. Medicine, engineering and the natural sciences have become totally dependent upon them. To a lesser degree, but no less true, so have the social sciences. Even a proverbial old dog like me contracted the techno craze, albeit in only some minor degree.

    For myself, I long for a return to days gone by. Of course that’s backward and completely inefficient. This much I’m fairly certain of. But damn it, I like pencils and erasers. I want a manual typewriter and a bottle of white out!

    Since this wordsmith cannot elucidate the mercurial majesty of the world of today, [and most assuredly clueless of our futures], please be so kind as to pardon my fascination with things no longer in use or even existence. However, for all of the amazing modern technologies, there is nothing as phenomenal as the wheel to power an engine of change.

    The planet Earth and several other star systems were so thoroughly impacted by its integration, life as we’d previously known it – morphed into worlds theretofore unknown. The wheel is profound in its ingenuity, formed of simplicity. There that word pops up again. Simplicity is totally sublime.

    There aren’t many things deserving of this divine designation. The wheel would rank at the top of my list of great positive creations. My second place on the list goes to duct tape. Laugh if you wish, I don’t care. Your laughter may turn to scorn, which is ugly and should always be avoided. It usually makes any situation one attaches it to worse, not better. Lest we not forget this means generally, or…not always. I hereby most willingly plead guilty to lack of modern defined sophistication!

    THE END

  22. Jay H Berman on said:

    Hi Ron,

    Your usual excellent work today, as you raise important questions with equal responsibility directed at both parties. This in fact is one of a multitude of factors that make your work valuable. I too believe that both major parties must share the burdens of stewardship.

    If I may, as I’m often guilty of, I’d like to add to the conversation. First, Social Security is fully funded through 2040 something at present. Its solvency has been significantly diluted by continued borrowing from it to fund other government spending in recent past decades. If this practice was immediately made unlawful, much good must come of it, [i.e.] purely mathematical logic dictates this. The baby boomers, smaller workforce argument going forward -is likewise solved simply and mathematically. Just raise the retirement age to 67 and the fund is solvent into the next millennium. We are living longer and will continue to. Therefore, this makes perfect sense and is fair to all. Those requiring early retirement due to medical reasons are provided for under the current system.

    Second, it is blatantly incorrect to incorporate fairness or equality into an equation that provides for a system of wealth subsidizing poverty. Often, these are the same voices that rightfully condemn corporate welfare. You can’t have it both ways and claim integrity; as all consistency is totally lacking under these schemes. This scenario, arguably stable on moral grounds, fails by proper economic and linguistic definition. If we wish to ensure a decent quality of life for low to medium wage earners, why are we not instead working our tails off to create a new economic paradigm? Assuming we wish to retain a Capitalist economy. Be most careful to understand and accept that Capitalism cannot ever be a system of complete equality and fairness – for these are antithetical.

    We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Winston Churchill sought to teach us, he who looks furthest back, will see farthest forward. When will America learn from history instead of repeating the same mistakes? Let’s make new mistakes for a change; because it means we must have done something different! Putting the brakes on the top down model is a good place to start. I absolutely love the “race to the top” philosophy. Why not apply this system of public education to an economic one? When I look back I see the Keynesian model, FDR’s “New Deal,” and “The War on Poverty” led by Dr. King, LBJ, academics and labor unions of the 1960′s.

    Thanks to the Ayn Rand’s and Milton Freidman’s of the world, I and me and mine, has replaced we, us and together. This mentality has been allowed to dominate nearly every phase of American life and our top down systemic culture(s). “To the victor go the spoils” is fair in principal. The problem is unequal opportunity to play the game in the same arena. Let there be winners and losers. But let us use the same ball, start from the same starting line and be assisted equally by the same enhancements.

    Former N.B.A. super-star Magic Johnson has been waging his own war on poverty in inner city America for the last two decades. He and his investors create new economic vitality where it is most needed. At the bottom, and make a tidy profit in the process. This is but one example. On a giant scale, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation fund aid to fight poverty world-wide. The best way to accomplish this is never hand-outs, rather, instead, a hand up! Isn’t that the direction we all desire? This requires major surgery and shall not be easily accomplished. Generational systemic poverty and its root causes have infected larger than ever percentages of our population and cross demographic and geographic boundaries. However, existential evidence of solutions abound if we are truly willing to look. I have mentioned only two, as previously cited.

    The solution to Medicare is simple. It’s too small, not too big. Let everyone in on the single most cost effective health care available in the U.S. Any argument denying this fact is an outright lie, and I hereby challenge anyone to prove it untrue. Medicare works better than anything else in the marketplace, period, end of conversation. Want to contain costs and provide good quality care? Ask grandma, she knows the answer. Perfect, certainly not, but better than all but the most prohibitively expensive private plans.

    Thank you for the open forum you provide. But also Ron, thank you very much for the time and energy you expend trying hard to make America a better nation for us all.
    Respectfully,
    Jay H. Berman, (D)
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
    Author, Consumer Advocate & Political Activist

  23. Jay H Berman on said:

    Dear Ron,

    What you suggest as fair is viewed by Conservative economists as “Robin Hood” political machinations. Our current Potus, (much like W.J. Clinton) speaks with one voice but acts in an opposite direction. They both took the stage as populists, consolidating the traditional Democratic base, along with enlarged minority support. However, Clinton oversaw Welfare Reform and NAFTA, while Obama caved on Universal single-payer health care, and the Treasury was most friendly to corporate interests. The Obama stimulus was primarily a continuation of Hank Paulson policy. To cast him in a light whose legacy shall be the crusader of economic equality is quantitatively inaccurate. What is more correct, and not necessarily negative is the historical fact that both Obama and Clinton acted as pragmatists – recognizing fiscal realities.

    One insisting that it is mandatory for your persons of wealth to subsidize the less financially blessed is not by definition democratic. Further, it is not by definition a policy of equality. Let us be truthful and correct in our statements, opinion or observation – subjective or objective. The economic paradigm you propose is antithetical to the Capitalist system. To be truthful and precise it defines Socialism. What is interesting about our conversation is that I agree with your proposed remedy. But it is because I accept Socialism, as correctly defined, to be the most fair and equitable system for societal economic fairness. We should be careful to call a spade a spade as the saying goes.

    Socialism is not Communism – Capitalism is not Democratic. What the West called Communism in the former Soviet Union and today’s China, (standing out as two major examples of misinformation and misunderstanding), was not and is not Communism at all. Karl Marx envisioned a social order that ended the Capitalists exploitation of the working classes. Entitlement programs are Socialism at its very best, and they define an economic reality based upon Socialist ideals.

    I thank you for this most important conversation, and likewise for your allowing the opportunity to be heard. Because that process Ron, truly exemplifies Democracy at it’s very finest! Most respectfully wishing you a grand day,

    Jay H. Berman, (D)
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
    Author, Consumer Advocate, & Political Activist

  24. Jay H Berman on said:

    Important subject, and I would add a few additional points. It must be understood that after the financial nightmare following Lehmans collapse, Federal authorities had no choice but to plug the hole in the dike. In doing so, questions of how to prevent another scenario like this abounded. The media told us that no one knew the answer. They further stated the reason was because it was unprecedented. This is an outright lie. The only thing that had changed is the dollar volume in real numbers and the velocity with which transactions may be conducted.

    F.D.R. not only faced far worse, but his famous family-linked other Roosevelt Oval Office resident did likewise. Pres. Teddy Roosevelt called upon the real-life original J.P. Morgan when the U.S. economy was at then on the verge of collapse. But in that instance, it was the bankers who came to the rescue.

    Morgan stared down his fellow Wall St. tycoons who he’d insisted accompany him to D.C. The result was the group of the wealthiest men in America emptying enough of their overflowing pockets to stave off economic disaster. These giants of industry realized that to do so was “in their own interest.” But in this millenium of opened world markets, the domestic market has taken on a different dimension.

    What Morgan and later F.D.R. faced was a nation dependent upon the ability of American consumers to retain purchasing power in order to insure the U.S. remaining solvent. This is no longer the case. I qualify my analysis by virtue of easily identifiable existential evidence apparent today by comparing the positive numbers and dynamic growth on Wall St. versus the continued malais on our proverbial Main St.

    Capitalism and democratic idealism are diametrically opposed. Reference to a Dickensonian analogy hits a bulls-eye. In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote about the exploitation of human labor, and this today has been furthered to include domestic consumerism. It explains the rape of bottom feeders by the banking industry. However, for purposes of accuracy in most cases, Master Card and Visa issued by dozens of banks nation-wide compete for consumers by offering low rates, whereby agregate averages are close to 7 – 9.5%. In some cases lower for consumers with above average credit ratings. At the same time, a less than desirable credit rating places that individual at the mercy of the money lenders. This practice did not originate with modern Capitalism, but rather is old as mankinds engaging in trade.

    Naturally, because of the power they wield banks themselves enjoy the absolutely lowest borrowing interest rates, while other consumer lending, the biggest tickets being real-estate, autos, or unusual extravagance pay rates insuring lenders the highest possible returns on investment. This practice is world-wide, ensuring continuation of a top down economic model. Conversely, a semi-Marxist view of value is the labor that creates it earning the greater share of profit or loss, rather than investors, (who in actuality comprise speculators).

    Returning to the issue of prevention of future catastrophic collapse, the U.S. Federal government enacted new legislation designed to address and correct deficiences in the systemic culture of financial markets. Some of the new laws are effective, while the most important ones fail to act as intended. I’m reminded of the McCain-Feingold bi-partisan campaign finance reform bill that resulted in super pacs and ridiculously outrageous costs of electioneering they’ve led to.

    The Dodd-Frank Federal banking legislation helps consumers by dissallowing credit card issuers from past common practices of fees that were unfair and unwarranted. Unfortunately, as McCain-Feingold simarly failed, the reform left banks loopholes with which they continue to exploit an ineffective system of unfair play. Rather than cite each individually, I believe it is more and most important to stress the greatest failure of the Congressional near-sightedness. “Too big to fail” remains in place!

    In simplest terms, this equates to a scenario allowing banks to take great risks minus any consequences of negative repercussions. They continue to be guaranteed future bailout, paid once again in the long-term by taxpayers who can ill afford this burden. Investment tools called dirivatives and swaps are still available and in use. These are exactly a great determinate of a large part of the root causes of the most recent collapse.

    What has changed? The answer may be argued that it’s worse, not better. That conclusion returns us to campaign finance. Economic clout by the giants of global finance now rule our legislative bodies. The costs of running a winning campaign have torn a gaping hole in a roof that no longer inhibits spending. The 2012 nation-wide elections, (all inclusive at local municipal, state and federal levels comprehensively), campaign costs exceeded 6 trillion USD. Not 6 million, nor 6 billion, but as stated, a whopping 6 trillion dollars of monies unprecedented!

    At the risk of using vulgar language, our elected officials have allowed themselves to be harnessed as little more than prostitutes for the wealthy. Beholden to the people who financed their campaign, rather than the citizenry who comprise their constituents, today’s politician cannot function freely or advocate for the voice of “we the people.” This, I believe is the crux of our defective political systemic failure today.

    Jay H. Berman
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
    Aspiring freelance author, Consumer Advocate & Political Activist.

  25. Tim Albright on said:

    The Government could save $50 billion per year by having two shifts of white collar employees work each day. Office space costs $50,000/year for each employee yet we only use space 30% of time. We can no longer afford to have banker’s hours for all. With over 2 million federal employees this cost-free paradigm change could avoid lay offs/furloughs and reduce pollution.

  26. luvydub.com on said:

    You have made some good points there. I looked on the net for more information about the issue and found most
    individuals will go along with your views on this website.

  27. Jack Goldenberg on said:

    Hey Ron,

    Just happened by Ron Rambles after getting a suggestion from Twitter and I found your take on politics interesting, edgy and fair. Also, I would like to pitch a story idea to you. I believe I have created what will become the most enduring memorabilia from Obama’s historic 2008 and 2012 elections.

    My Obama Watches are in both the White House and the Smithsonian. Here’s how it all came about.

    I have a history of marketing products that create huge demand. I played important roles launching the Happy Meal, Cabbage Patch Kids, Pop Rocks candy and scratch-off state lottery tickets. Each are billion dollar products.

    My wife says I must not be that smart because I made fortunes for others, not for “the home team.”

    To set the tone for what I’ve done with Obama Watches, I’ll just skim the surface for one of those icons I marketed.

    Over 30 years ago I made the Happy Meal viral, back when viral was called “word of mouth advertising.” By making it collectible, it was viral from kid to parent.

    Ray Kroc wanted to save $300,000 a week (over $15 million a year-when a million meant something!) by putting the Happy Meal in a bag instead of a box. As Creative Director of the first national Happy Meal, I was too young to know you weren’t supposed to argue with Ray Kroc. I won. And so did McDonald’s.

    STAN: Is Goldberg ever going to get to the point of his story.
    HARRIET: It’s Goldenberg, Stan, Jack Goldenberg. Least you could is learn the name of the man who created you.
    STAN: Don’t give me that “I’m not real crap, Harriet, cause I’m not buying it.
    HARRIET: Jeez, Stan, let the man finish.

    In 2008, I wore a single Obama for President watch I created to a friend’s birthday party. The next day five friends emailed, texted and called to say, “Where can I get one of those Obama watches?”

    So I had 5 different designs of Obama watches made and they were so successful, I made five more. (My biggest seller in 2008: Love Your Mama. Vote Obama.)

    Three of the Obama Watches I created in 2008 are in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian and I personally handed Barack Obama 5 Obama Watches at the request of the Democratic party.

    In the 2000 election, I even had endorsements from George Bush who lived in a white house and Dick Cheney who’d been in the oil business.

    In 2012, my obamawatches.com Web site is pure humor and politics. I had a “Mitt Romney Changed his Mind” Sale every day. After all, he kept changing his mind.

    And all my Obama Watches came with two Guarantees: A strong Lifetime Guarantee from the manufacturer and this: “All Obama watches are Guaranteed to be more accurate than Mitt Romney.”

    I have no idea if the Smithsonian will want my 2012 Obama Watches, but considering they’ve accepted 8 of the watches I’ve created since the 2000 election, I feel there’s a good chance they’ll be interested. (A big seller in 2000 was my Gore Lieberman watch with the year 5761 on it.

    In 2012, my best sellers are my three “Barack Around the Clock” watches.

    In the future, I can’t imagine any other political memorabilia created in 2008 or 2012 that will have as much real and intrinsic value as my Obama Watches.

    There’s plenty more to the story and to my background, but I don’t want to ruin your fun (potentially) in discovering some of the many improbable, but true antics of a man with strong marketing and political genes.

    You know, like the time I appointed myself “Head of the Earth,” launched International Earth Day, and even got the backing of the United Nations. Imagine getting the UN to do anything?

    I hope you’ll consider my political/commercial adventures worth exploring to see if they are something your readers might find interesting.

    If you’ll send me a personal email, I’d be happy to reply with my contact information. Hell, you might even want to check out my blog, 10MinutesofBrilliance.com My next post will be: Is Donald Trump the Biggest Jerk of the Year? Maybe not.”

    Of course, if you venture over to my blog, I want to warn you about Stan and Harriet, two imaginary characters who inhabit my blog. Stan is a bald-faced liar, so please don’t believe any of the terrible things he says about me.

    And I happen to know Harriet has had imaginary sex with Stan, so you can’t trust her either. Thanks for listening.

    Sincerely,

    Jack Goldenberg

  28. You make some good points. One party rules is problematic. We need a strong 2 party system. The GOP will either change or dismantle..seeing anti-grover backlash underway…think change is underway…

  29. Jay H. Berman on said:

    Dear Ron,

    I usually agree with most of your ideas. But, a couple of questions bother me. First, your reference to 99%. Does that mean we should favor unfairness for the remaining 1%? Sometimes I wonder if I were a man of means, would I wish to be as generous of spirit & wallet as Warren Buffet? This I cannot know, although of course I would like to think so.

    Altruistic ideals are more easily preached than put into practice. Because in our world, charity has a price tag. Is the social safety net called a net because we know it has holes? Are wealthy (R)’s stupid people, who would knowingly dig their own grave going forward? It’s hard to imagine such well educated persons making such consistently poor decisions.

    When you think about it, greater success for (D)’s is risky if we suppose our strength shall come about as a one-party system. Throughout history, in societies both East and West, such political societal machinations spelled tyranny for mass populations. Could such a thing happen in the US? I don’t know, and I don’t wish to find out.

    Best regards, more later,
    Jay in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

  30. Hello!

    The countdown to the election is in full swing, and so is http://www.swingstatetracker.com. Florida is known as a swing state , and we’ve created http://www.swingstatetracker.com as a place to aggregate all of the social mentions regarding the election in Florida to show which candidate is currently in the lead. Using BrighterInsights we are able to provide a comparative analysis of social media in real time.

    We’d love for you to visit http://www.swingstatetracker.com and share it with your readers. We believe that it provides a look into the minds of the voters at the election draws near and it is a great tool to monitor which way Florida will “swing”.

    Please let us know if you have any questions and/or if we can clarify anything.

    Have a great day!
    -Sara


    sara blakeslee
    the / zimmerman / agency
    850.668.2222
    sblakeslee@zimmerman.com

  31. Lydia Travers on said:

    I just heard today from a friend who has a small sustainable farm that some of the US farmers are now using Agent Orange instead of Round Up on their crops. It is just ‘word of mouth’ at this point. The GMO’s are leading us to destruction. Also here is a very optimistic story of the earth and possible healing technologies. Gratitude and thanks to you for helping the light of sanity spread.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzTHjlueqFI

  32. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Not sure low-information voters are surfing the net much. While 90%+ of the African-American vote will go Obama, the ugly truth is only 30% of eligilble black voters will vote. Hispanic voters and low income white voters are only slightly more inclined to cast a vote. I’m not sure how to change that. With Romney in a continual flip-flop..it’s hard to nail down actual positions. Facts are fictionalized. I personally feel let down by both political parties..and the dominance of corporate interests over real middle class Americans. Human nature will take advantage of those that are submissive and uninformed…I wish I knew how to empower those that are marginalized…it seems only if and when we hit the depths of despair..will we get broader response..and it’s not likely to be by the ballot box..I shudder to think what may happen if the have and have nots continue to seperate…be interested in your response,sincerely, Ron

  33. christine on said:

    Dear Mr.Ron

    I’m emailing out of a sense of duty to the population of voters known as ‘low information voters.” I do follow politics, the issues, and have the tendency to fact check statements I’m not certain are true.

    After watching both debates and reading many of the never ending flow of biased articles on both candidates I’m left wondering why the low- info group has not specifically been targeted by either party. Regular local news stations barely touch on any issue from the national campaigns. Cable news like CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews all offer daily coverage with their own added opinions as platforms. Low-info voters are not watching cable news and chances are they are missing the local 3 minute coverage. The internet, social media, offers the ability to reach a wider population of voters which include the low-info group. Between FB, Tw, Instagram, PinInterest, Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail and every other option the low-info group has a better chance of getting real facts to base their vote.

    I guess what I am asking is would you be willing to write maybe one or five articles covering the basics of the issues. Five as in a weeks worth. I’m asking for simple, straight forward facts like what is the quickest time frame in which SSI would be privatized should Romney become president? How quickly could Roe v Wade be overturned? How quickly could the next president send troops to Iran as a show of force? How fast could abortion become a criminal offense? How fast would American women lose their free birth control? How much power does a president have to swiftly change policy already in place?

    I wouldn’t ask for complicated details or listing of the actual process. Low-info voters need to know how will electing either candidate impact them personally in the next four years. They do not want to know about 10 years down the road, that’s 2 more elections away. They, and we as a nation want to know what we can realistically expect in 2013. Can we be looking at war with Iran under Romney? How long does it take to build a navy ship? Simple non-partisan answers, just the facts. Maybe a chart to show the big issues under each candidate and the change we can expect to see.
    The nation is running out of time. We need to inform every voter not just the political junkies.

    Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you can help as I firmly believe the politics have clouded the reality of what will come in 2013 and that is the most frightening part of this election.

    Sincerely
    Christine

  34. Thanks for the invite.I hail from Chicago/Northbrook. http://www.ronrambles.com

  35. Nathan Kagan on said:

    You are invited to write an article in our blog. http://democracyinactionblog.com/
    With the link to your blog. And we can do the same. We need to spread the word.
    Sincerely
    Nathan

  36. Deb Lindstrom on said:

    Obama has done quite a bit actually. He’s created more jobs in his 3+ years than Bush 43 did in 8 years for one thing. He’s been fighting a wholly obstructionist congress that made a pact on his inauguration night that they would be the Party of No. (Read the non-fiction book: “Do Not Ask What Good We Do…” for details. See, to say he’s done nothing is playing right into the hands of the GOP as getting you to say that has been their mission. Not, as they would like you to believe, creating jobs. I know, I know, before the 2010 elections they kept asking Obama “Where are the jobs?” That rhetorical question was directly pointed at us and people responded by voting for GOP candidates en mass in the 2010 elections. So: where are the jobs they promised would descend if we would but give them a chance in office to produce them? Did they? No. They were too busy doing absolutely nothing while Obama presented jobs bills and fended off jabs about his birth origins. All of this was meant to make you think he did nothing. Actually, it was congress that did nothing and it looks like they’ve effectively got you thinking it wasn’t them doing nothing; it was the president. Wrong. In any case this grid-lock is going no where. Each side is beholden to the donors and lobbying groups that fund their efforts. Sad, isn’t it? Personally, I believe that public office types of jobs should be volunteer. I know that’s unrealistic for the most part, but if a system like that could work, imagine the dedication of effort to the greater good we would all know existed within the volunteer public servants collectively. Our governing system is broken and I firmly believe the infusion of money did it. How we rectify that is to me a mystery, but I’m game for ideas and willing to dialog with anyone who cares to dialog with me on this matter.

  37. Jeff Poster on said:

    Hi, Ron. I just found you via Twitter, and since you have so many followers I was hoping to get you to check out my new book, Reality Check. It’s about the urgent need to reverse humanity’s downward spiral by undoing the status quo. Half of it is quotes from the likes of Chomsky, Sagan, Carlin, Goodall, Soros, Orwell, Marx, Asimov, Paine, William James, Sting and the Beatles.

    You can buy it at sbpra.com/pivot but I’d be happy to send you the Word files. I’ll even pay you to read it if necessary.

         
    Sincerely,

    Jeff Poster 
    (published as Pivot)

    P.S. Here are some excerpts:

               “Mr. Pivot,” said young Johnny Appleseed, “I think I understand what you’re saying. When people are ignorant and confused they make themselves scared; and vice versa; and so on. So now, we kids have to pay for all your fucked up shit. But there’s one thing that I still don’t get. I have an uncle who has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend; the government says that they can’t get married and have the same rights as a couple of the opposite sex; plus, sometimes they get beat up because they can’t make babies. So, then, shouldn’t we be beating up old heterosexual
             “Well, Johnny, everyone gets scared when they see someone living a different lifestyle because it could mean that their own way isn’t as good, or could even possibly be wrong. But their fear would vanish if they understood that a different way of living isn’t necessarily better or worse, but just weird, uhm, I mean, different.”
              “But, Mr. Pivot,” queried some kid on the right side of the room, “why do you say that they should be allowed to get married and thus be entitled to all of the legal benefits that go along with that?”
               “I should ask you why you say that they should be denied that, especially in light of the fourteenth amendment which says that ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.’ What is it exactly that you hope to accomplish or avoid with that denial, anyway? Perhaps if you could provide some rationale for that, then we could come to a meeting of the minds on this.”
               “Because it says in the Bible—”
               “According to the first amendment it is unconstitutional to base legislation on the Bible. The government can only maintain laws pertaining to citizens between each other, not between citizens and God.”
              “But, still, Mr. Pivot, you have to admit, it’s kind of disgusting behavior, ya know? Do you really think that society should formally condone such onerous behavior?”
               “Just because the government doesn’t prohibit something, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is condoning it. Besides, who are you or I to call it disgusting? ‘Disgusting’ is in the eye of the beholder. You may find some people’s styles of expressing love repulsive, or certain forms of entertainment infantile, crude, shocking and offensive, such as that Howard Stern fella, but, right or wrong, obnoxious or enlightening, people have a right to live according to their heart and conscience as long as they don’t undermine the happiness and long-term survival of others. Moreover, people have to make a living; and you can’t very well expect people to voluntarily curtail less than noble standards as long as we’re living under the auspices of to-the-victor-goes-the-spoils/to-the-loser-goes-the-shaft capitalism.

    EXCERPT BREAK

             A current example of contention revolves around a Supreme Court ruling made in 1976 (Buckley vs. Valeo) in which the court struck down the limits on citizens’ expenditures towards politicians. They ruled that it would be an infringement on the first amendment to set such limits. But, by the very nature of what it means to achieve balance, it should be clear that a ruling that allows for unrestricted…expression must inherently be lopsided, and, therefore, not balanced, nor just. Because, again, by definition, balance requires restriction, or limitation. Yet Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics would have us believe that “Money enables free speech; and if you’re going to limit the ability of money to be spent to promote political speech, then you are necessarily limiting political speech.”
              Actually, Sean, since it is called FREE speech one doesn’t need any money for one’s speech to be enabled. Hence, if we are going to limit the amount of money that can be spent on political speech, it does not necessarily limit political speech. It merely limits the medium by which (every)one can express it. Because if you really think about it, the right to not have our speech abridged refers to the content of our speech, not the medium by which we express it. And, if you think about it a little more, since Bill Gates et al. have no political spending limits on their speech the amount of speech that I have IS necessarily limited, by comparison. Moreover, thanks to highly duplicitous Supreme Court rulings, the right of so-called corporate personhoods to invoke Constitutional protections has lead to corporations overriding the protections that individuals are supposed to have. For example, although pleading guilty to causing deaths due to fraudulent marketing, Pfizer pharmaceuticals merely had to pay a steep fine—but nobody in the decision-making process actually had to go to jail the way normal citizens do when held accountable for murder, ironically.
                      EXCERPT BREAK

            I also pointed out that we need to examine where the line should be drawn between cost/profit and discretionary income; which you do by categorizing professions/salaries in a hierarchy of the most productive at the top, and the most counterproductive at the bottom; a.k.a. prioritizing. For example, presently, C.E.O.s of major banks and insurance companies, and folks such as Wolf Blitzer and Matt Laur and Brian Williams and Drew Carey and Al Roker and Piers Morgan and Ryan Seacrest and Anderson Cooper and Glenn Fucking Beck and John Paulson and the Koch brothers are paid obscenely exorbitant salaries, yet their occupations add no actual value to the universe. Teachers, however, are obscenely underpaid, yet they’re the most valuable resource that a society has.
             To wit: “In 2009, the worst economic year for working people since the Great Depression, the top 25 hedge fund managers walked off with an average of $1 billion each. With the money those 25 people ‘earned,’ we could have hired 658,000 entry-level teachers. Those educators could have brought along over 13 million young people, assuming a class size of 20. That’s some value. …The wealthy will have placed an estimated $2 trillion into hedge funds by the end of this year.” Not to mention that in 2010 Goldman Sachs bankers received $15.3 billion in bonuses alone.

    “waste”: any human activity which  absorbs resources, but creates no value    ~Taiichi Ohno

    “What we want and what we need has been confused.”                               ~Michael Stipe

    “We can have a democratic society or we can have a great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.”
                                                                                                           ~Justice Louis Brandeis

    “Every empirical study of both historic and contemporary cultures finds that the ‘leisure time’ state of ‘freedom’ is enjoyed by only a very small class of people within the city/state: its economic and political rulers.”
                                                 ~from Thom Hartmann’s The Last Days of Ancient Sunlight

    “Free enterprise and the market economy mean war; socialism and planned economy mean peace. We must plan our civilization or we must perish.”                    ~Harold Laski

    “Capitalism….is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous—and it doesn’t deliver the goods.”
                                                                                                           ~John Maynard Keynes

    EXCERPT BREAK

                  I’ll spare you any details from David C. Korten’s “devastating” book, When Corporations Rule the World. Suffice it to say, such a book exists. However, I can’t afford to leave out a portion of John Ralston Saul’s international bestseller The Unconscious Civilization, copyright 1995:  “The acceptance of corporatism causes us to deny and undermine the legitimacy of the individual as citizen in a democracy. The result of such a denial is a growing imbalance which leads to our adoration of self-interest and our denial of the public good. Corporatism is an ideology which claims rationality as its central quality. The overall effects on the individual are passivity and conformity in those areas which matter and non-conformism in those which don’t.
              “Economics as a prescriptive science is actually a minor area of speculative investigation. Econometrics, the statistical, narrow, unthinking, lower form of economics, is passive tinkering, less reliable and less useful than car mechanics. The only part of this domain which has some reliable utility is economic history, and it is being downgraded in most universities, even eliminated because, tied as it is to events, it is an unfortunate reminder of reality.
              “Over the last quarter-century economics has raised itself to the level of a scientific profession and more or less foisted a Nobel Prize in its own honor onto the Nobel committee thanks to annual financing from a bank. Yet, over the same 25 years, economics has been spectacularly unsuccessful in its attempt to apply its models and theories to the reality of our civilization. It’s not that the economists’ advice hasn’t been taken. It has, in great detail, with great reverence. And, in general, it has failed. [(“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” --Alan Greenspan/FAILURE)]
              “A ‘profession’ implies both real parameters and professionals who bear some responsibility for the effects of their advice. If economists were doctors, they would, today, be mired in malpractice suits.
              “Many are surprised that this management elite continues to expand and prosper at a time when society as a whole is clearly blocked by a long-term economic crisis. There is no reason to be surprised. The reaction of sophisticated elites, when confronted by their own failure to lead society, is almost invariably the same.
              “To be precise: we live in a corporatist society with soft pretensions to democracy.
              “A simple test of our situation would involve examining the health of the public good. For example, there has never been so much money—actual money—disposable cash—in circulation as there is today. I am measuring this quantity both in absolute terms and on a per capita basis. Look at the growth of the banking industry and the even more explosive growth of the money markets.
              “There has never been so much disposable money, yet there is no money for the public good. In a democracy this would not be the case, because the society would be centered, by general agreement, on disinterest. In a corporatist system there is never any money for the public good because the society is reduced to the sum of the interests. It is therefore limited to measurable self-interest.
              “I would argue that confronting reality—no matter how negative and depressing the process—is the first step towards coming to terms with it.
              “[It is] my right as a citizen—my Socratic right—to criticize, to reject conformity, passivity and inevitability.
              “It is worth trying to do better.”

              To simplify: we’ve designed a system which allows inordinate amounts of wealth to be held in the private sector while the government is left with its hands tied to actually effect noticeable change because they’ve got hardly any money to pay for anything.
              The point: THE HOARDING OF WEALTH DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE DECAY OF SOCIETY. Anyone with the slightest understanding of economics knows that the foremost rule to a healthy economy, society, is CIRCULATION. We all “know” this, yet those of you at the top 2 percent with all of the money and control seem to think that the rules of cause and effect don’t apply to you.
              But instant karma IS going to get you, eventually.

    “Property is theft. Nobody owns anything. When you die, it stays here. I read about these billionaires: Sam Walton, 20 billion; Daniel Ludwig, 15 billion. They’re both dead. They’re gone, and the money is still here. It wasn’t their money to begin with. Property is theft.”
                                                                                                                  ~George Carlin

    “He who dies with the most toys still dies.”

    “During the fifty years preceding 1914 a host of brilliant, eloquent, and desperate artists sought to wake the ruling European bourgeoisie out of its deadly lethargy. The bourgeoisie did not at first believe it was lethargic, because it was so busy making money. ‘Making money is not heroic action!’ cried the artists. ‘Making money is boring you to death!’”
                                                                                                              ~Charles Van Doren

    “It was the end of the fifties, and most young people were disillusioned with what was called the Establishment. There seemed nothing to look forward to but affluence and more affluence. The Conservatives had just won their third election victory with the slogan, ‘You’ve never had it so good.’ I and most of my contemporaries were bored with life.”
                                                                                                               ~Stephen Hawking

    “They debated the NAFTA trade bill for a long time; should we sign it or not? Either way, the people get fucked. Trade always exists for the traders. Anytime you hear businessmen debating ‘which policy is better for America,’ don’t bend over.”

                                                                                                                  ~George Carlin

  38. Bruce Wallace on said:

    We need stop fighting on what we have done and look at what needs to be done.Trying to knock each other apart gets us nowhere!
    I questionwhy did obama wait unil and election year to do anything he did nothing for 3 and a half years nothing.I did vote for him last time but I will be damn if I will this time. We have no country, he is a leader of no country most America’s are broke.I have a wife with stage four breast cancer we can’t pay her medical bills.Get at the doctors and medical people and say hey enough is enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>