I donated, as your records will show, multiple times to your campaign. I also volunteered a significant portion of my time to your campaign. I am completely disappointed in you. You have either sold us, your supporters, out or, at the very least have failed to even approach fulfilling your commitments. You have not end the wars, you've escalated them. You have not ended "don't ask, don't tell". You bailed out a bunch of rich people and have done nothing for Joe Average. Even if some form of health care reform goes through, it will be a disappointingly watered down version of health care reform. You said you weren't concerned about politics as usual and getting re-elected. You said you were going to do the right thing and that if in doing so, you only got one term, so be it. Now, all your moves seem to be about playing it safe, playing it in the middle, so you can get re-elected. You said you were all about hope and change, but mostly your administration has been all about maintaining the status quo and I, therefore, am finding it difficult to remain hopeful.
Let me be clear, I was not one of these pie-eyed followers who thought that just because you won, everything would just easily be changed overnight. That being stated, you haven't really tried and the result is that we're getting NOWHERE. Progress could be made, but not without making a real commitment to it! Frankly, your strategy of playing it safe is the one thing that will prevent you from getting re-elected, as those who hate you (the tea baggers, birthers, etc.) are never going to support you, regardless of how much you try to appease them, and people like me, who helped make your victory possible, will not be giving our precious time and money to you again unless you begin to make some real progress on the commitments you made in your campaign.
So be bold. Make some real changes, some real progress happen. Then the country will be improved and your own political stock will rise. As much as Americans give lip service to the ethos of individuality, the fact is they're mostly followers. They are also, in general, resistant to change. Throughout American history significant changes have rarely occurred from the bottom up. No, leaders, be they politicians, the Supreme Court and so on, have forged change and then the people have followed. And usually fairly quickly, too. Many things that were unthinkable when I was a little child are accepted as being commonplace, no big deal now by the majority of Americans. Acting boldly is not going to be an act of over reaching that will cause your political demise. Despite how it might seem now, the majority of the people will get behind you and these issues that now seem so inflammatory will soon become virtually nothing. And, again, both the Country and you will thrive!
It is only by maintaining the status quo that both you and the Country will suffer, because we really do need change and the coalition you put together to win in '08 will not be there to help you defeat the whack jobs on the right in '12, if you don't deliver on the commitments that we all were working for.
You want my money and my support? Sorry, not until I see some return on the investment I've already made in progress, hope, and change!
Sincerely,
Steve Taiclet
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Regarding Jackson - As A Human, I'm Sorry You're Dead, But This Deification is Unwarranted!!!!!
Am I happy Michael Jackson is dead? No, certainly not! I'm sorry for his family and others who knew and loved him. That all being stated, this deification of him that is now occurring, while not all that surprising, I guess, is completely unwarranted! His death and all the trumped up drama surrounding it is more important than the national health care debate, a new Supreme Court nominee, two ongoing wars, the political situations in North Korea, Honduras, and Iran, and so on? WTF? Are you kidding me? Get real!
In addition, even in the realm where, for better or worse, he clearly did make a significant mark, the superficial world of commercial, mass culture, the homage that is being paid to his, errr, legacy, is way off base, in my humble opinion. I mean, this pandering, mainstream putz from Rolling Stone, Toure, is on the talking head shows waxing on about Jackson, as if he was some kind of musical Martin Luther King Jr. Oh really? I guess I must have somehow overlooked the fact that his lyrics were on the same level of social significance/criticism as say, Bob Dylan or Pete Seeger - not!
Personally, I'd be a lot more shook up if Chuck D. had died!
In addition, even in the realm where, for better or worse, he clearly did make a significant mark, the superficial world of commercial, mass culture, the homage that is being paid to his, errr, legacy, is way off base, in my humble opinion. I mean, this pandering, mainstream putz from Rolling Stone, Toure, is on the talking head shows waxing on about Jackson, as if he was some kind of musical Martin Luther King Jr. Oh really? I guess I must have somehow overlooked the fact that his lyrics were on the same level of social significance/criticism as say, Bob Dylan or Pete Seeger - not!
Personally, I'd be a lot more shook up if Chuck D. had died!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sussman On KSFO 560 AM Sucks!
What a cowardly, intellectually dishonest, loser this regressive reactionary is! He gives a lot of lip service to supporting free speech and honest factual debate, but that is all it is - lip service.
Take yesterday, as just one example. I was calling in to torture him with the uncomfortable truth as I often like to do and it is easy to do because, despite his continual braggadocious claims as to KSFO's status as the number one talk station in the Bay Area, they really don't have that many listeners. I got in twice in the first 10 minutes of his show; I couldn't get in twice in ten minutes on KGO, unless my name was Ronn Owens or Gene Burns! Anyway, he had stated that the we should go to the UN (in hypocritical irony, an organization he normally puts down as being worthless, meaningless, and toothless, but I digress...) and seek sanctions against Iran that would hurt the government, yet not the people, like we had imposed on Iraq - WTF?!? I called to inform him that those sanctions did not hurt Saddam and the ruling class, but, in fact, greatly impacted the average Iraqi in an extremely negative way! Well, he cut me off after that statement, thereby ending any possiblility of any honest debate - so much for that concept! He then went on to say, in obvious ignorance of the facts, that Saadam was 6 feet under and 25 million people were free, so the sanctions had, in fact worked and what a dummy I was to make such an assertion. Of course, the historical record clearly shows that it was our invasion of Iraq , not the UN sanctions, that caused Saddam to be 6 feet under and for 25 million people to have, possibly (I'd say that claim is still open to some reasonable debate!), been freed!
But hey, what do you expect from reactionary, regressive hacks - the facts, the truth, free speech, and honest debate? What are you naive?
By the way, his listeners are no better with the facts than he is. The last two times I checked in on him I heard a listener state, without being corrected, about how Reagan had, unlike Obama in the current Iranian context, made a strong statement of support for the protesters in Tiananmen Square and a strong denunciation of China. Uh, that happened in 1989 and George H. W. Bush was the President then - doh! Also, while discussing the roots of the current economic crisis and trying to tie the blame for it to Bill Clinton, a listener, again, uncorrected, mentioned that Alan Greenspan, who was appointed by Clinton, was largely responsible for leading us down this path of economic anomie. Uh, hello, Greenspan was appointed in 1987, by the regressives' saint, Ronald Reagan!
Again, nothing like the truth, huh? Especially when discussing important issues and future decisions regarding them. Just the kind of informed debate the Framers had in mind and to which the regressives always give such lip service! Yeah, right...
Take yesterday, as just one example. I was calling in to torture him with the uncomfortable truth as I often like to do and it is easy to do because, despite his continual braggadocious claims as to KSFO's status as the number one talk station in the Bay Area, they really don't have that many listeners. I got in twice in the first 10 minutes of his show; I couldn't get in twice in ten minutes on KGO, unless my name was Ronn Owens or Gene Burns! Anyway, he had stated that the we should go to the UN (in hypocritical irony, an organization he normally puts down as being worthless, meaningless, and toothless, but I digress...) and seek sanctions against Iran that would hurt the government, yet not the people, like we had imposed on Iraq - WTF?!? I called to inform him that those sanctions did not hurt Saddam and the ruling class, but, in fact, greatly impacted the average Iraqi in an extremely negative way! Well, he cut me off after that statement, thereby ending any possiblility of any honest debate - so much for that concept! He then went on to say, in obvious ignorance of the facts, that Saadam was 6 feet under and 25 million people were free, so the sanctions had, in fact worked and what a dummy I was to make such an assertion. Of course, the historical record clearly shows that it was our invasion of Iraq , not the UN sanctions, that caused Saddam to be 6 feet under and for 25 million people to have, possibly (I'd say that claim is still open to some reasonable debate!), been freed!
But hey, what do you expect from reactionary, regressive hacks - the facts, the truth, free speech, and honest debate? What are you naive?
By the way, his listeners are no better with the facts than he is. The last two times I checked in on him I heard a listener state, without being corrected, about how Reagan had, unlike Obama in the current Iranian context, made a strong statement of support for the protesters in Tiananmen Square and a strong denunciation of China. Uh, that happened in 1989 and George H. W. Bush was the President then - doh! Also, while discussing the roots of the current economic crisis and trying to tie the blame for it to Bill Clinton, a listener, again, uncorrected, mentioned that Alan Greenspan, who was appointed by Clinton, was largely responsible for leading us down this path of economic anomie. Uh, hello, Greenspan was appointed in 1987, by the regressives' saint, Ronald Reagan!
Again, nothing like the truth, huh? Especially when discussing important issues and future decisions regarding them. Just the kind of informed debate the Framers had in mind and to which the regressives always give such lip service! Yeah, right...
Monday, June 8, 2009
eBay Sucks!!!!! Let Me Count The Ways!!!!!
Stupid and ever changing rules and restrictions.
An endless stream of bossy electro-nanny messages.
An inaccurate and illogical feedback system that enables libelous remarks, without recourse.
Higher and higher seller fees.
More and more big corporate sellers.
Less and less unique items.
Hypocritical sellers who demand/whine about getting payment immediately, then take their sweet fucking time to ship items, gouge on the shipping charges, by sending items by cheap, slow methods, when the amount charged would easily cover fast methods and using buyer unfriendly shipping services, like FedEx and UPS, while dissing the good ol' inexpensive, fast, and dependable USPS!
All of the above, equals an ever increasingly fucked up eBay experience!!!!! And their, IMHO, potentially illegal unfair trade practices through their attempt to force as many payments for purchases made on eBay through their subsidiary, PayPal, makes it even worse!!!!! Money grubbing cocksuckers. Yeah, eBay sucks!
I've been using Craigslist a lot lately and with great success, too! No hassle, no shipping costs, no seller fees, no fucking PayPal nor PayPal fees, face to face dealings, cash now for item now (or vice versa) transactions - easy, over, done!!!!! I highly recommend you check out Craigslist for both buying and selling items!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)