TheWorx

This is the last paragraph in Jeffrey Toobin's recent piece in The New Yorker on Ted Cruz . Cruz’s sincerity in these goals is beyond question. When he was solicitor general of Texas, he had a piece of advice for the lawyers on his staff. “I tried to stress to every lawyer in the office that if any lawyer from the S.G.’s office stands in front of the judge and says, ‘The law is X and the facts are Y,’ then that judge would always, always trust that we are levelling [sic] with them and telling the truth.” He’s approached politics the same way. “Since I became a senator, a year and a half ago, I’ve kept two promises to the people of Texas,” he said. “I have endeavored to do what I said I was going to do and I have always told the truth. It says something about Washington that those are perceived as radical acts." I don't doubt Senator Cruz' sincerity in wanting to realize his goals. The issue is, has he stated his goals without being disingenuous?   Or, differe...

Oh, my blessed Lord! To add insult to injury, I now find myself in the unenviable position of thanking my most despised (Citizens United, etc.) Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for his, alas, losing decision contrary to those who said that helping a "broadcaster" simulcast their offerings complete with ads and which augments the number of ad viewers is illegal. A new win-win scenario for the people was declared illegal because a win-win was scenario was already comfy in place. Here are the sordid details: Aereo is illegal, Supreme Court says, in big win for broadcasters - CNET CBS, the parent company of CNET was ecstatic but why the fuck were they excited? If I, by Aereo's actions can now say to my advertisers, "look we are now reaching an audience 30% larger," why wouldn't they, CBS, just ask the advertiser for more money? We need further analysis to get to bottom of this; or, am I missing something? Here is the high wire act that I see: the bi...

[This is a response I received from Senator Menendez' office concerning his non-support of the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. My comments are in red .]   Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez :   Thank you for contacting me regarding the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on what, for me, is a principled issue.   The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act would prohibit the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or legal residents except in time of war or armed hostilities between the U.S. and Cuba.  I have been a lifelong advocate for democratic change in Cuba and have interacted with many of my colleagues in the Senate on these issues over the years.  Although I am opposed to recent efforts to loosen the embargo such as the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, I have worked with the Obama Administration in ho...

I asked Senator Cruz to support changes being proposed in the FOIA and, as such, I ended up getting his newsletter. I read today's communication and I said to myself, "Hey, nice guy standing up for the first ammendment right to free speech." However, after listening to his free speech here I realized he was trying to support Citizen's United. In doing so, the Senator falls flat on his face using a straw man argument to support his position. If we implement this, he says, it will mean Congress can stop publishers from publishing political views (after all, they are corporations and publishing a political book like Hillary Artillery's new book is free speech). It will stop organizations like the ACLU from lobbying, he adds. All of which is total nonsense. The good Senator from Texas is equating a corporation's political contribution with what the founders thought was free speech. He says nobody would say that a corporation is a "human being;" but ...

And so did I when I was much younger. Damn, what purpose do guns serve in our Nation? Guns have five purposes that I know of. One, they help defend us from invaders. Well, we've never had many invasions--none that I can recall, actually; but, in any event, the populace doesn't need them because of our highly subsidized military. Two, the Black man in the hood needs a gun to command respect. Understandable. How else will they get respect? I'm sure this has a societal fix, I'm just not sure what it is we are willing to change.  Certainly, the majority in our country do not need guns for daily respect but see the fifth purpose. Three, the Police need guns because the violent perpetrator has easy access. Can we do anything about this? Unlikely, this is Capitalist America and where there's a buck to be made, a buck will be made regardless of whatever regulation anyone tries to implement. Fourth is the so-called sportsman. They are well-regulated and I know of no ...