Is the Media Intentionally Not Covering Bernie Sanders?

Mainstream commentators are insistent that the outpouring of enthusiasm for Sanders’ progressive vision is meaningless.

Source: Bernie Sanders Is Drawing Massive Crowds Around the Country—No Big Deal, Says Washington Post – In These Times

Is the Media Intentionally Not Covering Bernie Sanders?


Ever since Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for president of the United States, 1there is one question that has been raised, at least with me.  That question is, is the media intentionally not covering Bernie Sanders?  To me, the answer is increasingly obvious, yes they are.

Despite the fact that Bernie Sanders draws increasingly larger clouds to every venue where he appears, it seems to media fails to give him the coverage he deserves.  It’s almost as though our media is trying to rig the election, mostly in favor of Hillary Clinton.  Instead of giving him the coverage he deserves, and has earned, they continue to ignore him and the momentum Bernie Sanders has gained over the last few months.

Whatever happened to the “good old days” when our media was interested in only covering the news and reporting it, supposedly in a fair and balanced way, instead of being part the news?  In this case, their negligence of covering the story of Bernie Sanders has become almost blatant in its lack of balance and fairness.  It would be really nice if they chose to actually tell the truth for a change, instead of trying to influence voters, mostly in favor of Hillary Clinton. After all, how do you ignore the fact that Bernie Sanders is often drawing crowds of over 10,000 people.  He already holds a record for the most people at a campaign rally.  What more does the media need to give Bernie Sanders the coverage he deserves?

This article highlights how the Washington Post is writing off Senator Bernie Sanders in his quest to be president.  They seem to be writing him off as though he was some kind of weird phenomenon, instead of a viable presidential candidate.  As someone who supports Bernie Sanders to the point where I am actually going to change my party affiliation from the Green party to the Democrats just so I can vote for him, I really resent the negligence the media has shown about giving him adequate media coverage.

I really wish the media would start doing their job properly.  Stop trying to influence the election, and just report it fairly with some balance and fairness.


Home Care Workers Benefit, But at Whose Expense?

A federal appeals court has upheld a rule requiring that in-home care workers assisting people with disabilities be paid minimum wage and overtime.

Source: Wage Protections For Home Care Workers Reinstated – Disability Scoop


Home Care Workers Benefit, But at Whose Expense?


March 1st, 2011:

Even though I feel that home care workers are grossly underpaid and deserve to receive overtime pay, it still begs the question, “who pays for it?”  The reason I say this is because those of us who are dependent on state-funded programs, such as, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) here in CA are refused badly needed funding for these types of programs.  We can’t even get a supposedly “liberal” governor like Jerry Brown to restore a 7% cut in IHSS, made by the previous governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite the fact that our state will accumulate an estimated 4 billion dollars in a budget surplus over the next 4 years.

Home care workers deserve to receive higher wages and overtime pay, just as the Department of Labor (DOL) ruled last year because without them we disabled that seniors would not be able to continue living independent lives in the community, instead of nursing homes.  For most of us, our home care workers are the primary focus of our daily lives.

In some ways, most of us agree with the DOL ruling even though DOL hasn’t made a solid suggestion is about who pays for these wage increases and overtime for home care workers.  They don’t tell us how those of us who live on state-funded programs are supposed to pay for this, especially when neither the governor nor the state legislature will not cooperate with us on helping us to find the money.  They had put consumers of home care services in a Catch-22 position.  We are damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

The only way Governor Jerry Brown proposes to “help us” is to make a lame suggestion that our hours of home care service be reduced; something that he refuses to acknowledge is impossible for nearly all of us.  He acts as though we are awash in home care hours, even though the reality of the situation is that most of us have been dealing with a shortage of hours for many years.  Jerry Brown simply prefers to live in a state of denial about how inadequate our present home care service already is, and has been for many years.

US Court Reinstates Home Care Pay Rules

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated regulations drawn up by the Obama administration to extend minimum wage and overtime protections to almost two million workers who provide home care for the elderly and disabled.

Study Projects 2.5 Million More Home Care Workers …

As the nation’s senior population is projected to swell to enormous proportions in the coming years, the need for home care workers to serve this aging demographic will have to increase by the millions, a recent report …

Obama Administration Being Hypocritical About Protecting Our Environment?

After Royal Dutch Shell’s mishaps in the Arctic in 2012, the Obama administration indicated a major rethink of the approval process was in order—but instead, Shell got another rubber stamp.

Source: How the Government Fast-Tracked Shell’s Arctic Drilling – In These Times

Obama Administration Being Hypocritical About Protecting Our Environment?


Not protecting our environmentI am come to the conclusion that the Obama administration is being hypocritical about protecting our environment.  Whatever happened to the president who was, or at least advertised himself as, caring about protecting our environment and eliminating greenhouse gases?  If the Obama administration really cares about our environment, why did they fast-track the permit that will allow Royal Dukch Shell to drill for oil in the Arctic?

My guess would be that somebody, namely Royal Dutch Shell, greased the palms someone in the Obama administration.  I guess the old saying, “Money talks, bullshit walks,” holds true even in an administration that has led us to believe that they actually care about protecting our environment.  I’m not saying that President Obama is guilty of anything other than maybe not keeping his eye on people in his administration.

In 2012, Royal Dutch Shell had an accident in the Arctic, that potentially could have caused great damage to the environment.  To me, that begs the question, why are they allowed to have a permit at all.  Is that really protecting our environment?

President Obama sounded really committed to protecting our environment after the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  At that time, President Obama was very angry at BP for their negligence, even though to this very day, BP still hasn’t paid sufficient damages to the people who were affected by this disaster to the Gulf Coast.  That says a lot about how committed the Obama administration is towards protecting our environment.

Recently, a large group of protesters from Greenpeace tried to stop the drilling ship, MSV Fennica, from leaving Portland, Ore, where she had put in for repairs before departing for Alaska.  The Fennica had been previously cited by the Coast Guard for numerous safety violations on a previous trip to Alaska.  My question is, why is a ship that has a record of operating unsafely even allowed to operate, especially in an environmentally sensitive area like Alaska?

I would like to ask President Obama that, given Royal Dutch Shell’s record of sloppy operations and negligence, why he is opening up Alaska for further drilling, especially if he is really sincere about protecting our environment?

Growing the economy by protecting our environment – NDP

Merci beaucoup, M. le Doyen Mérette. Merci à tout le monde d’être ici aujourd’hui à l’Université d’Ottawa. J’étais ici même il y a à peine plus d’un an dans cette même salle, avec plus de 1000 étudiants pour parler de …
Shaping our future by protecting our environment

Protecting our greatest assets including our beaches foreshores and bushland and moving to a clean energy future have been given a 74 million boost in todays Sunshine Coast Council budget.

“Oath Keepers” Show up in Ferguson, MO

Source: Armed Oath Keepers Spark Unrest During Ferguson Protest – Truthdig


“Oath Keepers” Show up in Ferguson, MO


Apparently, the police in Ferguson, MO think it’s okay for a band of heavily armed white men to show up at a public demonstration.  They did absolutely nothing when the so-called “Oath Keepers” showed up at a demonstration, marking the one-year anniversary of the killing of Michael Brown.

In case you don’t know who the Oath Keepers are allow me to remind you.  They are an organization of right-wing antigovernment militia.  They are the group that flocked to the ranch of Cliven Bundy, the rancher in Nevada who thinks he should be allowed to graze his cattle on government land, without paying the same grazing fees as other ranchers.The Oath Keepers apparently agree that the US government has no right to enforce regulations on public property that belongs to all of us.  That’s basically the position taken by Cliven Bundy.  The situation at the Bundy ranch could very easily have erupted in a gun battle as the Oath Keepers aimed their weapons at members of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Now, this same group has shown up in Ferguson, MO, and the police there did absolutely nothing as the Oath Keepers walked around town armed to the teeth, openly displaying everything from handguns to assault rifles.

My question is, as well as a lot of other people, why didn’t the Ferguson police do anything? You can bet that they would’ve done something if the African-American residents of Ferguson would have openly carried firearms in the streets.

After all, as we all know, if the African-American residents of Ferguson would have done the same thing as the Oath Keepers, they would have been arrested, perhaps even shot down in the streets.  Ferguson police would not have hesitated for a minute is using the assault weapons supplied to them by the US government.

As we all remember, Ferguson police showed no hesitation in aiming assault rifles equipped with laser sights on groups of peaceful protesters last year, after Michael Brown was murdered by a member of the Ferguson police.

As far as I’m concerned, this entire thing could have been avoided if only the authorities would have taken appropriate actions against the police officer, who murdered Michael Brown.  This officer got off Scott free, even though he should have been charged with murder and tried accordingly.

Now, as the Oath Keepers have arrived on the scene of the current demonstration, openly displaying their weapons, this serves as a reminder; this is still the “old South” and nothing has changed.

Apparently, only white men are allowed to carry weapons in Ferguson, MO.

Social Security: Attempt to Starve America’s Disabled and Seniors Thwarted

Source: GOP Plan To Slash Social Security Thwarted – Working In These Times

Social Security: Attempt to Starve America’s Disabled and Seniors Thwarted

For the life of me, I can’t figure out how these GOP bastards think those of us who live on Social Security are living so high on the hog. Personally, last year I received $11,644 in Social Security benefits, well below the poverty line.  How do they think we are supposed to survive?  Oh, I forgot!  They don’t give a damn about anybody other than their rich friends.

Another thing I can’t figure out is how this proposal to cut Social Security benefits to seniors and disabled was attached to The Highway Bill.  How are they even remotely related to one another as issues?  The fact that legislative bodies always seem to do that is just part of the “divide and conquer” strategy, they always use whenever they are trying to alienate one group of citizens from another.  And for some reason, most Americans buy into it.

The reasoning these evil sons of bitches use is actually quite simple.  They figure that if they attach something totally unrelated, in this case Social Security cuts, to something as important as The Highway Bill, they can alienate people who are tired of potholes and dilapidated highways (most of us) from those of us who attempt to survive on Social Security.  Why can’t people see this?  It’s not that hard!

They think their dastardly attempts to alienate people who drive cars, who outnumber Social Security recipients, will result in motorists blaming us for the fact that this nation highways are not being maintained properly.  Unfortunately, there seems to be enough people buying into this divide and conquer strategy, that our politicians keep successfully using it every time they want to divide citizens from each other, for the purpose of causing harm to one group, in this case Social Security recipients.

Lawmakers should put into place some type of rule against tying unrelated items together on one piece of legislation.  It only allows politicians, who have some type of harmful motive, to hijack the legislative process for the sole purpose of causing harm and division among the citizens.

The thing that really gets me about this entire Social Security issue, or I should say non-issue is that the Social Security Trust Fund is actually okay, despite the untruthful claims to the otherwise.  If they would just stop dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund every time they came up short of cash, things would be okay.  If they stop using the Social Security Trust Fund as a slush fund, the entire Social Security system could actually be expanded rather than cut.

There is absolutely no justification for any legislator to pick on the nations poorest people.  They only do so because they consider us to be disposable.

Lindsey Graham Used A Moving Personal Story To Call For Social Security Cuts

Graham invoked Ronald Reagan as a model for bipartisan reform of Social Security and Medicare. Reagan brokered a deal in 1983 with then-Democratic House Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill that combined tax increases and spending cuts to extend Social …
Social Security, pimps, prostitutes and Mike Huckabee

The Republican debates highlighted one major policy rift among candidates, with all of the candidates buying into the Very Serious Person trope that Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, but one candidate doesn’t …


The Revolt Against the Ruling Class

In two very different ways, Trump and Sanders are agents of this revolt.

Source: Robert Reich: There’s a Revolt Against the Ruling Class Brewing — Elites Don’t See It Coming | Alternet


The Revolt Against the Ruling Class


As someone who grew up in the 60s and 70s, I have watched people talk about the revolt against the ruling class  longer than I care to remember. One thing I always wondered was, “when the hell is this revolt against the ruling class going to happen?”  My impatience with waiting for this great revolt has gotten to the point where I actually wonder if I will live long enough to actually see it.

Now, as my optimism about Senator Bernie Sanders grows, I can actually see it finally happening.  Every day I get a little more excited and optimistic about his candidacy for president of the United States.  Even if he doesn’t win the Democratic nomination or the general election, at least he’s inspired many people to start talking about how unfair and unjust our economic system actually is.

When I look at Bernie Sanders, I see someone who’s been talking about the revolt against the ruling class numerous times.  He has been using this language for the many years I have been following his career.  He has said it will take a revolt, he calls it a people’s movement, for him to win.  The way I look at it, a “people’s movement” and a revolt are basically the same thing.

I also find it quite ironic that this article was written by the former secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton, husband of one of the primary candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton.  As such, in many ways, I like this article because it was written by someone who could easily be called an insider.  As such, Dr. Reich was in the position to know what really goes on with our economic situation.  When he says that we are going to experience a revolt against the ruling class, I think it is seriously as a credible source.

One thing about this article that I did not like was Robert Reich’s mention of Donald Trump as being part of his revolt against the ruling class.  In my opinion, Donald Trump is hardly taking part in any revolt against the ruling class.  Whenever I think of the ruling class, I think about people just like Donald Trump.  In fact, Donald Trump epitomizes the worst of the ruling class.  Donald Trump has shown himself to be nothing more than a racist, elitist and pompous ass who thinks he is better than anyone else.  The only reason I think that Robert Reich mentioned is because he is going against the norm because he is financing his campaign out of his own pocket rather than taking contributions from special interest groups.

As far as I’m concerned, Donald Trump isn’t good enough to shine Bernie Sanders shoes.

Scenes from the Reich

Political insiders don’t see that the biggest political phenomenon in America today is a revolt against the “ruling class” of insiders that have dominated Washington for more than three decades. So far so good, except that Reich naturally has the cause

Robert Reich: There’s a Revolt Going On in Washington but …

In very different ways, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are agents of a revolt against the ruling class that’s unlikely to end with the 2016 presidential election. – 2015/08/03.