Ignorance is NOT Blis!!!!

I was watching some clips from Glenn Beck's show today -- the clips were not from today, I was watching them today. I like to see what the talking heads from both sides are saying. I found something very disturbing.

He had his chalkboard set up with assorted pictures and was describing how all of these people were corrupt and how they were somehow related to the President -- thereby making the President corrupt by association. He made comments about how the liberals are full of corruption. He brought up William Ayers. He talked about how all of these Democrats like Tom Daschel and Bill Richardson and others show how corrupt the party is.

At first I was simply offended at his implication that only Democrats are corrupt. As though Republicans such as Tom Delay and Ted Spencer and Larry Crist do not exist. To say nothing of the morally corrupt Mark Sanford. It was a such a one sided argument. Everyone knows there is no shortage of legitimately corrupt politicians are both sides. We certainly do not need to bring in William Ayers again to prove a point.

As I watched his presentation more, I became disturbed for a different reason. I used to watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow regularly. I cannot recall the last time I saw either show. What disturbed me about Glenn Beck's presentation was that it was a very similar tactic to one that Rachel Maddow uses. A complex presentation using sources and references that all seem legit. And to the uninformed, it is legit. But if you know the subject matter or do a little digging you quickly see that, while some points are valid, you are not getting all of the information.

Rachel has gone to great lengths on many of her shows to draw a line between some seemingly grass-roots organization and FreedomWorks, a well funded lobbying firm. Glenn was using the same approach to discredit both ACORN and President Obama.

My anger is not at Rachel and Glenn. They do, after-all, get paid to do exactly what they are doing. My anger is at their loyal viewers who do nothing but watch one side of the argument and assume they are getting the unbiased truth. When you buy a car, do you take everything the salesman tells you as unadulterated fact? Do you really think that Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow will offer any information that does not support their claims? They host editorial programs. They spout their opinions. They are under no obligation to provide facts.

I am a fan of the 1951 Alistar Sims movie 'Scrooge'. We watch it every year. As the Ghost of Christmas Present is about to leave, he opens his robe (not dirty like it sounds) and shows two scruffy looking children sitting at his feet. He then offers the following.

"This boy is ignorance and this girl is wont. Beware them both, but most of all beware this boy."

I could not agree more. Ignorance, followed closely by fear, is the most dangerous weapon around. These talking heads shows do nothing but perpetuate ignorance on both sides. It is up to their viewers to recognize that and verify everything they see and hear. Do not trust Glenn Beck. Do not trust Rachel Maddow. They are giving you their side of the story. They are stoking the fires for the sake of their own ratings. It is up to you question what they are telling you.

Don't just take what they tell you and start echoing it at the top of your lungs. If you feel strongly enough about something where you would go to a rally in Washington to accuse the President of being a Socialist and a Fascist, don't you think it would be wise to first check and make sure that you have all of the facts?

If you were on trial, wouldn't you prefer that the jurists get all of the evidence before making their decision? So why are so many people content to only hear one side? And not just hear that one side, but take that one opinion and treat it as their own and act as though it were gospel from the almighty.


Ignorance is a very dangerous thing. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but please make sure they are yours and not someone else's before you get onto your soapbox.

Has the jury reached a verdict?

There is apparently a trial going on right now in this country. Some might call it the trial of the young century. It is broadcast everyday, though not on as many channels as O.J. Those representing the different sides spend each day speaking well or ill of the accused depending on where they sit. The accused has been charged with everything from causing the premature death of the elderly, to driving small businesses to file for bankruptcy, to bringing about the end of this great nation through a deficit that can never be overcome.

The accused goes by the street name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The victim is, apparently, the American people. The odd thing about the the trial of People v Healthcare is that it has a sort of Minority Report feel to it. The PPACA (I am not typing that name over and over again) has not actually done anything yet, but it is spoken of as though it is the end of western civilization.

I was watching C-SPAN 2 today, as I am wont to do when looking for the straight skinny on what is happening in the bowels of our government, and found the tone of the debate familiar. I checked my browser to make sure I had not accidentally clicked on Court-TV -- not really, but it makes for good prose.

The Republicans and Democrats were each taking turns addressing the jury, who in this case was actually themselves since they are who will be casting votes. The prosecution...I mean, Republicans, would spend 60 minutes speaking of all the horrible and inexcusable things this bill was going to do. Grandmothers finding that Medicare would no longer cover their ailments. Small businesses going under because they could not afford healthcare for their employees. The federal government collapsing under the weight of $2 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.

After they were done, the defense, oops Democrats, would get 60 minutes to sing the praises of their client. How it had fine moral character by covering millions of people that could not otherwise afford it. How the public option would ensure true competition in the industry. How no one could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. How their client was here to save this country if only it could have the chance.

The thing I found disturbing was the misdirection. The Republicans had printed out the bill. It sat on a desk beside the podium and they made several references to its bulk. I think they actually had printed several copies because it seemed every Republican that spoke had a copy of it next to them. The stacks were easily a couple feet high. They spoke of how wordy it was and bloated and included things that made no sense and such. No mention of the environmental cost of printing so many pages.

The Democrats then got up and pointed out that the Republicans had only printed the bill on one side of each sheet of paper and had enlarged the font to the point where the bill took up much more space than it should. Not wanting to take either side's opinion at face value, I downloaded the bill myself to see how large it was. It is 2074 pages. This is 1037 pages when printed front and back. I will say the font is quite large anyway, but even if you left the font size alone, 1037 pages is the size of a couple Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling hard cover novels. That would be, at most, 6-8 inches tall. Not the two feet as implied by the Republicans.

And I challenge any Republican to show me a bill that is not filled with the legal-speak they derided this one for.

The Republicans then got up and discussed the cost of the bill. The Democrats claimed it was deficit neutral. That is, it would not add to the deficit and any costs would be accounted for through cost cuts in other areas and such. The Republicans point out how the $800 billion cost (over 10 years) arrived at by the independent Congressional Budget Office, was actually more than $2 trillion when added up. I am not sure if I should believe the independent Congressional Budget Office or the Republicans. Hmmm. Who has the most to gain by fudging the numbers?

Again, not wanting to take anyone's word on the matter, I checked the CBOs findings and saw that they did conclude that the PPACA (HR3590) will actually cut the budget deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. You can read it yourself here. Not that this proves anything, but making such determinations is what the CBO does. Whereas the Republicans are trying to win case. I lean toward the CBO in this situation.

As the trial..er..debate wore on, I did not know who to trust. Each side presented their arguments and the other side tried to shoot holes in the arguments. For my part, I found the Democrats positions to be more believable than the Republicans.

The Republicans seemed to sing the praises of private insurers and small business in one breath, but in the next they talked about how businesses would chose not to cover their employees because the fine for not providing insurance was cheaper than the cost of the insurance. And that because the cost of the private insurance was so expensive, this would drive people to a public option. But isn't that the point the Democrats were making? Private insurance companies are charging so much and making so much profit, no one can afford it. The only way to keep it competitive is to have a non-profit option to compete with them.

I took some time and read through some snippets of the bill -- which can be found here.

One interesting thing I saw is that the fines for not having insurance do not kick in until 2014. And that year those fines amount to $8 for each month that person does not have insurance. The fines jump the next year to $30 per month and then to $63 per month in 2016 and each year after. There are exemptions for people that cannot afford it and for people that should be covered under someone else's plan such as a parent's or spouse's. In those cases, the person responsible for providing the coverage, would be fined if they do not do so.

There is even an exemption for people who do not have health coverage because they belong to a recognized religious organization that does not use the healthcare system.

So. The trial (debate) goes on. Unfortunately, instead of the case being a presentation of the facts, as would be required in a court of law, this is simply two groups presenting their distorted view of the situation in an attempt to further their own ends.

I will tell you that I have listened to the arguments and I have probably read more of the bill than most and while it is not entirely what I would like to see in healthcare reform, it has many merits and is nowhere near the angel of death that Republicans would have you believe it is.

I end with this. If you intend to take a position on this bill, or any other, do not get your information from the talking heads on TV. Read the bill yourself, or at least skim through it. Watch the debate on C-SPAN2. Form your own opinion. If you still have a position to one side or the other, then by all means voice it to your Senator and the world. Otherwise, do not muddy the already cloudy waters with hearsay, speculation, and lies.

It's all about choice!!!

One of my previous posts talked about how Republicans have started to refer to Pro-Choice as Pro-Abortion, implying that we want people to have more abortions.

I revisit this briefly today because of something I saw in Sarah Palin's interview with Barbara Walters.

I think most people know that Sarah Palin has a baby with Down Syndrome. She knew the baby had this condition and decided to have the baby anyway. Good for her. I have no issue with that. I in no way feel that because I would make a different choice that everyone needs to make the same choice as me.

Here is what bugs me. In the interview with Barbara Walters, Barbara asks Sarah if she considered abortion when she found out that Trig had Down Syndrome. Sarah began her response by saying, 'I knew that the option was there.'

She knew the option was there. This tells me the thought crossed her mind if even for a second. Yet she would still throw her lot in with those that would take away that choice completely.

I have said it before and I will repeat it now. Being Pro-Choice is about just that. Choice!! We would love for there to be no abortions. But we will never support removing the option. An option that crossed even the mind of far right wing Republican Sarah Palin.

What? I mean...What?

I just do not get it. I know the Republican party is dying for someone to step up and be their Barack Obama, but is Sarah Palin really it?

I watched a news report where they showed her rock star like following at a book signing. People screaming and waiting in line for hours to get their book signed. There was even an overflow area where people just waited to catch a glimpse of her as she stepped off the bus.

She is not the first politician to have such a following. We all know that Barack Obama had similar turnouts at his events. My only question is, 'Why Sarah Palin?'

I have no doubt that she is a decent enough person. I also recognize that I completely disagree with all of her politics. But my concern is that when she talks it is clear that she does not really have any politics of her own. She is just spouting what other people are saying because that is popular right now. It is like an author writing a vampire or boy wizard book because that is what is popular right now. That doesn't make them a great author. It just makes them opportunistic. As the buying public, we have to know how to tell the difference.

Consider this. In her interview with Barbara Walters she used the word 'dithering' to describe the time it is taking for Obama to announce his plan for Afghanistan. That is not a common word. Yet, it is the same word that Dick Cheney used to describe the same thing a couple weeks ago. It is one thing to share an opinion with someone else, but to use the same unusual word demonstrates that you may not actually have your own opinion on the matter.

She was asked if she still thought that being near Russia constituted foreign policy experience. She said, 'Yes.' I still do not understand how someone can claim meaningful foreign policy experience just by being near a foreign country. There is a big difference between governing a state that maintains entry points to the US and negotiating treaties and such. I am not saying Obama had any substantial foreign policy experience himself when he was elected, but he had no less than George W. Bush and Sarah Palin and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan either. Just don't claim to have something you don't. That is like embellishing your resume and no one likes that.

She is very keen on blaming the media for making her look bad. Okay. But exactly what are they doing? She never provides specifics. If something was twisted or taken out of context, then set the record straight. Say what it was that they did wrong and correct it. Don't just make a sweeping generalization.

For example, during the Barbara Walters interview, Palin was shown the Newsweek cover. She made a comment about how she expected more from Newsweek and that the picture was sexist. As though the picture was the problem and not the headline 'How do you solve a problem like Sarah?' By the way, just because someone is critical of you in an editorial, does not mean the media is biased. That is someone's opinion. If you cannot recognize the difference between a news report and an editorial, then that is your problem, not the media's.

One more thing about biased media. I know things can easily be taken out of context for the purposes of editorializing. I know that news reports can often show the most unflattering pictures and sound bites. But, if you watch an interview from start to finish. Just questions and answers. And you reach the conclusion that the person is not someone you want running the country, that is not the media distorting the truth.

Now do not get me wrong. I have no issue with the Republican party trying to find a voice. I would love to see honest debate in this country rather than party line bickering. But just supporting Palin because she is popular is ludicrous.

There were some teenage girls at the rally I saw and one made the comment that Palin certainly has more experience than Obama. What??? Is that what people really think? You can debate whether serving a partial term and resigning to go on a book tour is more experience than serving a partial term as US Senator and resigning to become President. But to act as though Obama's experience can't even hold a candle to Palin's is ludicrous.

Please Republican party, find someone worthy of your support. Find someone that will speak for themselves and bring their own ideas to the table. Not someone who will just rehash what they heard on Limbaugh or O'Reilly. Not someone who was thrust into the spotlight and is just riding the wave. Eventually that wave will break and you will have nothing.

One last thing for Sarah. The phrase is 'Ass Backward' or 'Bass Ackward'. Not 'Back Assward'. The idea behind euphemisms is to avoid swearing. If you say 'Back Assward' you have still said the naughty word.

You Cannot Have it Both Ways

This week I have heard a couple things regarding the Health Care Bill that I find interesting.

A poll shows that the majority of Americans do not want any government money being used to fund abortions. I think the number is around 60% that support the amendment to the bill that prevents federal money being used for abortions, either through a public option or through subsidies for other plans.

Okay. That's fine. My personal stance is that the government pays for a lot of stuff that I don't think it should pay for (Blackwater contractors comes to mind) but you take the good with the bad. I am not going to prevent the government from building an army because I don't like how they spent some of the money.

The problem I have is that people complaining that they do not want their money being used to fund abortions don't realize that they are most likely funding abortions today. Their private insurance company that they are so keen on keeping is using their money to pay for all kinds of things for other people.

Do they think that the premiums they pay go into a special box and are only used for their maladies? Of course that is not the case. The money from premiums goes into a pool and everyone in the program gets money from that pool. You have no idea what your specific dollars are going towards and it is really none of your business. Would you want everyone else in your plan looking over your records and deciding if you should get that Viagra you have been wanting or if your child can get braces? Then stay out of other people's business!

If people want no part of any insurance plan that covers abortion, then they should take a close look at their own private plan and they best opt out if they disagree with it.


The other issue has to do with this whole notion of people not wanting the government to control healthcare because they do not want it rationed or risk 'Death Panels'. As a result, people are indicating that they want to make sure they can still keep their current private health insurance.

Again, the logic is flawed. They believe that their private insurance company is not rationing healthcare. Um. How many restrictions are there in your plan regarding what treatments they will cover and how often you can get them? Any restrictions fall into the category of rationed healthcare. And I would argue that a private, for-profit, company is much more likely to ration your healthcare in the interest of their own profits than the government or a non-profit provider.

Let's take for example the recent news about the new United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines stating that women between 40 and 49 no longer need to get annual mammogram screenings. This news has met with harsh criticism from doctors, patients, and the American Cancer Society. People are concerned that their healthcare provider will use these guidelines as an excuse to no longer cover annual mammograms for women under 50.

But wait. Aren't these the same private insurers that you do not want to lose? Aren't these the same companies that you are defending against a government takeover of healthcare? How can you argue in support of keeping your private insurance provider while at the same time worrying that they will use this new report to start rationing your coverage?

I ask this. Who is more likely to jump on a report like this and stop covering such exams?

The government or non-profit provider is already paying for the exams. Since they are not seeking profits, it does not hurt them to continue to pay for the exams.

The private insurance provider needs to bring in as much profit as possible for their stake-holders. If they can save expenses by cutting coverage, then they have every reason to do so. In fact, according to Dodge v Ford Motor Company the board of directors are under an obligation to maximize profits at the expense of their employees and customers. Do not think for a minute that they have your best interests at heart.

Is it the fool or the fool who follows him?

I have long been a believer that those getting their news exclusively from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and other such places are not getting the whole story.

I also know that those who only watch MSNBC and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are doing themselves a similar disservice.

These are all people who make money by delivering ratings. The commentators, in particular, deliver ratings by spouting extreme opinions on subjects. Rush does so from the right and Keith does the same thing from the left. To those that lean left or right, those opinions are entertaining, but they should not be mistaken for news.

You cannot realistically stand up in support or opposition to something unless you do your own research. To take someone else's opinion as fact is dangerous and helps no one. One side is hurt because you propagate misinformation. The other side is hurt because you do not truly understand what your position is so you cannot answer questions to support it.

As you might expect, I am currently referring to the ongoing 'debate' over Health Care Reform. I put debate in quotes because debates are generally civil and based on facts. At a minimum the facts in question are grey areas that can be interpreted differently. That is not the case here.

What we have seen over the past couple months are instead arguments with no (or little) factual basis and, in some cases, little relation to the topic in question. For the most part we have attempts by people and groups to prevent debate by occupying the microphone as long as possible. In congress this is called a filibuster.

A filibuster is when a member of congress holds the floor endlessly so that an item cannot be debated or voted on. As long as they keep talking, and they can talk about anything they want, then they hold the floor and nothing else can be done. Here we have the general public engaging in the mother of all filibusters.


This past weekend there was a heavily attended march on Washington with people protesting the Obama Administration. The march was not specifically aimed at the health care issue, but was more a protest against all things Obama. There were numerous signs claiming Obama is both a Fascist and a Socialist -- a contradiction in itself.

I found this video which had me swinging between being sad and mad.


To be fair, I am sure that the person assembling this video used only those people that would help make their video better. My problem is that the people in this video are the people that are getting the most attention and are also the ones that seem to be the least informed.

Don't just claim Obama is a Fascist. Learn what Fascism actually is and explain what, specifically, you think he has done to demonstrate Fascist tendencies. How do those actions compare to things that other Presidents have done? Would you consider them to be Fascist as well?

If you think the country is moving towards Socialism, then put together an argument listing out the specific programs that appear Socialist in nature and why you think they are wrong. Be prepared to explain why other programs that could be considered Socialist are okay -- such as Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc. Of course if you think all of these programs should be abolished as well, then be prepared to discuss how you would prefer to solve the problems that they solve.

If you are upset about all of these 'Czars' that exist in the government, then do some research into who these people are. What responsibilities and powers do they have? Who created that position? How long are they in office? Who do they report to? What is their actual title? (hint: there is no government office with an official title of 'xxxxxxx Czar')

If you cannot answer even the most basic questions about your position, then you really do not have a position.


In the above video I am particularly concerned about the people holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler and stating how he was a great speaker too. Hitler was a great speaker and people followed him blindly in part because he was so eloquent. The implication is that Obama is doing the same thing. That is called a scare tactic.

Isn't every politician at least a decent speaker? Doesn't everyone seeking office need to convince people that what they say is true and that you should support them instead of their opponent? Every President has to convince tens of millions of people to vote for them. Making the jump from great speaker who rallies support to Hitler is pretty substantial, but it looks good on video.

The interesting thing to me is that the world is full of great speakers. But a great speaker is nothing more than that, unless he has people that support him. People that will echo what he says. People that believe what he says without any regard for whether or not it is true. Then the question becomes, who is to be feared more, the person speaking or the people that listen and follow that person without questioning what they are saying?

Should we fear Obama for being a great speaker? If all he has are great speeches but cannot actually do anything, then do we really have much to be afraid of?

We do if people blissfully follow him and believe everything he says and raise him to the point of a supreme authority, then he will have the clout to implement changes that perhaps no one wants. I would say our government is strong enough to resist such ambitions, but the point is that nothing will happen if you cannot rally support to your cause.

Now let's consider this.

What about Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly? They are all great speakers. They have large numbers of people that listen. They have a lot of people that take what they say as fact without questioning it. I saw more than a few Glenn Beck for President signs at the rally. I am sure they were sarcastic, but it demostrates that the person believes and trusts Glenn Beck more than they do President Obama. Should we fear these people?

Should we fear the people that listen to them and do not question what they say? Maybe we should worry that so many people are content to have information spoon fed to them without gathering the information themselves.

Maybe we should be afraid that so many people will go to a rally in Washington DC armed only with a talking point and use that as justification for overthrowing the government.


I will end with this.

If you have an opinion on a topic and have researched it to where it is your own and you truly believe it, then I will respect that even if I disagree. But if you simply take what someone else tells you as fact and do not question it or investigate it, then do not bother me with your thoughts because they are not yours anyway so what does it matter.

If you want to see what actually happens in the government, then I recommend going to cspan.org and watching it unfold in real time or even taped. Form your own opinions about what is going on. Then, when the time comes, you can shout 'You lie' at Rush or Keith or Bill or Rachel or Sean.

Lay Off Of Miss California

One thing that has really irked me during the 8 years of Republican rule was how they could preach freedom in all of its forms, yet simultaneously persecute those that offered differing opinions. For example, those that opposed the War in Iraq were not only dissenters, but actually unpatriotic. To those in charge, patriotism was directly proportional to how much you agreed with them. They did not recognize that the right to disagree was the very core of freedom.

I fear that many of those that stood with me in opposing this attitude during the Bush years are now falling into the same trap.

Let's look at what has been going on with Miss California. She was asked for her opinion on gay marriage. She answered with her opinion on gay marriage. And for her honesty she has been getting persecuted from a variety of people.

Let me state first that I absolutely, 100% disagree with her opinion. I think it is a short-sighted opinion to have, as well as a dangerous one for a country that has had more than a few civil rights battles in its history.

Despite my opinion on the matter, I also recognize that the foundation of this country is built upon her right to have her own opinion on the matter and to voice that opinion. We criticize politicians all of the time for pandering to the masses and not being honest. Yet here is a woman who was asked a polarizing question, by a gay man by the way, and gave an honest answer and she still has not heard the end of it. Would we have been happier if she lied? Would that have been a better message to send to children that look up to her?

Everyone needs to understand that there is a difference between supporting something and supporting someones right to believe in that thing. I believe gay marriage should be legal, but I also believe that people should have the right to believe otherwise without being run through the wringer. That is what freedom is about.

If we disagree with each other, we maintain civility and we have open and honest dialogue to see if we can find common ground, or if we just agree to disagree. If we send the message that you have to tailor your beliefs to suit the audience or the majority opinion, then what kind of freedom is that?

So to those that think Miss California should be stripped of her crown because she answered a question honestly, I say that you are no better than those that you criticized during the Bush years. It works both ways and it is time to walk the walk.

When did pro-choice become pro-abortion?

I have avoided writing on this topic for some time due to its sensitivity, but I saw something today that pushed me over the edge.

I was reading an article today about Sarah Palin and what went through her mind when she found out she was pregnant with Trig. She makes comments about deciding if she could walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Without mentioning the 'A' word she talked about how she thought about "changing the circumstances" and how "no one would know".

First of all, this sounds like the thoughts that a teenager in that situation would have, not a 40-something state Governor. What struck me, however, was how she could talk about making a choice, without using the word 'choice'. During the campaign, I also heard someone else refer to the pro-choice crowd as 'pro-abortion'. It really got me wondering about this divide between anti-abortion groups and pro-choice groups.

I have no problem with Sarah Palin's decision to keep the baby. Even after finding out that the child had a disability, she decided to keep the baby. Good for her. I have no issue with that. never in my life would I ever insist that someone terminate a pregnancy if they did not want to. That is their choice.

What it seems pro-life groups do not understand though is that pro-choice groups simply want women to have the option. The fact that Sarah Palin was able to even consider 'changing the circumstances' is what the pro-choice movement is all about. She, in effect, proved our point.

There seems to be a belief among some in the pro-life community that the pro-choice groups are insisting that all unwanted pregnancies be terminated. Or that abortions be mandatory if it is discovered the child will have a disability. That is not the case at all. We only want people to have all of the information so that they can decide what is best for them. We do not think anyone else should make that decision for them. And we certainly do not think that someone should be scared into making particular choice.

I recently watched the film 'Juno'. If you have not seen the movie, then you may not want to read the next two paragraphs as I will be describe one sequence from early in the movie.

This movie concerns a girl in high school that becomes pregnant and decides to keep the baby and give it up for adoption. Shortly after finding out, her first instinct is to go to a clinic with the intention of having an abortion. While on her way in, she encounters a schoolmate outside who is picketing against abortion. This classmate pleads her case to Juno, but Juno goes in anyway.

Juno waits for the doctor and thinks about something her classmate had said. The thoughts overwhelm her and she makes the decision to keep the baby. She runs out to the delight of her classmate.

This is the part that struck me as key to the pro-life vs pro-choice groups. To a pro-life group, if she had gone through with the abortion, the film would have been touted as left-wing, pro-abortion propaganda. But as a pro-choice supporter, I was in no way disappointed in her decision to keep the baby. I never felt that she had to have an abortion and any other decision was wrong. I was glad she got the information she needed, had both options available, and made the choice that was best for her.

There is no such thing as pro-abortion. It is about choice. Though she will not admit it, Sarah Palin made a choice and if it was not for the pro-choice groups, she would not have been able to.

So quick to judge?

I saw a commentary the other day from a Republican strategist. He said that Obama will be a one term president and that the Democrats will lose many seats at the mid-term elections, and possibly even lose control of one or more house.

Say what?

When last I looked, Obama had been in office for about 60 days. That is 2 months of a 48 month term. And the Republicans are already calling his presidency a failure? They already predict major swings in congress?

The president has approval ratings in the 60s. In the last couple weeks there has actually been good news coming from the economic circles. I am curious what makes them think the country has turned on Obama.

I understand that they are the opposing party and therefore it is their place to disagree. I understand that they think the President is spending too much money that we do not have. I understand that they think the way out of this financial crisis is not what the President is doing. That is their right and I would expect any opposing party to do the same. I also think that as long as the debate remains at an philosophical level and does not devolve to petty bickering, then such disagreement is a healthy way reach a compromise on legislation.

But riddle me this.

What exactly would they do differently? It is fair to point out when you think a solution is wrong. But, you need to have a better solution readily available. If you say, "I don't think we should do this", then the next question you will be asked is, "Okay, then what should be do instead?" The problem right now is that the Republicans cannot answer that question. Their answer is to just keep doing what we have been doing. Because that worked out so well.

I am not saying that everything President has done is golden. I also have reservations about some of the things being pushed through Congress, but I am not going to dismiss them as failures before they even get off the ground.

If you ask me, I think it is the Republicans who have to be very careful of their comments and actions at this juncture. We are in a recession. By definition, it will end. When that happens, it will not matter if the President drops trou in the middle of the state of the union, he will have been the President during the economic recovery and will be re-elected. Meanwhile, the Republicans who opposed all of his plans and offered none of their own will be left on the sidelines fighting for their jobs.

To all Republicans. If you have a better solution, then I suggest you get with your peers and get the word out the American people. If all you are going to do is hope the President fails, and criticize his plans, and make unfounded predictions for the future, then you are doing your party a disservice and you are not being part of the solution.

Government Subsidized Layoffs

Looks like GM and Chrysler are back looking for another government hand-out. I had serious reservations the first time around and I am flat against the idea based on what I am seeing this time.

If you ask me, the government should bail out a company only when allowing that company to fail according to the free market laws would result in an abnormal hit to the overall economy or if the reason the company needs a bailout was beyond that company's control. As I stated in a prior blog entry, bailing out the airlines after 9/11 would be an example.

Even in those circumstances I think there should be a significant number of strings attached to discourage companies from taking excessive risks and then running to Uncle Sam for help.

So now GM and Chrysler are back for more corporate welfare. In keeping with Congress's request the last time around, both corporations presented their business plans along with the request. This is where I have a gripe.

All told both plans call for the closing of several plants, layoffs on the order of 80,000 people, cuts to wages for those that survive, and cuts to pensions for those that are retired. I fail to see how this is an incentive for me to give you money. How is this business model any different from what these companies have been doing for decades.

The government should give money in order to save jobs, not to encourage the business to cut them. If we give these companies billions of dollars based on this plan, the government will be giving their stamp of approval on more unemployment.

If you need billions of dollars so you can start laying off people, then I say your company is too far gone anyway and you should just file for bankruptcy protection.

The only way I am on board with either company getting a dime is if they agree to no layoffs until every penny is paid back AND they do not touch any benefits for the retired or those within 10 years of retiring.

Finally!!

After a grueling 2 year campaign and what seemed like an eternity between Election Day and Inauguration Day, Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. I still get choked up when I see other people getting choked up.

It is not that we haven't had Presidents that appealed to the younger generation or Presidents that were outsiders who promised change in the way we do Government. I mean Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and even Ronald Reagan were all met with enthusiasm at that level. But when you throw in the significance of Barack Obama being the first African-American President, it just becomes overwhelming.

I was especially moved by the pictures from overseas where they showed people watching the inauguration and then talking about how great America is. It was like the days immediately after 9/11. The world once again has hope in America.

Of course, nothing in politics is without controversy. The oath could have gone maybe a little smoother. Would it have killed Justice Roberts to just jot it down? I mean, I know he has a Harvard education in Constitutional law and is the Chief Justice of the United States, but I would not have thought any less of him if he had to read the oath from a piece of paper. I do however think just a little less of him for botching such a significant moment in history.

Leave it to Fox News's Chris Wallace to actually imply that Obama is not really President and that this may, "end up in the courts". What? Come on. Even if we concede that the oath was not verbatim as written in the constitution and therefore was not valid, why would it have to go to the courts? Wouldn't giving Obama the oath again, as they did, resolve the issue? Did Chris Wallace think that Obama would refuse take the oath again or something.

While Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are right wing nut jobs, I generally try to believe that the actual news being reported on Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced', but when one of their anchors makes such statements I have to shake my head a little bit.

That aside, Obama is now the President of the United States. I have put a lot of faith in his abilities. He shows a lot of promise. He has a lot of support. No pressure or anything, but he better not let me down.

Not Right

Most of my blog has been dedicated to political opinions. On some level this entry may also be considered political, but at its core this event was just wrong and I find it very disturbing.

I am embedding a video in this post and I will warn you that while it is not graphic, it contains bad language and at 1:26 into the video a man is shot. This man has since died of his injuries. I will provide my account the situation below so I leave it to you to decide if you wish to watch the video.

For starters, here is the video.



What follows next is my account of the situation. If you watched the video and/or do not wish to read my full account, then feel free to skip this section.

The location of this event is a subway platform in the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system. A few BART police officers have detained at least 5 people. The train is stopped and our point of view is from the train. We are watching along with all other travelers. We cannot hear what is being said between the officers and those being detained.

To the left of the screen is a man that is apparently handcuffed and lying on his back. His legs are extended in front of him and he is propping himself up by his elbows. He is visibly separated from the other detainees and, possibly because he is handcuffed, the police pay little attention to him during this video.

There are four other men sitting against the far wall of the platform with police standing in front of them. They are not handcuffed. The first man wears a hat and his hands are held above his head. The second man is the victim of the shooting. As the video starts he is sitting with his hands at his side. The third man is also just sitting with his hands at his side. The fourth man is only visible for parts of the video, but he mostly sits still. From my perspective it seems the police are going working their way from man to man searching and handcuffing each.

I do not claim to know anything about why these men are being detained. That is really irrelevant when weighed against what transpires. I have seen other videos from different angles and it is clear that the police were outnumbered and at one point some bystanders approached the officers. More police showed up and, between the outnumbered police and the crowd screaming from the train, the situation looked very sensitive.

After several moments of discussions, and possibly negotiations, between the officers and the detainees, two of the officers pull one man to the ground. They hold him on the ground for several seconds. The man is face down. One officer holds his back, or legs, and the other has his left knee on the man's neck.

There is movement by the officers and it appears that the officer at his legs is doing a standard search for weapons and such. The officers do not appear to be in distress and none of the other officers come to their aid. There is, in fact, a third officer standing right next to them talking on his radio. He never makes any attempt to assist the other officers so I have to believe there was no belief that they were in danger. Again, keep in mind that it is not possible to hear what is being said between these officers and the man on the ground.

While holding the man on the ground, the officer holding the man's legs stands suddenly and starts to draw his gun. At the same time, the other officer takes his left leg off the man's neck, turns, and puts his other knee on the man's neck. All the while, the man is still lying on the ground. For the instant while the officer at his head is changing position and the officer at his legs is drawing his gun, the man is not being physically restrained. Yet, I do not see him make any attempt to get up or resist the officers.

Just as the officer puts his knee to the mans neck again, the other officer finishes draw his gun, holds it for a second and then shoots the man in the back. The officer that had been holding the detainee's neck jumps up. The officer that was talking on the radio stops talking on the radio and puts his hand on his gun.



And now my opinion on this tragedy.

All I can say is that I saw nothing in this video to justify this man being shot IN THE BACK. Even if the man was resisting, he didn't seem to be resisting very hard. Was shooting this man in the back really the only course of action here?

A BART spokesman said there was more to this than what can be seen in the video. If that is the case, then they better start talking soon because the public is already forming their opinions. The public has staged protests, which devolved into a riot. This should show how sensitive this issue is.

I have heard reports that the officer mistook his gun for his Taser. I will admit that, from the look on the officer's face after he fires his gun, he almost appears shocked at what he just did. That being said, I find it hard to believe that a trained police officer, who took several seconds to grab his weapon, could mistake one for the other. Even after he drew his gun he paused for several seconds before actually firing.

And if he did draw the wrong weapon, I still question whether or not the victim was doing anything that warranted even the Taser.


That is really all I have to say at this point. We will see what the BART Police office does in the next few days.

Bailout debates

So we now have a bailout for the financial industry on the order of $700billion. We also have a bailout for the auto industry in the neighborhood of $15billion. That is wonderful. I will sleep so much better knowing that these executives that ran their companies into the ground will be able to continue earning their money.

It is amazing how Bush and his cronies can speak about capitalism and free market and small government, but when his fellow members of the upper class are in trouble, all that goes by the wayside and suddenly the government needs to step in.

Now I do not have a problem with the government helping out business that are in trouble, but only if the businesses are faltering for reasons beyond their control. As an example, back in 2001, the government provided some relief to the airline and tourism industries. Based on the events of 9/11, these industries suffered great losses. I do not have a problem helping out these businesses given the circumstances.

I did have some reservations regarding the assistance given to the airline industry because they overextended themselves and were already hurting before 9/11. However, since 9/11 really prevented any hope of them getting out of trouble on their own, I accepted the situation.

The downturn in the economy in 2008 is the direct result of lenders giving bad loans. These are people whose business it is to identify acceptable risks and provide money to consumers that they are confident can pay it back. Because these companies rode a wave of greed and gave loans that should never have been given, they found themselves on the losing end of the gamble. There were no circumstances beyond their control forcing them to give bad loans.

I don't care what anyone says about government policies desiring more loans to minorities or games being played with interest rates. The bottom line is these companies make the final decisions regarding who they will give money to. If they give a bad loan, then the fault is theirs and theirs alone. I am not sure making bad decisions is enough justification for government assistance.

So what about the auto industry?

Because the financial industry gave bad loans, the industry collapsed. They were then unable and/or unwilling to give loans to anyone with anything but exceptional credit -- a knee jerk reaction serving only to demonstrate how incapable the executives are at managing their businesses. The problem is that industries such as the auto and housing markets rely on consumers being able to get financing. When loan money was no longer available, these industries began their collapse.

The auto industry has only themselves to blame for continuing to sell gas guzzlers while Toyota and Honda saw the future of hybrids. If that were the only reason they were struggling, then I could not justify it, but I am okay with them getting a little help to see them through.

Through all of this my only real concern is the individual. While all of these industries are getting their bailout money, who is bailing out the consumer? Who is protecting their jobs? The workers at Merrill-Lynch and Goldman-Sachs had no say in the decisions that were made, yet they are the ones in the unemployment line. The assembly line workers at GM cannot control which cars the executives decide to build, but it is they who see their pensions disappear. Where is their bailout?

If I make a bad decision that costs me money, then I am just stuck. Yet and executive at a company can make a bad decision and can run to the government for help. Something is not right about that.

I am fine with bailouts, but I think they should be focused on saving the jobs and pensions of the people that are doing the work. The bailouts should simply be a way to protect the workers while the company goes through bankruptcy.

I will be glad to see what the Obama administration plans to do to help the people that really need it.