Does this mean they will actually focus on the job at hand?

For a long time the Republicans have been saying 'drill, baby, drill' while the Democrats have been cool to the idea. I have agreed with the Democrats that we need to find alternative fuel sources. Aside from the environmental concerns, drilling for oil is not a long-term strategy because there is only so much oil to be had.

A few weeks ago, President Obama announced his new energy plan, which included increasing the amount of off shore drilling. This was to appease the Republicans and, in the interest of compromise and bi-partisanship, I had no issues with it. Let's increase our domestic oil production while we also improve on long term alternatives.

The accident in the gulf has now put both parties in an awkward situation.

The Republicans cannot complain because everyone knows that they have been wanting more off shore drilling for a long time. To make a big fuss over the environmental catastrophe that is about to take place would be the same as admitting they had been short-sighted all this time.

Since President Obama had just recently agreed to allow off shore drilling, the Democrats also lost an opportunity to say, 'I told ya so', to the Republicans. Had Obama's speech been just a few weeks later, you know the Democrats would have been all over it.

So what we have here is a rare case where an event with all the potential to have serious political consequences, is being kept very low key by both sides. Neither side can benefit from making it a big issue. Naturally the pundits will make their accusations, but few in the mainstream will take a chance that an off-hand remark will come back and bite them.

I can only hope that the lack of political advantage for either side means that energy will instead be focused on actually fixing the problem and quickly cleaning up the mess before Lake Pontchartrain looks like Prince William Sound circa March 24, 1989.

If you don't practice, you cannot play.

Yesterday we had an event known as the Bi-partisan Health care Summit. The idea was to get members of Congress together to discuss their differences with regard to health care reform and try to find some common ground. At some level it was also an opportunity for each side to try to appear as though they are not the ones holding things up.

As I listened to people commenting after the fact, I was angered at how clearly you could tell the people that actually paid attention from those that did not and those that may have paid attention, but just don't get it.


One person called into C-SPAN explaining that there is no way that anyone could have watched the summit and reached any conclusion other than that the bill is a waste of time and money. As justification, he complained that he would be forced to buy insurance while for the past 20 years he has just paid for his health care out of pocket. He could not see how short-sighted this argument was.

While it is wonderful that right now he is healthy and wealthy enough to not need health insurance, what bothered me was how he could not see beyond his own current situation. What about those that are not so fortunate and cannot afford health coverage? What about those that can barely afford food? What about when he needs something more than a routine trip to the doctor?

Yes, if you do not care about anyone in this country but yourself, and your situation is currently fine, then there is no need to change anything -- but do not come running for assistance when the tables turn and you need someone to care about you. This is a case of some simply not understanding the full scope of the problem.


Another person called in (on the Republican line) and said that the bill should just be scrapped and they need to start over. This type of comment bugs me because it clearly shows that he does not actually know anything about the issue. He is strictly taking the Republican talking point and spouting it as though it were his own. If you cannot form your own opinion on the matter, then just keep your mouth shut.

On the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly was talking to Michelle Bachmann. She claimed the summit was no more effective than the Beer Summit. She then reverted to the standard Republican talking points -- scrap the bill, it is too large, President talks too much. She is no better than the man that called into C-SPAN. She has no opinion of her own, she just spouts what the party newsletter tells her to.

Bill O'Reilly then made a comment that is at the core of the problem. In referring to the process of watching the summit, he said, "..it's my job to do it so the viewers don't have to." That right there is the problem. Too many people do not get the information themselves and reach their own conclusions. They simply trust others to tell them what to think. And the people they put their trust in are not journalists, but commentators who have a clear biased in one direction or the other.

Now, I see a lot of people complain, "I do not have time to read the bills and watch C-SPAN. I'm too busy." That is fine, but if you are too busy to educate yourself and form your own opinions, then you are also too busy to comment on the situation. DO NOT stand up and spout some talking point that someone else gave you and act as though it is your own. If you do not have your own opinion on the matter, then keep your mouth shut so that those who actually care (on both sides) can get stuff done.


It is very common in sports for there to be a policy that if you do not practice during the week, you cannot play on game day. This make sense. You practice for a reason. To get better at playing the game and to play better as a team. If a player does not practice, it is more likely that they will be out of sync with the rest of the team and will not perform as well.

This can be applied to all of those people who take what Rachel and Bill and Keith and Sean and Glenn feed them and run with it. Watching C-SPAN and reading the bills and being able to separate news from commentary is the practice. This is what you do day in and day out so that you can understand the issues. By practising, you form your own opinions because you have gained experience with the subject matter.

On game day, such as an election or a Tea Party rally or a town hall meeting, you then have everything you need to ask meaningful questions and provide relevant commentary. You deserve to have your voice heard and not drowned out by someone who talks very loud, but cannot offer any real insight because they have not educated themselves beyond the talking point that some pundit game them.

It is no different than buying a term paper. Someone else did all of the work, you presented it as your own, and collected the grade. But at the end of the day you know nothing more about the subject than you did before you started. Just having the grade does not qualify you to talk about the subject. It is the experience, the practice, in working with the subject matter that is the key. If you are going to take a strong position on something, then you have to do your homework.

I am not saying everyone has to go out and educate themselves on all the issues this country faces. But if you don't, then just keep your mouth shut so that those who did can have a meaningful discussion.

Do as I say, not as I do

Today's entry is kind of a collection of thoughts that I needed to share.

If there were one thing that ticked me off about government, oh how I wish there were only one thing, it would be hypocrisy.

It comes from both sides. Both Democrats and Republican's each trying to make themselves look better by saying the other side does something -- but then never sharing that they do the same thing.

Republican's love to spout about how they have such great fiscal responsibility and that Democrats want to spend us into the poor house. But they never mention that since 1978, the federal debt has grown 4.2% under Democratic Presidents, but 36.4% under Republican Presidents. During that same time, federal spending increased 9.9% under Democratic Presidents and 12.1% under Republican Presidents. So it is actually the Democrats that spend less, not the Republicans.

To be fair, it is estimated that Obama's policies will increase the national debt by the largest amount ever, but 1) he is trying dig the country out a huge financial hole by putting the burden on the government rather than Joe the plumber and 2) since Reagan, the only time the debt to GDP ratio has dropped was during Clinton's second term.

I just don't see how Republicans can say they are so fiscally responsible when they always spend more than Democrats.

I saw a comment recently where Cheney was listing out things we've learned about Obama in his first year. One of the things he said was that we learned Obama will not govern from the center. This would seem to indicate that Cheney wants the President to be a moderate. But, is he actually suggesting that he and George W. Bush governed from the center? Does he believe the Tea Party movement, which represents about 10% of the country, is 'the center'?

And speaking of Cheney. I distinctly recall him calling people unamerican for criticizing President Bush's policies during a time of war. Yet he rarely misses an opportunity to do just that with President Obama.

In the past couple weeks there has been much talk about how Rahm Emanuel used the R-word in a meeting. Sarah Palin continues to call for his resignation. Rush Limbaugh then used the word 40 times while speaking about the incident, but in that case Sarah Palin claimed he was using satire so it was okay.

To me you are either against something or you are not. You cannot be against it when it suits you. And how do you explain the recent Family Guy incident? The Family Guy had an episode where Chris was dating a girl with Down Syndrome. There was a crack about her being the daughter of the former governer of Alaska and there was a song that could be considered bad taste. First of all, the Family Guy is known for skewering everyone they can. I have never heard Sarah Palin come to anyone else's aid. In this case, her Facebook page says she was so mad that she had Bristol issue a statement. But wait. Wasn't the Family Guy using Satire? I thought that was okay? I am confused.

And what about her being so mad that she had her daughter issue the statement. What does that say about her mental state if she were President and she gets a call at say 3am? Shouldn't the President be unflappable?

Then there is John McCain. During the campaign a question was asked of what does he despise the most in Washington. His answer, Hippocrisy. Right on John. I hear ya. There is nothing I despise more either. But then why is it that during the campaign he also said he would consider abolishing "don't ask, don't tell" if the senior leaders of the military recommended it, but now that they have actually made the recommendation he not only is not considering it, he feels it is a travesty and must be stopped?

Lest I be accused of piling up on Republicans, I do have a piece of Democratic hippocrisy that I wish share. Partisanship is a major issue in Congress right now. It is actually the only issue because until members of Congress actually start working together, nothing will be done. President Obama had a meeting with Republican's and they put together a jobs bill that included many things the Republican's wanted. When it got to the Senate, Harry Reid immediately scrapped it and went with a Democratic bill. Uh. Harry? If you want bipartisan support for anything, then it is best if you do not stomp on anything that comes from the other party -- especially if it was also put together by the Democratic President.

All that being said, I have just one thing to say. Members of Congress, please shut up. You were hired to do a job. That job is to work together, find middle ground, and move the country forward. How about you just shut your mouths for a little while and actually get something done.

Good day.

How many Democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

After the Massachusetts special election results came in, the airwaves were filled with talk about the impact. None of the talk was encouraging to the Democrats. Losing this one vote was apparently the death knell for health care reform. If some are to be believed it also means that Obama should not get too comfy because it is clearly a sign that he is a one term president.

All of this brings two questions to mind.

1) Why is it that Obama barely gets 1 year to fix what Bush needed 8 years to break?

As it is, the economy is much better than it was last year. Nowhere near where it needs to be, but clearly turning.

We hear all of this talk about how Obama was a Socialist and a Facist. Tea-baggers rallied in Washington to protest his policies. But at the same time people are upset because he has not undone many of Bush's policies. Gitmo is still open. The government seems as closed-off as it always was. Gays still have to keep quiet in the military.

He's too radical, but yet not radical enough.

If you ask my opinion, he has lots of great ideas and would help this country a lot if not for the issue raised in question 2.


2) Why is that Democrats easily control both houses of Congress, but seem unable to get anything done?

Even after losing Ted Kennedy's seat, the Democrats still have a 9 seat majority in the Senate. They have a 78 seat majority in the House. But despite those majorities we still have trouble passing anything. The Republicans are not offering anything other than roadblocks and they are succeeding. If they make substantial gains in November, it will not be because they have anything great to offer, but rather because they were successful at making the Democrats appear ineffective.

This all gives me deja vu to 1993. Bill Clinton had a health care reform bill. He made grand speeches about it. The Democrats controlled congress. The Republicans wanted none of it. They blocked it at every turn. It failed to pass and the Republicans took over both houses of Congress in 1994 largely on the platform that the Democrats were ineffective.

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are condemned to repeat them.

I suggest that every Democrat in Congress wake up. They were elected to bring about change in this country. Rather than pander to a party that has no desire to vote for the bill anyway, pass a bill that you feel needs to be passed.

If you are voted out in November, at least it will be for trying to do what you thought was right and not because you didn't do anything.


How many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb? Apparently at least 60, but I am not sure even that would be enough right now.

Are we fighting the wrong battle?

I was flipping through the channels the other day and I came across a show on PBS that caught my eye. It was a broadcast of a class from Harvard. The name of the class was "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" and it was taught by Professor Michael Sandel. The class was more of an open discussion about some of the issues that are the most divisive in our society right now -- affirmative-action, gay marriage, and religion to name a few.

The discussion involved the professor making some introductory statements and then inviting the class members to stand up and provide their opinion on the matter. To be sure, not everyone was in agreement. The point of the class was to show that you could have meaningful and calm discussions about these topics without them turning into shouting contests. The class attempted to show that each side has a valid position and that we need to work together to find the common ground.

Of all the parts I watched, the one that interested me the most was when they were talking about Gay Marriage. During this discussion, one of the students stood up and questioned why the government was in the business of marrying people anyway. That is an interesting point. As I watched the rest of the show, I kept thinking back to this one statement over and over. Why does the government marry people? What if the government stopped recognizing all marriages?

Before I get into that, let me digress for a moment and review the most common reasons that people say they are opposed to gay marriage.

The biggest argument against is that it diminishes the sanctity of marriage. That is, the good name of marriage itself is tarnished because two people of the same sex are married. This argument disregards all of the other things legal things that people do that fly in the face of marriage -- divorces, Vegas-weddings, adultery.

Another argument is that by legalizing gay marriage, the government will be forcing churches to marry people they would not otherwise marry. To generalize, Catholics think homosexuality is wrong and fear that the government will start forcing them to perform marriages for gay people.

Now, let's get back to the discussion about why the government marries people.

Few will argue that marriage is, at its core, a religious institution. In fact, when people argue about the sanctity of marriage, they often site the Bible as justification for their position. That being the case, if the constitution clearly forbids the government from endorsing a religion, why does the government have to endorse marriages. The government does not have any requirements with regard to baptism or communion or confirmation. Why does the sacrament of marriage require government intervention? Simple answer ... money.

There is no change to tax status when someone is baptised, confirmed, or has their first communion. But when you are married, now you are operating almost like a small business. What was once two sole proprietorships is now a partnership. There are all kinds of financial issues that need to be dealt with. In addition there are legal issues that must be addressed when one of the partners dies, becomes sick, or leaves. The government has a process in place to deal with such mergers at a purely legal level. They are called civil unions.

From the government's point of view, two people in a civil union are now a single enterprise with all of the rights and privileges that a married couple would have. If you take away the religious considerations, everyone that is married is really just engaged in a civil union. And here we arrive at the point of this post. Rather than fighting for the government to recognize gay marriage, why don't we fight to say that the government should not recognize ANY marriage?

Consider this. When you get a marriage license, it simply gives you permission to get married by a qualified individual. That person could be a justice of the peace or a minister or a ship's captain if that floats your boat. In essence the marriage license has formed a civil union between two people and those two people can then go and get married in whatever way they see fit. Why not just call it a civil union license?

That would certainly address the first issue surrounding gay marriage. If the government only performed civil unions, then each religious organization could define marriage however they want. The government would have no say in the matter and it would have no reason to get involved. There would be no cries to protect the sanctity of marriage because each church would decide for themselves whether two people are married. The government is completely removed from the equation.

Some might argue that it is impossible to separate the government recognition of marriage and a church's recognition of marriage. But this separation already exists today and it leads to the second argument people use against gay marriage.

If I was baptist, I could not get married in a Catholic church. The church would not perform the ceremony. Many Rabbi's will not marry two people unless both are Jewish. If anyone has an issue with this, they either change to conform to those requirements or they find another church or synagogue. No one raises this as an issue to the supreme court. And why not? Because it is not the government's business to dictate what a church does. All the government cares about is the marriage license and the legal aspects of the process.

This addresses the second argument against gay marriage. If the government does not force a Catholic church to marry two Baptists or force a Rabbi to marry non-Jews, then why should there be any expectation that the government would force a church to marry two gay people? To me this is a non-issue and something people use to stir up more debate.

There is one other side of this. Some people oppose even allowing civil unions between homosexual couples. To me, this is just pure discrimination. This does not have any religious aspects to it. This is simply someone saying I do not want you to have this because you are different. This has no place in our society at all and should not even be debated.


If we dig down into the core of the gay marriage debate, I think we will find that we are fighting the wrong battle. Let's all just get Civil Unions from the government and then choose for ourselves if, and where, we wish to be married. I know it is a long shot, but I thought it was an interesting angle.