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.

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.

A sad day for equality

In all of the awe that was the election of Barack Obama, let us not overlook that while one group was seeing a major milestone in their long fight for equality, another group was being pushed back. Three states voted to alter their constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. I must shake my head in shame at the thought of this.

Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, discrimination must never be written into any constitution. This country has spent more than 120 years chipping away at discrimination and slowly bringing about the equality that we are so proud of. It is an ongoing struggle to make sure that no one in this country is left behind, yet the vote for Proposition 8 shows us that we still have a long way to go.

I am especially dismayed at the exit polling which showed that 70% of African-Americans that voted in California voted in favor of Proposition 8. Now the African-American turn-out was not large enough for this to be the deciding factor in the decision, but I am very disturbed that a group that has had such a long, hard fight for their own freedom and equality would so easily vote to take such things away from others.

Back in the 1960's, after the Civil Rights Bill was signed, Virginia had laws forbidding interracial marriage. It was actually against the law for a black person to marry a white person. Mainstream society now looks back on this and thinks how crazy it is that there was a time where such laws could exist. But what if such discrimination wasn't stopped? What if such laws continued and spread to other states? Would it have been just a matter of time before Virginia proposed an amendment banning interracial marriage? I am glad we didn't have to find out.

And now here we are in the middle of another battle for equality. This time it is the homosexual community that is wanting equal marriage rights. I have heard arguments that racial equality is different from homosexual equality. As soon as you start to categorize and rank equality, we all lose. Some will argue that gay couples can have civil unions. But does that not just smell an awful lot like 'separate-but-equal'? Are we not risking going down a road that we have already been down?

I am not gay, but my church, Unitarian Universalist, is proud to have gay members. I am proud to be part of a church that has gay members. And, I recognize how dangerous it is to start making laws and amendments that take away rights.

I understand that many people have strong opinions about gay marriage. I am not writing today to try and sway your opinion on that point. My only concern right now is the idea of writing such discrimination into a constitution. When you are faced with such a decision, just try to imagine yourself in 50 years time. Think how far we have come in the last 50 years and think how far we will go in the next 50. Then ask yourself if you want to be remembered as being part of the generation that wrote discrimination into a constitution for the first time ever.

And remember this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it is a noble thing to fight for one's rights, but it is a far nobler thing to fight for someone else's.

Wow

I always knew this was going to be an historic election. I always knew that Obama was the best man to fix the problems that George W. Bush created. I always knew that this country had an opportunity to say to the world, "the last eight years do not represent who we are." I always knew these things, but I never realized how emotionally affected I would be when the results came in.

My wife and I watch the election returns with the same enthusiasm as if we were watching the Super Bowl. There were lows when the first returns came in and McCain was up 8 to 3. There were highs when Pennsylvania was called for Obama. There were moments of uncertainty when Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia became too close to call. For 3 hours we waited for some piece of meaningful news to come in. That came with the news that Ohio was being called for Obama. That was the touchdown that puts you up by 10 points midway through the 4th quarter.

At that moment we celebrated because we knew that the only way for Obama to lose would be for McCain to somehow flip California and several other states. All we needed to do is hold serve and we would win. That last hour was long. The polls in the west closed at 11pm ET. We all knew what the results would be, but until we saw the states colored blue, I was not banking anything.

As it turned out, the final verdict caught me off guard. The polls closed at 11pm and we thought there would be a delay while some votes were tallied. I was surprised when I refreshed the ABC web page and saw California, Oregon, and Washington all blue. It was over. The news then broke on TV that Barack Obama was the President. That was the final whistle. The game was over. For 4 years Heather and I have been following Barack Obama hoping he would run, hoping he would be nominated, and hoping he would win. At least we had relief.

At first, I was struck by the joy of our candidate winning. This was the first time I ever wholeheartedly backed a candidate. To have that candidate win was so exciting. It was only later that the true significance of this candidate being the first African-American President really hit me.

I was moved when I saw the crowds in Chicago and New York. I was choked up when I saw the people in Kenya watching the results. And I teared up when I heard Barack Obama speak about the 106 year old woman who voted. As he described all she had seen and experienced in her years, it really struck me how far we have come. We are not perfect, but just look what has happened in our lifetimes.

The next day, was even more emotional. Nothing struck me more than seeing a clip of Sherry on the View talking about her son and how he would have no limitations. Just typing it gets my emotions moving again. Never again will a black child have to believe that there is anything they cannot do. Never again will a black child, or a child of any race, that grows up without a father be held back because of their family structure. The most powerful man in the world is a black man. The most powerful man in the world was raised without a father present. The most powerful man in the world is an example of what anyone, and I mean ANYONE, in this country can do if you apply yourself and believe in a brighter future.

One thing I want to be clear about. Barack Obama was not elected because he was a black man. Barack Obama was not elected because the country was 'ready for a black president'. Barack Obama was elected because he was the best man for the job. His race, religion, and upbringing are simply characteristics of the man. What makes me the most proud right now is that this country was able to see him as a man and as the better man for this job and not let preconceived notions and prejudices cloud the issue.

In so many ways, our country turned a corner this week. We said we want to fix the economy. We said we want to be the respected world leader that we used to be. We said we want to continue the march towards better days. We said we want to once again be that beckon of hope to the rest of the world. We said we are able to look beyond the superficial and see the heart of the man.

Today, I have pride in my country that I have not felt since the days following 9/11. I see the world rallying around us in a way that I have not seen since the days of 9/11. We often wonder what would have happened if George W. Bush had not squandered the international goodwill that we were graced with after 9/11. We now have an opportunity to get it right.

This is a great day for the United States of America. Be proud of where you live. Be proud of how far we have come. And be hopeful for where we can go. Take some time and soak in this moment.

Take the time now because reality has a way of forcing its way back into all situations.