So Now That I've Voted...

My part in the 114th election cycle (or is it the 20th or the 847th?) is done.  I would like to point out, that once again I did not see my name on the ballot.  I didn't even vote for myself for any of the offices up for election.

Now some conspiracy theorists might suggest that this is a direct result of the biased Anti-Mook media machine making sure that my name didn't get out to the voting public, as well as airing commercials subliminally hypnotizing me into voting against myself.  Some might say it was Islamic Jihadists trying to suppress freedom and the American Way (Which I clearly represent at all turns), or the Koch brothers spending billions in silencing my voice among the masses of their preferred candidates.

I assure you, that none of these scenarios are the case. Since the voting polls are still open, I will take this time to get out my political message, before going silent on the matter until at least Monday, when the next election cycle punditry shall start with all those talking heads on TV.

I chose to not run for any office this year because in 2016, it will be the first time in my life that I will be eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States of America. 

Soon to be renamed the Mookified Compound

Because of the two year time crunch, I would not want to burden my supporters with the fact that I, as their chosen leader, would be forced to spend all the time I am supposed to be representing them out on the campaign trail.  Also, If I were to end up in an office that the term would over run that time frame, I would not want to disappoint them by leaving my elected position to take over the bigger better opportunity.

So, in the off chance that too many of you numbskulls wrote me in as your candidate of choice, let me be clear.  I am regretfully informing you that I am hereby conceding this year's elections.  It was a non hard fought battle, but I have stepped aside from the path of all my many opponents. the more they wreck shit between now and then, the greater my accomplishments as leader of the free world, and eventually the universe (I'll be more specific on my plans for NASA at a later date) will seem.

"But what about getting some government experience before attempting to ascend to the Presidency?" you say. To this I answer: I will not be labeled a political/Washington insider. The only pork I want to be associated with supporting between now and then will be bacon. And bratwursts- lots of both.

The kind of pork Washington DC needs!

With your help in 2 years, I will see us through a new sense of economic prosperity to include greater investments in business as well as higher wages for many.  A complete change in our foreign policy, and total reform of immigration.  The budgets will be balanced, the national debts drawn down, infrastructure improved and other amazing things that will blow your minds.  I'd put it down in writing, but by keeping it in my head, none of these idiots in Washington that are all about them and their parties taking credit for shit can steal it and destroy the perfection of the idea and screw 90% of the population, or more.

So consider today, the day you elect your representatives for this midterm election, the day I officially announce my candidacy for the next President of the United States.  I'll accept your support in the form of PAC money, or just straight cash in hand. Thank you for not voting for me this time around, and good night my fellow Americans.

Be a freedom loving patriot- Vote Mookie in 2016!

American Healthcare Issues

First off, let me say this isn't an argument for why we should leave health care in America the way it is, or pushing for universal coverage. I'm just doing a little nit-picking and general complaining over a few things.

One of the things I intend to bitch about came up on a blog by Renaissance Guy about a guy with an infected tooth who ended up dying. He went to the local emergency room and they gave him a prescription for some pain meds and an antibiotic and told to go get his tooth pulled. He was uninsured.

The big thing I wondered is why they couldn't have had some doctor come on in and just yank the infected tooth out and go from there with the pain meds and prescription.

One commenter, who goes by the moniker Plainly Spoken, said:

I would suspect that is because ER’s are not equipped for dental work and do not have dentists on staff. I would further think this is because there are not significant numbers of people going to ER’s for dental issues. Also, I would suspect that the large majority of dental emergencies occur because so many people ignore dental issues until forced to deal with them (which may well come from a lack of dental insurance and/or ability to afford dental care).

Fair enough opinion, but still I have to disagree that the people who work in the hospital aren't capable of pulling out a friggin tooth. They have local anesthetics, they have scalpels to cut away the gum if necessary, they have clamps to hold things out the way, and I'm sure something resembling a pair of pliers. Add some gauze to the hole when your done and give the guy some pain meds.

To which another commenter going by Spherical Time replied to my solution:

I think doctors are unlikely to attempt surgery that they haven’t trained for, especially with as few preparations as getting a scalpel, clamps, and a pair of pliers (and the gauze and painkiller).

That’s a good way to kill a patient

As to ST's first paragraph I agree. Although one caveat I might add is how many ER doctors got formal training treating gunshot wounds? Sooner or later it has to be figured out. As for removing a tooth, it isn't exactly rocket science. Yes, it is better to be trained in the professional manner, however, its still pulling a tooth. Take an X-ray to see what the tooth looks like altogether, then yank that puppy out of the guy's mouth. I would assume the reluctance of a doctor in an ER to do such a thing would be more insurance/malpractice/lawsuit related than the ability to do minor in house surgery.

As to removing the tooth killing a patient, I disagree. I've had a few teeth forcibly removed without the help of a trained professional, and I never died from it. I felt like I'd rather have died than deal with that kind of pain, since when it comes to my mouth I'm a big wimp, but somehow I survived it okay.

The stories we were given as kids, and some people may have actually experienced, about tying string to a loose tooth and a doorknob, or pulling a bad tooth out with pliers, they aren't just stories. That kind of thing actually happened... in one's own home, by the babysitter, or whomever.

Heck, for decades, if not centuries, both dental and medical care were administered where ever it was needed. They didn't require a big fancy building and a staff of specialists for every possible scenario in order to do the job. If a guy needed a big gash cleaned and stitched, the old saw bones (doctor) would do it right in his own house which sometimes doubled as his office, or at the patients place. If a guy needed a tooth removed, they removed the dag-blamed tooth.

Who needs big fancy buildings, a board of directors, insurance executives and legal departments to fix minor issues before they become major ones that might require all of the above? Hell, I have known quite a few elderly people who made a trip to the hospital for some reason or another and refused to stay, after the doctor made the decision to keep them, because they knew damn good and well that staying in the constantly sterilized environment might actually be more dangerous in the form of getting a bad antibiotic-resistant staph infection or pneumonia, than going home to heal up from whatever ailment they suffered from. They can check in by phone, or visit the clinic to be followed up with or monitored, and only choosing to stay in the hospital if things get really really bad that they actually physically REQUIRE hospitalization.

But then again, thanks to lawyers, if the doctors don't toe the line and something goes wrong, the patients family can sue the pants off of them. Whether it happened in the hospital or because the doctor didn't make them stay. I do argue for tort reform in the medical field. Not a full on "you can't sue the doctors for shit" kind of tort reform, but for putting a little common sense back into the system. If the doctor fucks something up, sure sue him. Get the cost of the medical requirements covered by the doctor, hospital, and/or their insurance companies. Get the lost wages to the family in the event of death or permanent disability. Even get your mental anguish and pain and suffering payments if you want...not $10 million dollars worth of pain and suffering by any means, but some smaller, more reasonable figure would be fine in my eyes.

I know life is precious and priceless, especially if it is yours or a loved one's, but some of these lawsuits that award millions in damages on top of the economic scope are ludicrous. I don't care if the guy is a $5 million dollar a year CEO of some corporation or some barely making handyman. Cover the health care costs for life for screwing him up, a reasonable wage recovery amount (in the event of the little guy, give him his last 20 years of work he would have done if it hadn't been for this medical "mistake"; as for the CEO, he can do with less than 20 years at $5 million per), and some capped compensation for your pain and suffering.

I'm not a big fan of lawyers and their ability to make a ton of money from your lawsuit while you get a pittance when something goes wrong in the medical business. I'm not a big fan of the insurance and hospital execs who get big pay for essentially "running" a corporation already tracking to succeed regardless of him being a member of the board. I'm not a big fan of the big pharmaceutical companies who insist on pushing their drugs onto everyone at a steep price, and working their damnedest to keep the generic versions from being available, or their working with insurance companies to keep erectile dysfunction drugs covered while not covering other types of more relevant lifesaving drugs and forcing the customer to pony up every penny for them.

I mean look, I'm not anti-regulation. I believe there has to be some regulations to protect all parties involved, but often times we over regulate things, and use too broad of a brush with those that exist that actually stymie the process in some instances.

Short History of Warfare and Its Contemporary Failure

I'm looking at what should be a pretty complex issue, however as usual I will most likely ovrsimplify things, for easier writing and easier comprehension of the basic points I'll be making (a tactic that can often be mistaken-sometimes correctly- for me not wanting to melt my brain with hard thinking) today.

"War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war, there is no substitute for victory" --General Douglas MacArthur

The quote seems simple enough, as it should be. Most things in this world are simple, until someone with a more than just an ounce of intelligence starts scrutinizing them and pondering enough scenarios to fill a library, along with those who choose to counter with their own thoughts. The human mind is capable of a lot, which has led to much good, much bad, and much ugly things in our world.

War fits the latter two categories. War is very often the result of disagreements over simple things. One man disparages another man's ego, and suddenly a duel is in place for them to settle their differences, no matter how many people are dragged into their conflict, willingly or otherwise. Rhetoric is ratcheted up on both sides, in the hopes of compelling others of their own righteousness, and possible allies in their "fight against evil."

War and Politics have been intertwined with each other since the invention of both. In the beginning, politics often led to war. Then the armies fought it out, with total victory in mind. While politics played a role int he war, it was often mere infighting as to who got to do what, and who gets credit for this or that. But neither side ever deviated from the main goal, which was to dominate and eliminate the enemy until the point of surrendering. Many times, the same war was fought between the same opponents, multiple times, with just a different name assigned to each particular conflict. While armies decimated each other, it was a back and forth of unsettled politics between the foes, with certain stretches of 'peace' between the events.

One example of this would be the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. American authorities and British authorities had squabbles, first resulting in the war for our Independence. Later, political and economic reasons, led us back into war with the British. Since that point, both countries have gotten along for the most part, keeping a more peaceful temperament with each other. There are of course, thousands of other examples, such as European Empires fighting back and forth over the centuries, but I'm not going to muddy the waters by including each and every one of them.

You look at politics even in the Civil War. Politicians shaped the arguments, engaged the people, next thing you know, America is imploding on itself in all out war. Strategy was largely determined by generals. Occasionally the Commanders-in-Chief would step in if a general wasn't doing his job, which was create victories. Lincoln was forced to re-assign, or outright remove many generals for their failures, ineptitudes, or downright unwillingness to take the fight to the enemy on multiple occasions, but we wont get into specifics on that today.

The last "conventional war' that was ever really fought, at least as far as American involvement goes, was World War 2. Armies were identified with clear distinction, and the name of the game was killing the enemy and taking land, chunk by chunk, until the enemy surrendered. Even within this war, political infighting was apparent within the ranks of any given country's military and government, as well as between nations and their allies. But, as I mentioned earlier, in the end, the goal was clear. Tactics and basic strategy may have changed, depending on the situation on the ground, but the overall strategy was simple: Defeat the enemy everywhere you meet him, and drive him back to his home. He can choose die or to surrender. There are NO other underlying circumstances to be optioned. You send out your soldiers to win the war, so they can come home.

Well, World War 2's ending saw something a bit different than that. After victory was declared, many nations' armies occupied enemy territory even as peace was assumed. Two superpowers emerged in the world. First was America, who had helped greatly the efforts of Europe to get out of the Nazi chokehold, while also battling the Japanese on the other side of the world. Second was Russia, who depsite losing tens of millions of soldiers, had kept Germany from expanding its control over them, and helping the allies make headway into Europe by obliging Hitler's attempt at a two front war. Disagreements were rampant between the allies and the Soviets over who got control of where, and a nearly 45 year standoff ensued known as the Cold War.

Enter Politics not only as the decider of when war would be waged, but where it would be engaged, how it would be fought, and to what extent it would be fought. The world was suddenly divided into two camps. You either supported America and Capitalism, or the Soviets and the Communist form of government and economics. True, some countries essentially tried to stay out of the mess, but the majority of countries around the globe found themselves tied more to one side or the other. Again this is a vast oversimplification. If you want a lot more intricate detail, you can find a wealth of knowledge from a fellow blogger, Scott, over at http://scotterb.wordpress.com.

America soon adopted a foreign policy that was designed around the idea of stopping the spread of communism, whereever in the world it may show its face. Our next major conflict found American forces in Korea. The Korean peninsula divided itself up. You had the communist regime controlling the north supported by the Chinese, while leadership in the south attempted to avoid communism, enlisting the help of America to repel communist forces. It was a drawn out conflict, which technically still exists today. Peace is fragile under a truce, as neither side could force the other side to surrender, and technically the two sides remain at war. While militarily the war could have been won, politics played a major role in deciding just how far American forces would go. For all the sabre-rattling America did as a government in response to the "communist threat", she did not wish to fully engage China or Russia into the war. The threat of nuclear war was always there, as the Soviets had developed their own arsenal in response to America's nuclear capabilities (and history of use at the end of WWII), and neither side wanted to test the resolve of the other. Evnetually the 38th parallel was drawn as the dividing line, and the Korean peninsula remains divided to this day.

Years later, after Vietnam had won its independence from France, America had its own advisors in the south of Vietnam, helping fight and train with their armies, while Ho Chi Minh led a communist movement from the north. Minh' splan was to keep Vietnam unified under a communist banner. America and the south Vietnamese were determined to repel the communists.

While guerilla warfare has always been used in conjunction with conventional war tactics, this was the first war in which America found itself on the opposite end of a well sustained guerilla movement. American forces were harassed daily by guerilla forces consisting not only of regular army units, but iregular units as well. And interesting turning of the tables, considering these tactics were used successfully by the Americans in their own war for independence from Britain. While taking massive casualties through this long drawn out war, the American forces had successfully repelled guerilla attacks as well as win every major military engagement during this time. However, politics was playing a heavy hand in this engagement. American Commander of the Army, General William Westmoreland, asked for and received the troops he asked for to fight this war. Militarily we had the ability to engage the enemy and drive them back to Hanoi. Politically, we were not willing to do so, give the possibility of threat from the Chinese and the Soviets, and what that meant as far as possible large scale war again.

And so today we look at current American war zones, Iraq and Afghanistan. Militarily winnable wars. However, we have also engaged a multitude of other objectives, such as the spreading of democracy, stability of the governments and the regions as a whole, and I'm sure a host of other things, that Scott can go into more detail about.

These days, almost no war is winnable under the whole sense. No country seems to be willing to define just what victory is (Hat tip to Classicliberal2 for pointing that out. Note, this link wil take you to his blog, not the specific comment. He's very smart, and write's well thought out commentary. Despite he and I often disagreeing on most things political, its a good conversation and learning experience)
Victory these days, is so multi-sided that we send off our soldiers to go fight battle after battle, usually with no idea what the actual goal is. I mean sure, from the young soldiers perspective, go find and kill the enemy. But the macro scale of what the war is about, or what defines victory is often shielded from or completely incomprehensible to the common soldier.

And to a certain extent, I think that part of the PTSD we see in soldiers these days is the direct result of constant political shifting of the winds in regards the war (and not necessarily our ability to diagnose it better than in the past). A soldier fights small and large battles, but with no clear direction on where to go. The mission changes every day, victory is either not defined very clearly, or defined at all, bsides some vagueries thrown out by the higher ups. And sometimes I wonder if THEY even know what the overall objective is.

There is a lot of conjecture on both sides (pro- and anti-war) as to why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is winding down, we hope. Afghanistan is heating up again, after what seemed to be a long time stuck in a holding pattern. Some wish we'd pull out immediately, which comes with serious political implications. Others say we ought to throw more soldiers (which the President has decided to do on a smaller scale) at the effort there in Afghanistan (which also has serious political implications).

These days, the idea of a pure war do not exist. They are entirely too intertwined with politics, which are often filled with a whole lot of 'what-ifs" to function as they were intended. Which really makes it a disgrace and a show of dishonor to our troops to send them places to do things to which there is no real end game. We send them off to foreign lands to either babysit, or to inflict, view and experience death on a daily basis, only to someday bring the live ones back, and having accomplished nothing but the shedding of some blood. Also to is the concept of fighting a moral war, that somehow we can change the rules of engagement to make it somehow better. This can only be accomplished in the circles of theoretical, but misguided minds.

As a military history buff, and a former member of the military, I make it my official position that unless we can define our goals and just what victory is, our government has no business sending our troops anywhere. Let them stay here in the states and territories with their families, ready to defend our own citizens, until a clear need to dispatch them away to far off lands actually arises, and then, and only then, with a clear plan in place for the military to do what it does best.
If we adhere to such standards, I think that the relatively few wars we would actually engage in would be far more supported by the people here at home, which in turn would make it a less politically divisive issue to tear each other and our leaders at the time down.

What is America?

Maybe the real question is who, but I'll go with what anyways. I hope to convey my message as it is in my head, despite my lack of truly expressive literary skills. To begin to see how America came about, I think we need to go back, way back, in history.

Many centuries ago Rome was considered the light of the world, shining out over the dark and barbarian lands that surrounded one of the greatest and most powerful empires that ever existed in the history of man. Rome was not a monumentous machine of war, nor was it the embodiment of politics.

Rome was more aptly, an idea. An idea that was strong, yet so fragile.

While maintaining a monarch-like head, Rome was a place where the people who lived there ran their government as they ran their lives. They sent forth people to represent them in the Senate. The Senate was the link between the common people and the Emperor. The job of the Emperor and the Senate was to see to the needs of the Empire, while providing a place suitable to the peoples' wishes, without interfering with their ability to produce value to their society.

It was within this construct that Rome grew in its perceived greatness. Some surrounding areas willingly joined the Roman territories to be a part of its unique "center of the world" status. Others on the other hand chose either to defend themselves from Rome's influence, or to outright attack Rome for what they found offensive about this civilization.

As with any major civilization, greater power led to expansion through military means. The need to control the known world, and press into the unknown seems to be inherent trait of ours throughout history. Power abroad was not only thirsted for by the government as a whole, but by individuals within the government over domestic affairs. Favortism, greed, and corruption of all sorts became the name of the game. Once ruled by statesmen, Rome found itself under control of mere politicians, jockeying for more personal power at every turn. To be sure, there were members of the Senate with a more pure heart, and a desire to provide the leadership for all of Rome and her people. But as time went on, the number of good men dwindled in comparison to that of the politicians. And eventually, after peaking as power of the world, Rome began its descent, eventually crumbling. Rome remained physically, but the idea that is Rome, and what made her truly great could only be heard in faint whispers.

Many centuries later, well after the fall of Rome, the American Colonies rebirthed themselves from British control to become The United States of America, a new and sovereign nation unto itself. Freedom to operate under their own authority, to accept responsibility directly for themselves, instead of from some King 3000 miles away, was the main objective. For all the complications that society, much less a new society, bears, the former colonies now had the opportunity to start fresh. A central government was started for minimist purposes of national defense and foreign policy was created, however most power was conferred to each state to attend to its own need as they saw fit.

Like Rome, and the Greek States before them, The United States placed its representative power with the people. For the people to elect leaders from amongst its own populace, they could all be assured a voice in the process which would make America a great and desirable society. Some of these representatives were mere politicians, seeking to either maintain or expand their power, but in the beginning, Statesmen were the order of the day. Seeing to the construction of a new country, with the Constitution as its base, America held great promise for all who lived there, as well as those who should wish to join the American experiment from lands abroad.

One can argue the politics throughout the decades and centuries of our existence as a country, but one thing I do not think can be argued: America has spent her history becoming less and less free. We still have the opportunities to go from a nobody to a wealthy somebody. We still have the opportunity to travel across this great land of ours without restriction, and put down our roots where we see fit. But something has changed since the days of our forefathers. Lawmakers in Congress have increasingly found themselves justifying their positions. Law after law becomes enacted. Some with pure intention, others with more restrictive malicious intentions. We have enacted laws that are redundant to each other many times over, with selective enforcement. We have enacted laws that merely serve to provide more of the citizens' money to governmental purposes, with no real value to be seen, other than satisfy one group's opinion on how the rest of society should act.

To be sure we have enacted more laws than scenarios requiring them than could even possibly exist, at least in my mind.

Everyone has their own version of their America. For some it is the simple desire to live in their house, earn their own living and to be left alone. For others, it is to see that all Americans are taken care of, be it with healthcare, or for more mundane services we take for granted, like satisfactory water and sewage processing systems, or access to education, housing, food, or whatever one's needs might be.

For me, I blend my personal rights with community needs. I wish to live where I want to, and the choice to determine how I make my money. I believe that the harder I work, the more I should be rewarded. I should not be punished for my productive values. I believe in helping those around me that are in need, by my own volition, not by government mandate. I find local, more personal options to seeing my neighbors do well enough as a good thing. For if my neighbors do well, surely so will I. All that contribute to a better society around them, should share int he rewards such harmony may bring. All those who choose to harm it, shall keep the consequences for themselves. I believe in some regulation, but only enough to keep us from harming each other, and it must be applied equally to all parties.

For being the most free country on Earth, it often seems that in other lands as mentioned by Scott, practice what we call a more socialized government operation (despite having less far reaching regulations over every little thing), that the people there are more free than we are here in America.

I know the world is not black and white, and our ideas of perfection will most likely never be attained, and/or they may change as we grow through experience. I know that in my heart, I am an idealist of sorts, which will aways leave me wanting. But what we live in today, is not the America is was taught to believe in as I grew up.

Beyond Acknowledging Problem to Creating Solutions

Now, I don't claim to have all the answers to the world's problems, as many of them are a lot more complicated than you'll ever get from any one opiner or news source anyways.

It seems to me, that many of society's problems are now tied so closely to politics anymore than ever before. This politician or that politician has THE answer to solving the world's problems. And then people take the finite number of ideas and pick a side, either based on their own values or depending on which political party they choose to follow wholeheartedly.

Now when it comes to politics, I don't follow the strict teachings of any one party. Inevitably members of all parties come up with some of the dumbest ideas on how to deal with things, but I suppose I don't have nearly enough time in my life to get to all that such a conversation might encompass before dying of boredom or a stress induced stroke or heart attack. I probably lean more republican than democrat, or rather I should say conservative as opposed to liberal, in my viewpoints. It's not that I don't get the liberal point of view as to what needs to be fixed, but I often question the liberal viewpoint in how to fix many of the identified problems.

The subject I intend to cover here today is the concepts of race and poverty. while poverty affects people regardless of race, it is often the minority groups that suffer the highest amount of poverty, percentage-wise. Now many people, wen it comes to political viewpoints seem to have pigeonholed themselves and each other into two different camps:

Republicans: Whether by self-design, or accusations, seem to be completely in the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do it yourself" camp. The whole idea of everyman for himself. They spit out the names of many people who had nothing and rose to wealth and power on their own merit, so why shouldn't we let the poor and minorities do the same?

Democrats: By the same parameters, democrats are all about we need to solve this problem by throwing everyone's money at it, haphazardly, and without regard to the will of the people. It also seems that many of those in poverty identify best with the democratic party. Is it because the democrats care about them, are them, or keep shoving money and benefits their way?

Both sides have their merits and their flaws.

My proposal is partially outlined at http://mike4ccr.wordpress.com This is a secondary page for me, as I start to put ideas towards solutions out there. Granted its all raw ideas, but if you would go visit the page, leave me some comments there with your critiques, comments, or other ways to help develop the ideas before I put the plans into reality and action.

Essentially, I see the problems that exist in the form of race relations witht he overall human community, and I see the issues of poverty. Can I solve, or help to solve all the problems involved in these aspects? No, and I wouldn't claim to. But I do feel my ideas would be a good start on creating a starting point for solving some of the more technical aspects. The aspects of humanism involved with points of view are on the heads of each and every individual. All I can do is offer an outlet to solve the technical stuff, and with enough people behind the project, maybe, just maybe, we can sway some opinions as to what works and what doesn't.

The main idea is that we funnel money into the system to address issues of poverty in poor and minority neighborhoods. Unlike the democrat-based ideas, we use privately volunteered money only, and refuse government (taxpayer-funded) monies that seem to cncentrate on bureaucratic funding over solution based funding. Unlike the republican-based ideas, we help provide the support of those who have for those who don't, and involve ourselves in the solutions, instead of handing over some money and forgetting about it.

I propose to use the financial backing mostly from those who have it, along with some efforts fo those who care. And on the receiving end, lesser financial backing will occur, but I expect to see more of a concerted effort to re-build their communities, physically as well as socially. Through educational proposals at all levels, mentorship and activity programs, neighborhood beautification through the efforts of local residents, it is a wide-scope program I propose. With less money going into the administrative side of things, and more going toward fixing the problems directly.

It is no short-term solution by any means. I understand that once the program really starts working, we will still only be at the beginning stages, as on-going efforts will be needed to sustain any progress seen in the beginning. So before I lose my train of thought or any clear direction, please go visit my other page for Creative Community Renewal

A New Day In America

After so many years, so many trials and tribulations we as a country have faced, America again has conquered another historic moment.

I went to bed last night at about 6:30, and was awakened by my alarm clock at 11:00pm to begin my night of work. My wife was just coming in to make sure I got up, so she could go to bed without being interrupted by my alarm clock. She looked me dead in the eye and with a hint of resignation combined with her being tired, said, "We just elected Obama as our next President." So we have now placed a clearly visible minority in the highest executive office in the land.

Both of us had cast our votes for McCain. Well, I did anyways, and assume she did as well, as she was not most vocally not puling for Obama. I admit a slight sense of disappointment when I heard the results, but was not really surprised.

While I do not agree with Senator Obama's politics, it appears an overwhelming majority of Americans did, and voiced their opinion through their vote yesterday. So from here on out, I guess we pray for a good solid leadership from an Obama administration, as well as our legislature. I pray that all the talk of Hope and Change weren't just the normal political rhetoric used to get elected. I'd like to hope that some of his politics were just that, and he becomes a little more moderate than his reputation, in an effort to unite a clearly and definitely divided country (in the political sense). I hope that he makes honest efforts to reach across the aisle, and not use a strong democratic majority across the board to shove all his programs down our throat, without regard to our wants or needs as a country.

So I'll keep a little hope of my own, that he does the job well.

Most of all, I'm just glad that my phone won't be blown up with robocalls, and my mailbox filled with a million political fliers every day (yes I exaggerated- it was only 1/2 million per day). At least not until January, when the batch of politicians vying for the 2010 midterm elections start their campaigning. God help us all. So to the Obama's, their supporters, and those who worked hard to take the campaign from 0 to the Presidency...Congratulations.

The Rrrrreessst of the Story

This is from an article out of National Review Online sent to me by a blogger from a different forum.


Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla's Policy on Rape Kits

A few points to consider when you hear about the town of Wasilla, and its egregious former policy of charging rape victims for rape kits, a topic USA Today examined today.

1. It is indeed a terrible policy to charge a rape victim for the cost of collecting evidence to prosecute. But these charges occur, even in places where the law theoretically bans it. According to a 2008 U.S. News and World Report article, some Illinois rape victims are still being charged for the rape kits.

The state seemed to address this in a 2001 law, but it would seem that as usual, passing a law and getting a bureaucracy to comply are two different things.

2. Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Her critics can legitimately ask why, as mayor, she didn’t overrule her police chief. But they cannot charge that she supported the policy. In fact, there is not yet any evidence that Palin was aware of this policy.

3. The Police Chief of Wasilla who oversaw this policy may have been wrong to argue that the government should not cover the cost of the tests, but note that he did not want the victim to pay; he wanted to charge the perpetrators the cost.

Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

4. An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits. According to available FBI statistics, there were five rapes in Wasilla during the three years that they have online records for. The newspaper does the town a disservice by citing the statewide numbers and saying the state has the highest rate of rapes per person.

5. Starting next year, federal law will ban the practice of refusing "to cover the estimated $800 cost of a forensic rape exam unless the victim files a police report." That is the policy in "many" jurisdictions, according to the AP.

6. Let’s concede the worst, which was that this was an unforgivably stupid policy, and that Palin should have overturned it during her tenure. I’ll let Obama fans explain why that error in judgment is superior to voting "present" when dealing with "a bill permitting the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information."

Apparently I'm a Republican?

So yesterday I get the mail (well tehnically I grabbed it this morning, but it was yesterday's delivery). In it I receive 2 letters from the John McCain campaign. One let's me know that they have enclosed a John McCain bumper sticker just for me.
The other let's me know I have a registered survey enclosed. A resoundingly unenthusiastic "Yay!" from me.

We'll address the bumper sticker issue first. Even if I find myself supporting and voting for McCain, do I really want to slap this bumper sticker on my car. My car isn't anything special (A Buick Regal), yet somehow... You ever notice that the cars with al the bumper stickers are generally pieces of crap? And that maybe the bumper stickers are hiding body damage and/or holding pieces of the car together?... yeah, so do I really want to cheapen my car with a bumper sticker that likely will never be peeled off, and for as long as I own the car, I'll be sporting a McCain '08 sticker? I think I'll go slap it on someone else's car. In a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000 total residents, I'm sure I can find someone who needs a freebie job to hold their car together.

Onto the survey letter. Not only do I get a survey to fill out, but I get a special letter from the chair of the Republican Party's "Victory 2008" Committee, Carly Fiorina (you might remember her as the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard).

She goes on to explainthat my registered survey is one of a select few being mailed by the Republican National Committee in my area. Apparently my input is valued because of my "high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party."

Let's get one thing straight. This blog and a few offhand remarks to people around me (oh, and my future faux Presidential aspirations, I almost forgot about that) is the extent of my political involvement. As for my steadfast commitment to the Republican Party...um, I vote for some Democrats, and as of the midterm elections in 2006, my vote didn't count because I wasn't "on their list of registered voters", despite showing them my voter registration, a million or so forms of identification, and had no status changes since voting in 2004. Oh, did I mention that I am not, and have never been registered as a Republican??? I just love their assumptions. I guess signing up for the Conservative Book Club, the NRA, and Human Events Publishing, that makes me a proxy-Republican?
As she ends her little letter, with the standard solicitation of money toward the campaign coffers, she assures me (because I really need such assurance about these things) that the "dedication of outstanding Republicans like you is certain to help our Party...blah blah blah"
(Again..Republicans like me??? Where DO they get this kind of information??)
Naturaly, since the postage is paid, I'll fill out the survey, since MY opinion is so darn important for them to understand voters in my area (primarily democratic county, as most urban areas are). But the question is, do I send them a little extra note asking them where I can find out how I became a Republican wthout registering? Maybe they stamped a "R" on my butt when I was born, and I just haven't seen it as of yet...

Jesse Jackson and the (squirrel meal?)

OR, AN APOLOGY DECODED...
This is from a political forum I visit with my juvenile myspace habit. Contributed by my friend Smooter in Pittsburgh, PA:


[This is from my brother-in-laws blog, who is a political commentary, very much left leaning, but always hilarious. He and some local friends started a political satire site ’The Carbolic Smoke Ball’ which if you’re from my area and listen to WDVE you should know well. It’s essentially another version of ’The Onion’]


It’s almost too easy. But it’s so funny and so bizarre and so (more) perfect, that I can’t resist.

I thought I’d said everything I wanted to say about it over at the Carbolic Smoke Ball. And yet, the more I read the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s apology, the more it seemed to cry out, if not for a full-fledged TWM deconstruction, at least for a fairly thorough TWM decoding. There’s a lot going on there -- both in the lines and between them -- so I thought it might be fun to take a closer look and see what lies beneath its murky, slimy surface.

For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused,...

But not, you know, for actually saying or thinking it...

...I apologize.

And wish, more than anything, that those bastards had cut off that mic, so no one would have heard what I really think, and so I wouldn’t have to be dealing with the indignities of all this scrutiny, my own son’s repudiation, and yet another profound, poetic reinforcement of the fact that I can be, despite my better instincts, a vindictive and self-obsessed asshole.

My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal.

And I’d like to cut his nuts off.

I cherish this redemptive and historical moment.

But I’d cherish it even more if it were happening to me. Or if more people were listening to me. Or if I could just cut his nuts off.

My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males,...

And not only to cut his nuts off...

but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.

...but to suggest, finally, in as vague and weaselly a sentence as possible, that government should, in some indeterminate way or ways, produce public policy that would correct, or resolve, or perhaps even absolve, the lack of good choices -- by which I mean the abundance of bad choices -- made by some young black males as a first step upon, as opposed to yet another step along, the long and terrible path of their own irresponsibility, which, rather than praising Senator Obama for speaking openly and honestly about, simply makes me want to cut his nuts off.

That was the context of my private conversation...

For which I have not actually apologized, and that, once again, I really, really wish you hadn’t heard. Because it was private. And by "private," I mean, "what I really think but don’t want you to know."

... and it does not reflect any disparagement on my part for the historic event in which we are involved...

Because, you know, in some parts of the black community, saying you want to cut someone’s nuts off is actually a wide, deep, unequivocal, non-disparaging show of respect and support.

...or my pride in Senator Barack Obama,...

Whose nuts I’d like to cut off.

...who is leading it,...

With those big, stupid nuts...

...whom I have supported...

...just a few hours ago I said I wanted to cut off. Because I did. And I still do.

...by crisscrossing this nation in every level of media and audience...

Talking to people who knew how and when to turn off my microphone.

...from the beginning in absolute terms.

Except in private conversations. When I say I want to cut his nuts off. But really don’t mean it.

What's wrong with America? How about what's right?

A Few Thoughts from Glenn Beck

The last few days I haven't read the newspaper. I read it on Sunday and that's when I said, you know what, I'm not going to read the newspaper until I have to go back to work, because I read this story from the Associated Press. Everything seemingly is spinning out of control. Washington, Associated Press: Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Airfares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism. Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance. The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year's presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order and hope. Even so a battered public seems discouraged by the onslaught of dispiriting things.

Let me tell you something, America. That's where I stopped reading because this is nothing but a lie. I know how you feel because it's the way I feel. I know that you say to yourself, how are we ever going to get out of this. Where is that person that is going to lead us out of this? I feel the same way you feel when I fill my tank with gas. I feel like you do every time I watch television and I listen to John McCain or Barack Obama speak. When I hear that they are making a priority of finding biodegradable balloons for the Democratic National Convention, I think to myself, that's your priority? Biodegradable balloons? When I hear that they have just passed a bill in the Senate to bail out 400,000 more people out of bad mortgages, these are people that were too risky for government loans and they're allotting each of these people $750,000. If you're too risky for a government loan, why are you buying a 3/4 of a million dollar home? I feel the same way you do. But maybe I have something that you don't because I rarely have this when I'm away from people. But when I travel around the country and when I hear the voices of the average person in talk radio, when you call in, I know where our strength really is. It's in you.

Now, we're looking for a leader, but since when did America start waiting around for a leader? It shows that the lie of our government in the last 100 years has really taken root deep inside of you. We're pioneers. All the way from the pilgrims to today we're pioneers. We were people that took chances. We were people that took risks. We were people that did the unthinkable and we still are. But every step of the way the government is in there and the media is in there telling you that you're not. Well, you are. You are a pioneer. You are the leader of your family. You are the leader we've been looking for. The media is focusing on what everything -- everything that's wrong with America, and I play a part in that. I think I give you a different spin than the rest of the media. I tell you what's wrong with America and what's really causing it, and it ain't you. So let me tell you some of the things that are right with America because we still lead the world in the principles that matter most, the rules of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from an oppressive government, although that one's slipping by the wayside rapidly.

So let's talk about our economy. For everything that I've said about the economy and how much trouble we are in, I have also said look at the body blows this economy has taken since 9/11, one right after another. Body blow, body blow, body blow. Consider that California has the same GDP as the entire country of France. Illinois has the same GDP as the entire country of Mexico. New York has the entire GDP of Brazil. Florida, the same as South Korea. Texas, the entire GDP of Canada. Michigan, the GDP of Argentina. Missouri, the GDP of Poland. The projected GDP of the U.S. in 2007 is just shy of the next four biggest economies on planet Earth combined: Japan, Germany, China, and Great Britain, combined. That's how big this company of ours is. When you think of it just that way and you think of it as a company whose earnings are bigger than Japan, Germany, China and the U.K. combined, you think to yourself maybe we should get somebody who knows a little something about business to run this country.

We topped the world again in technological economic innovation. World survey found 77% of Americans are very proud of their nationality. We're tied with those from Ireland. Canadians come in second at 60%, British 53%. 43% of, oh, the gods of Sweden are very proud of their nationality and only 20% of Germans. So what's right with America? Well, you know we talk all the time about nut job college professors, liberal indoctrination. But the truth is while all of that's going on, our universities are still ranked among the highest in the world. We attract over half a million foreign students every year. They leave their country to come here to study. We open up the same colleges and universities to over 80,000 foreign professors, scholars, educators. We've always wanted and continue to want the best and the brightest to teach and educate, our best, our brightest. That's a part of what makes America great. It's not us versus them. We seek out talent. We invite talent. We don't care about their nationality. We don't care about their race. We want them here. Unfortunately those in Washington are now forcing us to ship their best and their brightest back home. But even with that happening we still have over 250 Nobel Prize winners. We have more than double the number of Nobel Prize winners than the British who have the second highest number of Nobel Prize winners. Double number two. More Americans have been awarded the Nobel Prize than individuals from the next three runner-up countries combined. We have more students studying at universities and colleges, about 14 million. More than India, Japan and China do combined. Even though their combined populations dwarf ours, it's not only the number, but the reality that anyone can go to the best colleges and universities in America. Anyone can go to college. The doors of the university are not reserved for the select, those with the right family connection. It's not reserved only for the children of the political elite, but your son or daughter, the son or daughters of farmers, the son or daughter of a radio deejay or a baker. They can all go to college, top tier college universities, if they work hard. And education isn't just formal in America.

What's right with America? People are allowed to have the freedom to go and do. Americans invented the cotton gin. It revolutionized the world. Isn't it funny that the government didn't come up with the cotton gin. As we talk about illegal immigration, what was the argument against abolishing slavery? The South couldn't pick the cotton. The South couldn't get it done. Their economy would collapse. We fought the Civil War. The cotton gin replaced the slave. Bifocals were invented by Benjamin Franklin. Meat could be stored all year in a refrigerator after an American inventor, Oliver Evans, drafted the plans for the refrigerator. The sewing machine was American. Safety pin, telephone, incandescent light bulb, cash register, Ferris wheel, crayons, bubble gum, photocopiers, the artificial heart, the automobile, the first flight airplane. Coca-Cola. By invented the Popsicle.

Healthcare, our healthcare, oh, have you seen the stories on healthcare? Let me give you the true story on healthcare. In 1900 the life expectancy in America was 50 years old, life expectancy. You were dead by 50. Today it's more than 75 years. But it's more than just living longer. Our healthcare system, our prescription drugs have allowed us to lead and experience more fuller lives. In too many countries it appears that people who are just too old, just too old, have nothing to do but wait and die. Consider this. The vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, has had four heart attacks, four. He's not only active. He's the vice president. What a commentary on a broken healthcare system. People want to focus on the negative of our healthcare. Say, yeah, but the benefits are only for the rich. Really? Unfortunately the facts don't prove that out.

In 1900 a rich person lived to 60. The poor person died at 45. 15 years separation. Today the life expectancy of an affluent person in America, a rich person, 78 years old. Poor person, somebody who lives in the gutter in America, 74. A four-year difference. Yes, the rich have advanced and they have benefitted, but the poor have advanced and benefitted even more, and that is what makes America great. Right now in the United States we spend roughly $2 trillion on healthcare. We spend more than any other country in the world per capita averaging $4,631 per person. That's more than Switzerland, Germany, Canada and any other country in the world. Heart disease, we haven't conquered it but we're beating it. Death by heart disease, fallen 67% in the last 50 years. The much talked about Canadian system, consider that 400 Canadians in the full throes of heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States, over the border because no hospital can provide lifesaving care that they require there in Canada. In the United Kingdom one in eight patients wait more than a year for hospital treatment. The British government just recently set a new goal, to keep wait times to less than 18 weeks. That, by the way, is four months. In Canada almost a million citizens, a million citizens can waiting for necessary surgery and more than a million Canadians can't find a regular doctor. You think our healthcare is so bad, let me show you the healthcare system up in Canada that everybody wants us to have. In a small town in Norwood, Ontario, they have a drawing every week. Every week they have a drawing. Somebody wins, somebody who lives in Norwood Ontario, somebody wins the right to go see the town's doctor. Congratulations. You are a winner in the Canadian healthcare system.

Hateful, Selfish, and Conservative; Compassionate, Selfless, and Liberal?

Generally speaking, Conservatives are usually well off and are most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals.

-Quoted from earhtpal on a post by helenl (a great read which can be found at--http://helenl.wordpress.com/)

First question would be, what makes this assumption to be true or false?
Are we conservative because we are well off, or are we well off because we are conservative? Do the two even technically correlate with each other? (I'll get to the second portion later)

Let's say conservative are as a rule well off. Were we born well off, and naturally became conservatives, or because we were conservatives we were predestined to become well off for ourselves? Maybe, in order to gain more money, the only thing needed, is to become conservative. then we'll all have money, as a general rule. Instead of being rich, we'll just all be normal everyday conservatives. I have to say, I do not fit this mold. However if I end up CHOOSING to become rich, maybe I should blame it on the fact that I became conservative, and finally practiced what I preached. Yes, ten I too, could grow my own money trees, drink expensive champagne, and wipe myself with $100 bills, just because I can.

Of course, now you have to look at the opposite end of the spectrum: Liberals.
Liberals would, by this statement, be more likely to poorer. So, were they born poor and therefore liberal? Or did they choose to be liberal, and therefore become poor? Is it maybe, that liberals are poor because they CHOOSE to be? Maybe that they purposefuly avoid the high paying end of things. in order to go after the more societally-benevolent and low paying jobs. Of course, then this obviously means George Soros (Billionaire liberal) wouldn't fit the mold either. Maybe he should give all his money away toward actually helping the poor liberals and live like them, rather than creating more money machines, which only serve to enhance his own elitism, that pump messages out to captivate his liberal audiences, who meanwhile still find themselves in need of life's basic necesities, all which Soro's has in abundance, and amazingly enough doesn't share...but he's a philanthropist (which by some definitions just isn't the same)

In both cases, lets look at it as a matter of choice. If conservatives are choosing to become filthy stinking rich, while liberals are choosing to work for less money, then what's the argument? Let's say you got the choice everytime, that literally everyone got to choose whether or not they wanted to be rich, or be poor. (Funny, that sounds like the entire premise of the American Dream)
The liberals would have no right to complain because they took the very road that they knew would lead them to Poorsville. Yet, if they did complain and tried to force the conservatives to give up their money, wouldn't the complaints from Castle Richness be even more validated because they specifically chose to earn their money, knowing full well that all they had to do was pick the right path?

Today in America, everybody, and I mean EVERYbody, has an equal chance at great success in their lives, by whatever means they define it. The question is, do you want to work for it, or do you think everything you need should just be handed to you on a platter, whilst you lay about? And how do we define "need"?

1. Is it clean drinking water, and vitamins and minerals enough to keep you alive, maybe some bread for substance and carb-driven energy?

2. Is it top notch healthcare, plentiful food on your table everyday, and a big house with enough space to live comfortably? Is your food catered, do you go to the store to get it, or do you grow it all yourself? Does the Big house have enough bedrooms so everyone has their own, maybe even guest rooms, or is it just a simple abode with a couple bedrooms, a bath, a kitchen, a gathering place and a dining room, and maybe a yard? Do you really even need a yard? As a matter of fact, do you even really need a house? An Apartment? Maybe just a tent for shelter from rain?

If you answered yes to one....welcome to the work camps of the Nazi war machine. Was that really fulflling the "needs" of humanity?

The objective answer to needs really can't be objective, but rather subjective. For instance, I could take my rifle, shotgun, and a hunting knife, and trek into the wilderness. I could survive indefinitely and healthily. Could You? Or do you need more to live?

Now to the second half Generally Speaking,conservatives are... "most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals."

Conservatives donate to charitymore so than liberals do. By ratio and by sheer numbers of dollars. It was brought up that rich people donate to philathropic causes, poor people just share. Now if a poor person shares what they have, how many people benefit from it? Since it's person to person, I'd say a few to a dozen, rarely ever more than that. If a rich person donates to a charity, how many people benefit from it? I would say anywhere from one to several thousand. The charitable donation is often funneled through an organization that solicits donations from many, to help many. Be it for food, or clothing, or disease research.
But is one greater than the other? I would say no. I might even say the poor person sharing may mean more to the recipients, knowing that their helper didn't have much to give. But is the help received from the "sharing" anymore effective than say Joe Millionaire's $1000 "charitable contribution"? Again I would say no. It all helps the recipient the same. They all receive the same benefit regardless of who it came from, and how well off they were.

Consider also this. The well off pay more in taxes, while the worst of the poor will never pay dime one. In fact the latter would most likely be supported by the taxes paid by the former. Should the poor complain that his lifestyle is being paid for by someone else? I should hope so...I should hope that he has enough pride to let the complaint sink into his very consciousness, that he might work his way out of such a situation. And not that he should sit back and complain that the rich guy still isnt paying enough (despite giving up over 50% of his income to taxes in one form or another, often which never pay for much of anything he'll ever benefit from himself).

Less compassionate? This seems to be more conjecture than fact. For every mean-spirited conservative you can name, I can probably name 2 very compassionate conservatives that would make some of the most compassionate of liberals look like Scrooge. And if I wanted to turn the tables on liberals with the same statement, I'm sure anyone could do the same to me. People are people, political idealists on opposite ends of the same political ideology don't make the personality different. Compassion comes in many forms, just as hatred does. One could say that conservatives are nothing but warmongers, while one could say liberals are nothing but Godhaters. Both statements can be true when applied to select people, but when placed against the whole population, you would find the statements to be vastly false.
After all, for an absolute statement to be true, it must apply every time and without exception. But it only takes one example of falsehood to make the absolute statement false.

So with all that in mind, do incomes and political ideology truly coordinate? And if so, how can one argue with the other when it comes to economics?

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

I just finished reading an article in NewsMax, concerning Al Franken's run for Senate in Minnesota. Apparently, including amongst democrats and according to Representative Betty McCollum, a huge number of constituents have shown very grave concern over an interview Franken did with Playboy 8 years ago, over the internet and porn. While I do not politically agree with Al Franken, and I find some of his humor to be crude, I also find him funny. (mostly as a comedian and satirist, but sometimes politically as well)

"Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does," Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said. "It's unfortunate that she's trying to create divisions in our party rather than working with other DFLers (Minnesota Democrats) to take on the special-interest senator."

I have to agree with Mr. Barr on this issue. Was Jack Kennedy's supposed lovelife brought up as the issue of the day when he ran for office? Was Eisenhower excoriated for his involvement in the persuading then President Truman over the issue of using Atomic weapons against Japan? Was Ronald Reagan vetted over some lines he used in a movie?

The Democrats of the 90s wished to make little issue of Clinton's in-office rendevouz, AS IT HAPPENED! But now they want to make issue of something a COMEDIAN said 8 years ago, for his job and livelihood, when it has nothing to do with his current occupational aspirations?

I just can't wrap my head around this. It's okay to condone a very real act, plaster it all over tv, radio, the INTERNET, where any kid could access all the information on it at any time of day, but apparently it is off limits for a guy to joke about it:

At one point in the Playboy piece titled "Porn-O-Rama!" Franken called the Internet a "terrific learning tool," writing that his 12-year-old son was able to use it for a sixth-grade report on bestiality.

Sure it's crude and lacks a bit in taste depending on your personal preference, but to be akin to ruining your political career for life....I just don't understand these democrats who are suddenly taking issue with it. And to be fair, I don't really get why NewsMax, a conservative corporation, is bothering to publish this useless news. I mean I DO get it, 24/7 opportunities to find anything to help the conservative political cause, but the entire basis is ludicrous from the get go.

When I was a teenager, I listened to hardcore Rap music, pretended to live teh lifestyle I knew nothing about, glorifying it to boot. I guess I'd better not ever try to seek office of any kind...this might all come back to bite me, via concerned current members of public office and all of their VERY concerned constituents who just can't believe it. Oh, and I stole Graham Crackers after not eating my supper on more than one occasion. Label me a homegrown terrorist, and use my deeds to discredit anyone who ever knew me while you're at it.....give me a break.

If that's all they have on Al Franken, as a party I say drop it and move on to the truly important issues.

To read the entire article: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_playboy/2008/05/29/100040.html?s=al&promo_code=635B-1

Lopsided Political Outrage

These days it seems, the political scene is as divisive as ever. When it comes to elections, many people seem to vote one way or the other across the board. To Republicans, all democrats have become super liberal socialists. To Democrats, all republicans are vast right wing warmongers. If you're a democratic representative at any level it is expected by the party that you support the party despite your own ideals, and the same goes for republican lawmakers as well.
Especially the republican party....If you go too far towards the middle you are labeled as a liberal hiding in the Republican party, or a RINO (republican in name only).
On the individual level, and granted this is the bias of an independent conservative, it seems that democratic voters will defend their party to the death. Obama, for example, despite early on his campaign was nothing but positive sounding rhetoric, without substance in any way shape or form, people were ecstatic about having him as the next President of the United States. And yet, despite any positive things Bush has actually managed to accomplish, they would rather dismiss it witha comment about all the things he has done wrong (admittedly, this is many, but not worthy of cancelling out anything good).
Another example of lopsided political outrage has come in the form of corruption and scandals. (Former)Republican Representative Duke Cunningham of California gets caught accepting bribes....HUGE OUTCRY. Large Media coverage, including lots of mention among late night talk show hosts. Same with Tom Delay
Former Democratic Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana faces charges of corruption, after being videotaped accepting 10s of thousands of dollars,a nd subsequently raided by the FBI. HUGE OUTCRY....not about what he did, but that his offices (that of a sitting representative) were raided by federal authorities. Less media coverage.
Take also note of the contrasting statements about DeLay's situation with that of Jefferson, by Nancy Pelosi (democrat representative from California):

After Tom DeLay was indicted on September 28, 2005, Nancy Pelosi had some very harsh words: “The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”

But, if you forward to yesterday, she's got a very different tone about the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, of her own party:
“The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.

I have no problem with what she says about Mr. DeLay (it is rather true), but I disagree with the softening middle section she gives to her own party's member she won't give to Mr. DeLay.

I find it rather odd the similarity between both situations: In the face of idiocy by a republican, it is often the republicans who put more pressure on their party's member than anyone. In the face of idiocy by a democrat, it is still up to the republican party to press for action on the matter.

Now, obviously I take my vantage point from what I see within the mainstream and talk radio medias, and I don't see as many of the activities that occur on a more frequently than we know basis. But it seems to me that to attack a democrat is akin to murder, while attacking a republican is as everyday normal to people as flipping a light switch. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again this is only a somewhat informed opinion that I make. Feel free to correct me.

A Democrat Governor that made me smile

While an independent, most who know me know I lean to the right and am more apt to vote republican than democrat, depending on the candidates in question. Our last gubernatorial election in Iowa, I voted for the republican candidate, but somehow the democrat who ran the voter/elections record keeping office somehow took me off the voter registration between 2004 and 2006. Nothing about me changed except maybe my weight and my income. My address and place of employment were all the same. Now in 2004, I voted for our current President. Maybe this irritated Mr. Mauro, who knows? I showed up with my voter ID card, my driver's license, 3 credit cards, an insurance card, and my state ID for security officers. But, somehow in 2 years I lost my ability to vote. My wife was on their list, but not me. Inevitably my little "consolation voting form" didn't count because they had no record of me. But I got a NEW voter ID card with all the same information. So hopefully in November I'l be able to vote. Luckily I couldn't really contest my vote not counting, since my guy lost by a landslide, rather than say, by my vote alone.
So anyways, we have a tax and spend Democrat governor, Chet Culver. Now, this guy once proposed an increase in our redemption deposits from 5 cents to 10 cents, with only a return of 8 cents. The other 2 cents would be used to provide more funding for the recyclers and some other thing, maybe the environment, I don't remember. Basically he was proposing a new 2 cent tax on sodas, beers, energy drnks, etc. That was shot down, so he proposed our current deposit be expanded to water bottles, milk containers, and other such things. I could get behind that because it would expand our recycling efforts, and I would have more options for collecting money like the bum I am. Now that's all past issues, the deposit law bill dying in legislative limbo.
Today's article is what made me smile. We recently had a bill that expanded the power of public employee unions pass through the legislature. The bill HF 2645, would have allowed public employees to negotiate a wider range of issues including work shifts, leaves of absence and early retirement. With vague language, this could have led to millions of dollars in taxpayer funded unintended consequences. Unreasonable perks and benefits for these employees at a cost to the average joe's wallet through substantial new public expenditures. Governor Culver said he would veto this bill, straying from the party lines, and union alliances normally found in the democratic party.
Also up for debate and passed was an increase in pay for legislative members, including a $12,600 raise for the governor, putting total compensation at over $140,000 annually for him alone. After receiving massive input from the public, he has decided to veto this measure as well stating, "I believe it is wrong to say to the people of Iowa that you have to tighten your belts, but elected officials don't"

And so today, governor Culver, you made me smile. You looked out for the people of this state rather than your party and your lobbyist supporters.

Stephen King's Comments

King was trying to make a point about the importance of reading in one's life when he said:
"I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that."

This has been compared to a statement made by John Kerry back in 2006 in which he said, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

While I can understand people being against the war, either on total principle of an anti-war stance, or our current conflict in Iraq alone, I cannot understand how these two standout personalities can say such things and sleep at night.
It's one thing to insult our government and its way of operating, but to insinuate that the men and women of our country, whose demographic has one of the highest education rates in our country (average 13 1/2 years education), are either stupid, illiterate, or otherwise mentally deficient is an outrage. You find most conservative bloggers jumping all over this issue (present company included), while liberal bloggers and pundits scramble to find a reason as to why these statements are not insulting opinions, but indisputable facts, and that their statements could not possibly be offensive. So, politically speaking this has become a left-right issue. It really shouldn't be an issue of left vs. right.
You have the left who seem to be against anything relating to war or the military. This is evident in Berkley, where the city council moved to push recruiting stations out of the community, likening its offensiveness to that of less than moral establishments like porn shops and gentelmen's clubs. Protests and outright harassment of recruiting staff merely trying to show up to work. Shift to New York, where they literally bombed a recruiting depot. And across the country, barring recruiters from coming into schools to inform students of potential military options, while insisting on passing out birth control to kids as early as age 11, and stating a minor's right to get abortions with or without parental knowledge or consent. The left...the liberals that advocate for being open minded to ALL ideas, yet do their best to suppress anything that goes against the grain of their ideology.

Not only the war is being protested and spoken against en mass, but now we have politicians and novel-writers publicly smearing the likes of those who are brave enough to serve our country in time of peace or war? And by the majority, from people who aren't civic minded enough, nor brave enough to be willing to defend our freedoms themselves. Now Kerry served his country, and despite the rumors surrounding his service, he still served and I applaud that. I applaud King, arguably the greatest novel writer of our time, for his efforts to promote reading and education. But to publicize their political views in connection with this method is outright stupid. It merely shows that being educated doesn't necessarily make you smart, or cause you to possess common sense. It also doesn't provide you with a certain set of principles, that have obviously been instilled in our soldiers.
The likes of King and Kerry, and many others surely take advantage of all that the American Dream offer, as they should. Our soldiers however feel a responsibility to uphold the ability for everyone here to do the same.