Horse Poup

Science Must Destroy Religion by Sam Harris

2011-12-15T21:46:00.000-05:00

Election time is right around the corner. Time for a guest post.

by Sam Harris
Huffington Post
January 2, 2006

Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live. Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.

In response to this situation, most sensible people advocate something called "religious tolerance." While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves — repeatedly and at the highest levels — about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.

The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque — that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.

Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower.

Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities.   In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.

To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

America's great leap forward in public education

2011-12-05T19:54:00.002-05:00

Kidding, of course. Here's a great piece to provide a little perspective on the many areas in which we continue to fail our students, and thus, ourselves:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41284

And here's the list of things successful schools do (not in America, of course) from a book called Surpassing Shanghai, which is featured in that piece:
1. Funding schools equitably, with additional resources for those serving needy students
2. Paying teachers competitively and comparably
3. Investing in high-quality preparation, mentoring and professional development for teachers and leaders, completely at government expense
4. Providing time in the school schedule for collaborative planning and ongoing professional learning to continually improve instruction
5. Organizing a curriculum around problem-solving and critical thinking skill
6. Testing students rarely but carefully -- with measures that require analysis, communication, and defense of ideas

Needless to say, these are all things teachers (and their unions, occasionally) and most folks who have actually studied education have been saying all along. But in America, we don't look to experts for input on how to reform schools. We turn to businessmen and politicians because business can always be trusted to solve all our problems. If only we can get those pesky regulations off their backs and cut their taxes!

By the way, how's that giant for-profit charter school corporation, White Hat, doing in Ohio these days? (you know, that gang who just knew they could make profitable, successful, easy work out of what those dumb, lazy, public school teachers were doing) Oh, wait, perhaps these headlines will remind us:
http://education.ohio.com/2011/04/akrons-white-hat-gets-poor-grades-for-students/
http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/05/02/gop-budget-rewards-white-hat-for-failing-ohios-children/
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/white-hat-employees-told-company-must-boost-enrollment-profits-1.248313
http://www.ohio.com/news/10-charter-schools-sue-white-hat-over-assets-1.182842
(ha, I could do this all night!)
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/12/02/memo-white-hat-charter-school-management-company-hasnt-met-financial-forecasts-for-the-last-five-years/
But hey, we're capitalists. For profit rules! Competition is the answer! Treat everything like a business. Adam Smith was an idiot, right?

Luth
Out

What changed MY mind about unions?

2011-11-09T21:49:00.002-05:00

If you dig back far enough on this stupid blog, you'll find me whining somewhere about unions. I was never given the choice of joining them. I was either automatically enrolled, and dues taken from my pay, or I didn't get the job. Not only that, but as one of those employees who lives comfortably, firmly in the middle of the pack, they never really protected my job, kept me from getting fired, nor got me any kind of raise or bonus. In fact, as a result of a union deal requiring/taking away my ability to negotiate the number of years of service credit I would accept, I ended up costing too much to be hired back into a profession I loved. As far as I was concerned, unions were a lot like leeches - no longer necessary in the practice of medicine, and never all that helpful in the first place... to the average, rule following, performing employee who simply put in the day's work for the day's pay.

In fact, there was a time in my more naive youth when I truly felt that unions, like horses and buggies, were little more than nostalgic reminders of what we'd left behind. I valued OSHA and the worker's rights rules unions helped create. I had deep respect for the sweat shops they'd helped destroy, the child labor and unsafe working conditions they'd done away with, but their time had come. I thought. To this day I can't quite wrap my brain around the notion of a union employee, even a union executive making more than the people they represent (from those peoples' DUES!)

But the more I looked into Ronald Reagan's pro-union past, the more I learned about the current U.S. meat packing industry, in other words, the more I learned about that vast world around me I'd spent most of my life insulated from, the more I started to think differently. In fact, you might even say unions went from "outlived their usefulness" all the way to "necessary evil" in my opinion.

Of course, as my perspective expanded, my thoughts about unions changed even more. Ohio Senate Bill 5 served as my latest wake up call. In examining the ridiculously convoluted wording of the bill, searching the text and my feeble mind for how it could possibly save the state any money, and brainstorming what could possibly motivate anyone to propose such lunacy, it dawned on me that Gov. Kasich is the ideal stand in for billionaire CEOs and Ohio's public employees are the equivalents of labor - or as we're known these days, the 99%.

I continue to be amazed at my own capacity to learn as I get older, lazier, fatter. I also continue to be amazed at how many of my fellow Ohioans in the 99% inexplicably favor and vocally support rules that even further favor the 1%. I find that sometimes it helps to use pictures rather than our native language to explain how I arrive at some of my conclusions.

Take this picture, for instance:

It's a graph showing the disconnect between worker productivity and wages. Note the two used to be pretty good pals up until about 3rd quarter 1990. (if you're really curious, you can check out the EPI Analysis of BLS Labor Cost Indexes, or Issue Brief 297 from March 2011) Here's what the pictures tell us: While worker productivity went up 62.5% from 1989-2010, wages grew... wait for it... 12%.

Here's another way to look at it: corporate profits are up 20.2% above pre-recession figures while workers (from public and private sectors) now make 3% less than they did pre-recession.

How could this happen? Well, my simple mind would like to say that CEOs have abandonded all pretense of sharing the wealth with the employees who make them rich. In fact, the graph kind of shows just that, but I'm an idiot no one should ever believe. Let's use the EPI reports explanation as a starting point:

The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.

OK, that sounds kind of shitty too. So let's turn to the argument so many of my fellow 99%ers make when defending the drivel spewed by Fox news 99%ers: "That's why I went to college"
or "That's why I'm grateful I was raised with a strong work ethic."

These are admirable goals/traits, but they don't indicate an understanding of the most basic math. What the EPI report goes on to say in about a hundred different ways, is that none of that matters. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how many jobs you have, or how much education you have. Our economy is currently designed to favor the 1% of American earners who claimed 56% of the NATION's economic growth from 1998-2007. The bottom 90% of American households shared just 16% of that pie.

That bears repeating. Prior to our current recession, the top 1% of Americans claimed 56% of economic growth while the bottom 90% of Americans claimed 16% of that growth.

As long as we're repeating unbelievable figures, throughout the recession, the top 1% continue to prosper, posting profits 22% higher than pre-recession levels while employees now earn 3% LESS.

We 99%ers have to accept some of the blame for this. Over the past 30 years, we've enjoyed lower priced goods as a result of this economic policy design, but at what cost? In our quest for Wal-Mart prices, we've set the following as our priorities:
-deregulation of industries
-privatization of public services
-the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage
-erosion of the social safety net
-expanding globalization and... wait for it...
-the move toward fewer and weaker unions
(EPI issue brief #297 page 2)
Or, to put it in a phrase: The Republican (and to a lesser degree, The Clinton) Way.

So that's where we stand today. It took 30 years to create this system and the public, private, and corporate debt that has come with it. We enjoyed it during more prosperous times. It sucks when it catches up with us, and the 99% are the ones who suffer.

The thing that many of our fellow 99%ers seem to forget is that this affects all of us, not just the folks on unemployment, not just the folks who march on Wall Street, and not just folks who didn't go to college. 99% is 99%, and unless you earn over a million a year, you're with me. More importantly, the reason this should call for change rather than just inspiring us to work harder or get another degree is that first chart. A 30 year trend of working harder that resulted only in our CEOs getting richer while they paid us less and less. A more shocking reason for a better response is that this gap in income distribution is approaching the levels that preceded the Great Depression. Ever heard of that economics experiment about income distribution on the island? Once it all lands in the hands of the tiny top percentage, everything grinds to a halt.

Those of you who oppose all manner of tax increases need to check the math again. Whenever you join the "anti-Death Tax" argument, you're arguing in favor of a gigantic cut in revenues for the benefit of about .06% of all Americans. And if Ayn Rand is your inspiration, why shouldn't inheritance be taxed? The heir didn't EARN that wealth. Hell, maybe ALL of it should be surrendered to the state! We should also point out that the top marginal rates haven't been lower since the direct aftermath of the Great Depression. Do we really want to wait until it comes to that to even out the tax burden again?

For more optimistic reading, check out Who Rules America at
or 15 Mind Blowing Fact about Wealth and Inequality in America from BusinessInsider.com at

So, to sum it up, if we continue to weaken unions and empower CEOs who have clearly lost the moral imperative to share the wealth their workforces bring them with their workforces, then who will speak up for us? What possible say will we ever have over our conditions. As employees, we won't even have the option of leaving a job 'cuz they'll all pay unlivable wages. Without the collective power of a national workforce, we are absolutely powerless to direct our own fates and conditions. Without unions, having any kind of say means some kind of revolution. Wouldn't it better just to stand up for negotiating power again?

And now for the Jerry Springer moment: Before you go criticizing the World War 2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, OEF and OIF vets (that Rush called parasites), the local bank managers, the college students, the bums, the nurses, firefighters, factory workers, sales professionals and the rest of your friends and neighbors who have joined the OWS gatherings, remember that you're probably one of them - one of the 99%, whether you can do the math or not. And for the life of me, would someone please explain why so many 99%ers continue to deride our cohort, and defend pro 1% policy?

Reminds me a lot of the old bumper sticker: "If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." But that's a little harsh. In the interest of bipartisan peace and harmony, maybe we should update it to "If you're a Republican and you're not in the top 1%, you're stupid."

Hmmm, that doesn't really sound much better. I'll work on it some more.

Luth
Out

The Astute Mr. Limbaugh

2011-11-01T21:51:00.001-04:00

One of my favorite, oft-deployed Rush Limbaugh quotes is, "words have meanings." It's been quite a while, but I believe Mr. Limbaugh used this decree to criticize someone for saying something Rush felt he or she must not have meant. (Rush KNOWS!) This favorite Rush quote of mine makes this image that much more intriguing:

I stumbled across the image via a Cake Music alert on Facebook. A guy by the name of Tom Remington posted it there. The photo shows up (unaccredited) on the Washington's Blog as well, along with several other photos of veterans from various wars joining the 99%.

Words do in fact have meanings, Mr. Limbaugh. Is there some meaning of "parasite" of which I'm not aware that you chose to apply to those who served where you would not?

Luth
Out

Ohio Issue 2 Debate

2011-10-25T22:41:00.000-04:00

I tried to watch the debate of Ohio Issue 2 tonight, but after hearing Sen. Keith Faber argue the pro-2 side for about 10 minutes, I had to quit so I could go read the issue language again. Based on Sen. Faber's replies to former Sen. Dennis Eckart's statements, I was pretty sure I was confused about issue 2. I thought it was about limiting the rights of public employees to collective bargaining on most matters that most folks generally feel workers should have some kind of say in.

According to Sen. Faber, Issue 2 is about cutting spending and lowering taxes. In fact, I half expected the state's web page to include that very language when I looked it up. It's all he kept repeating. Heck, if that's the case, who wouldn't want to keep SB 5?

As it turns out, that's not really what Ohio 2 is about. The state's official web site confirms that Issue 2 does in fact limit public employees' collective bargaining rights to just about anything management doesn't want to discuss. The first line of the official summary says this:

Permits public employers to not bargain on any subject reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit, even if the subject affects wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.

Hmmm. Now where would anyone opposed to Issue 2 get the idea that it restricts or even prohibits in many cases the right of public employees to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their work? Oh, yeah, the language of the fricking bill, that's where.

Now that's weird because in between telling us that Issue 2 was about cutting taxes and lowering spending, Sen. Faber also said repeatedly that the law would NOT limit public employees' rights to bargain.

Now you can understand why I gave up trying to follow it.

Look, even Ronald Reagan, six-time president of the AFL-CIO Screen Actors Guild, and the ONLY U.S. President who was a union member, said, "...the most elemental of human rights - the right to belong to a free trade union." I'm reminding Republicans of this? I never even liked unions who forced dues from my wallet without my say. But the more I look at this blatant attempt to add a "union buster" notch to the old campaign belt with no regard for the stated purpose of the bill (saving the state money), the more I think Kasich, Faber, and their gang are snakes who have no idea what they're doing in Columbus other than making sure they and their friends stay rich at our expense.

The Unites States of America is a union. A union is nothing more than a group of people organized for a common purpose. If Governor Kasich can't negotiate with Ohio's public employee unions, let's repeal both him and his SB 5 and find someone who can. Let's not support his childish efforts to "show them!" Seriously, it's as if SB 5 is his way of taking his ball and going home because he was thrown out by someone's little sister at 1st base.

Note the confusion of the wording and response to the issue. First, the issue is a repeal of an existing law. One would think voting yes on a repeal would do away with the law in question, but Kasich's Secretary of State ensured the ballot language ends up just the opposite of this logical assumption.

The first line in the summary on the state's page is purposely strange as well: Permits public employers to NOT bargain. How to you permit someone to not do something. Why not just say "prohibits?" Well, that's because no one on the side of 2 is willing to come out and say it prohibits collective bargaining, but that's exactly what it does.

It seems like every attempt is being made to deceive Ohioans as to what the issue is actually about. Perhaps that's because supporters know that SB 5 - the law repealed by a NO vote on Issue 2 (that's clear, right?) - is doomed. An overwhelming number of petition signatures to put the issue on the ballot were collected. The handful of supporters reads like the handful of people who have continued to get rich as our recession roller coaster begins it's second dip. It appears to be less than 1% of our population.

Faber also argued that one good reason to support Issue 2 is because taxpayers don't want unelected officials (union bosses) telling public employers what they have to pay their employees. And yet, what the law provides for is a panel of 12 folks, none of whom were elected, to determine benefit and compensation packages for teachers and other public employees. So the law codifies exactly what Faber says taxpayers don't want. That's a strange way to win support.

Reminds me of a slew of Ohio governors who gradually did away with Ohio's former elected state school board and replaced them with governor-appointed "education experts." This began back when the first lawsuit claiming Ohio's public school funding system was unconstitutional was won. (A decision supported by the Ohio Supreme Court but largely ignored by every governor since except Strickland, who inherited Taft's deficits and this recession and was thus powerless to really address the issue).

In addition to the sneaky language, the common sense appeal of the opposition, and the support across the state to repeal the bill, there are plenty of other reasons to hate SB 5. Although Faber flat out stated that passage of 2 would just as likely INCREASE public employee salaries, it's somehow going to save the state money.

The money it's going to save comes from RAISING the salaries of 360,000 public employees?? Of course not. Those salaries will have to be cut in order for the bill to save money, OR the number of employees will have to be cut. Does your police or fire department have a bunch of extra guys sitting around all day? Does your high school have way too many teachers? Do they all drive Ferraris off duty? Even if we do cut these salaries, how much do we expect to save? And wouldn't any savings be offset by the cuts in personal spending these laid off or demoted employees have to implement at home? Well, probably not, since these personal budgets are probably already scaled back to levels Gov. Kasich can't even fathom. There's not a lot to scale back when you can only afford the staples to begin with, and let's face it, police, firefighters, teachers et al aren't exactly going to be cutting out a new yacht this season in order to scale back. Just as a flat tax benefits only the rich, SB 5 hurts MOST Ohioans.

C'mon people. SB 5 was railroaded through to begin with by a bunch of idiots we put in office for no better reason than because we were pissed at their collective ineptitude to begin with. SB 5 slithering through the Ohio Legislature is the result of our voting pissed at the last mid-term. Let's not make this mistake again.

Destroy Issue 2 in November, then send Kasich back to Wall Street, and let's try to elect a Governor who's more concerned with actually leading Ohio than he (or she) is with scoring partisan points and keeping his circle of friends rich at every Ohioan's expense.

Supporters of SB 5 and Issue 2 don't give a damn about saving the state money. They seek only the political victory of breaking up the state's public employee unions. If they are successful, they'll turn all state jobs into dead end positions no one ever wants. You think our roads are bad now? You think your county office provides poor customer service now? Just wait. The only plan this gang has for saving Ohio any money is by selling off all of Ohio's valuable assets: the lottery, the turnpike. So what do we do in the next term when we don't have anything left to sell? And if these things can be run so profitably by private owners, why can't the Governor make them profitable for the state? Is it because we Ohioans don't deserve the profit like Kasich's old colleagues from Lehman Bros?

Support the folks who run in while the rest of us run out. At least let them continue to have a say in their working conditions, salary, and benefits packages. And if you're one of those folks who thinks teachers and other state employees have life soooooo great, then become one, and VOTE NO on Issue 2.

My kingdom for a legitimate Republican candidate

2011-09-13T19:46:00.000-04:00

No seriously. A little competition keeps everybody on their toes, and right now, Obama's got none. I've already bemoaned how far right the center has drifted, at least as portrayed by our "liberal media," but let's face it, if they were liberal, people like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Tim Pawlenty wouldn't even be mentioned in the same story as serious contenders that any real number of Americans might vote for.

The also-rans in this pool pretty much weeded themselves out at last night's debate, but what gets me is how do we continue to let people like Bachmann and Perry remain in this race? They’re fringe candidates at best. They are ULTRA-right. Does anyone actually believe any ULTRA candidate is electable? Why are they being coddled when Ron Paul – who, by the way, has thus far remained the ONLY candidate who has refused to sell his soul to the Party – is all but ignored?

I want to like John Huntsman. He at least appears to have some critical thinking ability, but I can't help but wonder if I only think that because we don't really know him yet, or because he hasn't garnered enough of his party's attention to be forced to accept their ridiculous anti-science, anti-American ideas just yet.

Romney has sold out. I used to like him too but now I'm not sure what he even believes anymore. He works to create a workable healthcare plan in Massachusetts, and then he says it can’t work anywhere else. He used to have a pretty logical approach to abortion, but he traded it for party support. But, hey, before we get too far into the scary parts of my head, let's discuss Perry and Bachmann some more.

I have pretty sound reasons for why I think they shouldn't be considered as even remote possibilities for president. And when I say that, I don't just mean because I don't like them...I don't just mean because they're Republicans. It's really because every time they talk, they cause me to question their critical thinking skills more and more. The crap they spew is just plain wrong. Not just wrong for a country as great as ours, not just "I disagree with it," but technically wrong, unsound, irrational wrong, "these-kids-will-flunk-the-Ohio-Graduation-Test" wrong. We’re not just talking campaign rhetoric here, empty promises, lies that play well on the news. We’re talking fundamental thinking ability. Do we really want to elect someone who lacks the ability to think?

Here are just a couple of examples: During last week’s debate, in response to questions about global warming, Perry said, "the science is not settled on this..." There's no way to spin it, there's no missing context. Perry is just flat out wrong. The science is settled. Human factors contributed to the phenomena. The only people who say otherwise don’t understand science, and the only people who listen to them are folks who have turned off their ability to think in order to hear what they want to hear from a politician on a campaign trail.

Here's what “the science community” as represented by the US National Academy of Sciences has to say about global warming: "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Is there anything about that statement that sounds even remotely unsettled? No. This is what the SCIENTISTS are saying, as a group. The only folks who dispute it are politicians who not only lack a scientific background, but who, apparently, aren’t even familiar with the concept of science, the scientific method, or who understand the most basic premise of seeking evidence and forming sound conclusions.

Perry and company often point out that this science, much like the science of evolution, is only "theory," much like Einstein's THEORY of relativity, on which our entire nuclear weapons and energy programs are based... or Newton's THEORY of gravitational forces, or Copernicus's THEORY that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, later supported by Galileo. Speaking of Galileo, when asked which scientists Perry has been listening to he couldn't name one (like Sarah Palin couldn't name a periodical she actually read), but he noted that Galileo was "outvoted for a spell too" when he first embraced heliocentrism. Again, Perry’s lack of critical thinking skills (or lack of an 8th grade education??), or at least his inability to construct a logical argument based on any historical reality becomes blatantly obvious. Galileo wasn't doubted or questioned by the scientific community at all. It was only a powerful, state-like church who questioned his heliocentric discoveries. Perry, standing in against the science of global warming or evolution is like Pope Urban VIII abandoning his friendship with Galileo and supporting the heresy proceedings against him. So... Perry is wrong on two counts in just one topic!

I know caving in to "the base" makes for good politics, but accepted scientific theory is not subject to political pandering. At least not among folks who can formulate a thought without it being spoon fed to them. On this, Perry is just plain wrong. And he's so wrong, so publicly and repeatedly, it makes me wonder how I'm supposed to trust that he's rational enough to man the nuclear arsenal, deploy our military, or spend the nation’s money. Critical thinking skills don't just suddenly flitter in and out of a person's head. He either has them or he doesn't, and based on his stated beliefs in this matter - a matter not subject to anyone's beliefs - he doesn't. So how is it he's still leading the polls? Is someone incapable of critical thought actually electable in 2012? Has the right allowed their hatred of President Obama to completely blind them to rational thought?

And then there's Michele Bachmann. We don't even need wade into the murky waters of science or faith, unless you count statistics as science. She opened up a whole new line of uncritical thinking in her response to President Obama's address last Thursday. As is generally the case, information she speaks as though it were fact, comes up lacking when compared with the world around her. http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101250021
First she blamed Obama and the Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the loss of over 10 million jobs. The problem with this is that close to 8 million of the 10 million jobs were lost BEFORE RRA was enacted.. meaning before Obama had been in office for 6 months… meaning as a result of W-era policy.

You can cry “how much longer will be blame W” all you want, but the recession began in Dec. 2007 – directly on the heels of eight straight years of spend and spend plus unfunded war W policy. Since that time, the first hint of job growth didn’t come until December of 2009 (per BLS data) right after guess what happened? That’s right, the RRA – an Obama move. Stimulus spending. And it worked, until the just say no congress prevented expanding it.

But hey, this is about Michele Bachmann. Another of her claims is, “In the end, unless we fully repeal Obama Care, a nation that currently enjoys the world's best healthcare may be forced to rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come.” That’s what she said. What the Affordable Healthcare Law actually says is that there is none/ will be no government run care. (Perhaps Ms. Bachmann should read what she wants to repeal). What she calls Obama Care simply requires all Americans to carry health insurance, or pay their share of what health insurance costs the rest of us to cover them when they don’t buy insurance. Kind of like we do with auto insurance. Do you have government run auto insurance? Me neither. And guess what, the insurance in the Affordable Healthcare Act is provided by private companies to pay for medical care provided by private, non-government providers. So, either Ms. Bachmann really doesn’t understand the policy she’s condemning as part of her platform, she’s comfortable misrepresenting it in order to forward her status, or she’s an idiot who thinks we’re all idiots too. She got a couple other significant facts about the Affordable Healthcare Act wrong as well – the legality of selling insurance across state lines…I could go on, but I believe we’ve made our point.

Fact is, I was disappointed in the Affordable Healthcare Law precisely because it does NOT call for government run healthcare. Some of the most effective, affordable healthcare in the country is government run. Just ask our current military who enjoy Tri-Care, or our veterans who qualify for VA care. Both boast the highest customer and employee satisfaction of any major provider, and both have kept costs around 2/3 of what you or I pay for healthcare in the free market. I personally feel the lack of public healthcare in the world’s richest, most innovative nation is kind of embarrassing. I can’t believe more Americans aren’t also embarrassed by that. I digress. Back to Ms. Bachmann…

When she says the “world’s best healthcare,” one can only assume she means the world’s most expensive healthcare, since that’s the only category wherein the U.S. leads the rest of the world. We don’t live longer, we don’t have fewer terminal diseases, accidents – especially medical accidents!, etc. and so on. We’re 24th in life expectancy, behind the notably safe haven, Israel, according the World Health Organization’s latest rankings. Overall, we’re 37th, behind such powerhouses as Malta, Ireland, and Oman… and 33 other countries, most of whom have that dreaded “socialized medicine” stuff… including Norway, which also boasts the most entrepreneurs as a percentage of population. How could this be? Well, entrepreneurs in Norway say it’s because they don’t stay tied to dead-end, unproductive jobs in order to keep from going bankrupt worrying about their healthcare costs. They take chances, start up new businesses. What a concept. So, “best healthcare?” Unless she’s talking strictly about our government programs, she’s just plain wrong. 37th isn’t best. 24th isn’t best. Like her friend, Gov. Perry, wrong on several aspects of just one topic.

One more for good measure before we wrap this up: corporate tax rates. Ms. Bachmann not only blamed Obama for this, but claims (wrongly, duh) that he wants to make it worse. Here’s what she said: “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” Turns out, not so much. Germany, the soundest economy in Europe right now, has higher corporate tax rates than America, as do several other industrialized European countries. Know who doesn’t? Greece. See how low corporate tax rates are working for them? (kidding… I don’t have a problem with lower corporate tax rates as long as corporations actually pay taxes). On that note, here’s what he said (and by “he” I mean President Obama) “I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years- without adding to our deficit.” Hmmm… lower the rate for the first time in 25 years, eh? So that puts us back through 8 years of W (our corporate rates must have been cool then), 8 years of Clinton (can’t believe our rates were cool then according to Ms. Bachmann, and even 9 years back into HW and Pappy Reagan. So Obama is the first president since REAGAN to propose LOWERING the corporate tax rate? And what was it that Ms. Bachmann (and lots of folks on Fox said again?) Oh yeah, it was “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” I’m not even sure what to say about her interpretation of this except to say, she’s wrong. Plain wrong.

So if keeping track of simple facts is a quality you want in your next president, and if you’d like him or her to be able to put together a solid, logical, evidence-based premise or idea, then please join me in pressuring the Republicans to pay a little more attention to John Huntsman… or pull Colin Powell or Jack Kemp out of retirement… or something.
The candidates they’ve tossed out so far make me suspect there’s some Left Wing Conspiracy afoot that has the Democrats secretly choosing Republican candidates to ensure another Obama victory! (which, for the record, wouldn't be all that bad now that he seems to have found his er, um, his drive again)

Luth
Out

Is there such thing as a middle-wing conspiracy theory?

2011-08-03T23:49:00.001-04:00

Remember a while back when Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down for speaking in public and there was a calm, rational discussion about right-wing hate speech possibly being connected to actual violence? And remember how Rush and Glenn and Bill and their buds all told us how ridiculous this was? Perhaps you even remember them explaining how preposterous it was to allow the actions of a few unstable radicals to represent an entire group?

Anyhoo, the list below kind of disagrees. It even kind of suggests maybe some of us wacko lefties may have been on to something when we surmised that the violent talk (even if only metaphorical) that the right had publicly inundated us with since President Obama first proved a viable presidential candidate, might actually coincide with real violence.

Once again, I said "coincide" not directly cause, but again, the growing list of violence on our own soil shows more than a casual correlation with right wing beliefs.

To be clear, this is not the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. It hit me over the head as I read Charles Pierce's recent article about fragmentation - both the kind that ends up as shrapnel and the kind that sends people running to their own little corner of the internet to find those fragments of society who agree with them when no one else will... and when no one else should. Pierce also suggests that we are ALL political, but rather than facing up to the challenges, responsibilities, and privileges that entails, we'd rather just stick our heads in our own ostrich holes and claim we're not political. "Awww Spongebob... I hate politics. Can't we just talk about something else?" But whether you only enjoy the most local level of politics i.e. the gossip at the local barber shop, or you truly enjoy reading crap like this, if you are human, rest assured, you are a political animal. You have no choice.

So, having cleared that up, back to the point, which is that since well before 9/11, there has in fact been a string of domestic terrorism in this country - Pierce notes that a school was bombed in Michigan in 1927 because, according the bomber, "his taxes were too high" - that by the perpetrator's own admission, is strictly right wing in impetus.

I know you think I'm just pulling this out of my rear, as I occasionally enjoy doing in less serious conversations, but look at the list... a list from another article by David Neiwert, a Spokane Washington based journalist and blogger who is clearly a left-wing nut job... because he collected this stuff into one place... which means, regardless of the police reports that verify all as fact, that he can't be trusted because he compiled the collection and dared to suggest it it might lead to a rather clear conclusion... but before we get into that, the list:

-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb during Obama's inauguration.

-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

-- February 2009: A 60-year-old former Republican Party campaign volunteer opens fire on a gathering of Chilean exchange students in an apartment complex in Miramar Beach, Fla., after telling a neighbor he wanted to start a "revolution" against Latino immigrants.

-- April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)

-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war... to protest the current liberal government.

-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse. (note the frequency with which these Sovereign Citizens appear on this list! (they sure as hell ain't a liberal group)

-- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed. (because Obama was coming to take their guns.. their words, not mine)

-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

-- January 2011: A 22-year-old gunman named Jared Lee Loughner with a long grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and a paranoid hatred of the government walks into a public Giffords event and shoots her in the head, then keeps firing, killing six people and wounding 14 more. Gifford miraculously survives.

-- January 2011: A backpack bomb with the potential of killing or injuring dozens of people is found along the route of a Martin Luther King Day “unity march” in downtown Spokane.***prevented from detonating and injuring hundreds by overpaid, inefficient PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

-- January 31, 2011: An Army veteran from California with a previous arrest record for making threats against President Bush is arrested for making terrorist outside a mosque in Michigan inside a car whose trunk was filled with Class C explosives. (be it anti-Bush or anti-Obama, anti-government is a RIGHT wing tenet)

-- March 2011: Five people in the Fairbanks area are arrested on charges of plotting to kidnap or kill state troopers and a Fairbanks judge. All five are self-proclaimed "sovereign citizens," including local militia leader Schaeffer Cox.

-- March 2011: A man from Madera, CA, named Donny Eugene Mower is arrested for the firebombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic and the vandalization of a local Islamic religious center. The crimes were committed in the name of Mower's one-man hate group, the American Nationalist Brotherhood. His 'manifesto' asked: 'Isn't it time that someone hit back?'

The list is straight from Niewert's blog "Crooks and Liars." It even has a groovy, interactive map with little "pins" located where each of these incidents took place. You can click on the pins and they'll take you to more details (and sometimes fun commentary) about the incidents. Here's a link to the map:

So, what does it mean when someone says "Left wing conspiracy theory?" Does it suggest that the left is dreaming up a conspiracy where none exists? Or does it mean that the left is conspiring against the government, the right, someone else? It's one of those labels that's kind of hard to pin down... hard to know what the person saying it really means.

While I'm asking questions, do you remember hearing about any of these stories? Or did they simply get fragmented away as isolated incidents with no possible connecting thread? Let's face it, when it's possibly a Muslim activity, our press is getting very good and keeping it in the news for weeks on end. When a story has to do with an arbitrary concept like a debt ceiling and how Congressional Republicans will spare us from disaster, our press will float it as though the Earth's viability rests on it, but what did our press do with these stories? Seems like they kind of just died quickly and were forgotten as isolated incidents. How is that even possible, unless, of course, the press bends over backwards to appeal to the right... and the Whitehouse bends over backwards to appeal to the right, and this whole myth about a "liberal media" is truly that: myth. WTF? And don't even get me started on Obama's willingness to kiss the Right's ass lately...that's another whole post!

One thing is pretty clear though, the side of the division where the above list began is right. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but there doesn't seem to be a list of leftist inspired violence since 2008 that even comes close to this. And I'm not saying anyone is formally in charge of "the right" and is orchestrating each of these hits. No, I'm not saying that at all. It's clearly a lot more like Al Quaeda... with independent cells, purposely cut off from each other, and from those higher up the chain, to prevent the lower agents from knowing too much about the upper ones. Just like Al Quaeda, occasional videos are released with generic orders and motivational propaganda like a pep rally for the minions. Only instead of occasionally showing up in Al Jazeera's mailbox, we get to see the videos on Fox... or hear them on AM radio, but the motivational speech and the de facto connectivity of these cells is as unmistakable as the network Al Quaeda has built and uses to terrorize infidels.

Pierce goes on to point out in his article that we are a nation of folks who would rather ignore the monster we've created, retreat to our fragmented safe places, and hear the praise of those who think like us, than ask the questions to which we're afraid of the answers, or, worse yet, to face up to what we've built out of these fragments.

I guess I kind of agree with Pierce's analysis but only on an individual level. On a national level, I believe that a middle still exists... that moderates still hold the middle of the bell curve that is our national thinking. In fact, I still believe Obama could represent that middle of the bell better than any of our modern presidents if only we'd all enter the discussion as responsible, rational adults as opposed to used car salesmen and low-balling buyers who represent the looong tail of the bell... the 1% that rightfully should get ignored, but instead have taken over the media forcing the rational moderates among us off to our little fragments.

Those of us who used to reside comfortably on the sides or even smack at the top of that bell curve need to come out from our fragments and demand that the conversation stay somewhere near the middle... where the adults used to converse and compromise. It's great to acknowledge, and occasionally even borrow from some of those wackos on the looong tails of the bell once in a while, but it's time to stop letting them dominate the conversations, the headlines, and stop pretending that everything they say is a valid idea.

If Obama has failed at anything, it's keeping those long tails in check. Granted, he's not solely to blame. The Fox and AM radio crowd have set up the tilted table for this failure since way before anyone even heard of Obama. Truth be told, I kind of admired Obama for his reluctance to stoop the their level, but I am becoming of the opinion that he's allowed way too much leeway for the radical right's agenda to be portrayed as legitimate. As such, he's given away his bargaining power UNLESS he comes at them with equally ridiculous and radical low-ball-like counter-proposals. If he does this, he BECOMES the wacko AM radio and the people on that list up above falsely claim that he is. But if he doesn't, he's assuming that the facts and logic will prevail, and look where that got Jimmy Carter. (How ridiculous was Carter for assuming Americans dealing with an oil embargo might see the logic in alternative energy sources??)

The hate speech and oversimplified ILlogic spewed by AM radio somehow convinced us that our press was biased toward the left... so much so that any connection of the long list of right-inspired domestic terrorism above can't possibly exist... so much so that our press actually started believing it until they bent over backwards to avoid the falsely applied label... so much so that they refused to even hint at a connection among the items on that list... or Oklahoma City... or the 1927 Michigan school bombing. So much so that even as T. Boone Pickens begins to recognize the profitability of alternative energy, that he is magically transformed into a treehugger for pointing out that he does it for the money! So much so that NO ONE mentioned how many times it was simply the routine of Congress to lift the debt ceiling in the past... well, no one but Jon Stewart, until very recently... months into the "debate."

Still don't believe we've swung way too far to the right? Then how else do we explain how every viable Republican candidate who dares venture into the race gets clipped for having a rational, moderate belief until they're all rendered so bland and generic that they drop out or they adapt to the ultra-right, and leave us actually considering people like Michele Bachmann or Sara Palin or Emanuel Cleaver as viable candidates? Seriously... HTF do these people even get mentioned in the same arena as John Kerry or Bob Dole or Clinton or Reagan???

It's time we all forget the fragments and force the conversation back to the middle. Our compass has been thrown WAY TF off, but not by a "liberal media."

This argument HAS to move back to the middle. All of our nation's arguments HAVE to move back to the middle. Congress gets paid to compromise, not stand off. That's what politicians do, and make no mistake, we're ALL politicians. How about this: instead of allowing "re-elect NO ONE" to be the theme of the next elections (after all, it didn't exactly work out last time) let's go with a theme of electing only those candidates who admit that they are in fact politicians. Cuz the surest way to know they're lying is when they speak and claim they're not. Perhaps then we can pull off the blinders, recognize the obvious connections among the listed violence above, and stand together, in the middle, against it. Fear mongers need the kind of fear these events inspire in order to force the conversation away from the middle. Let's leave the fear mongering to Al Quaeda. Then let's get back to work proving that this majestic empire is NOT ready to fall just yet. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen somewhere in the middle.

You can call folks in the middle fence riders. You can spout cliches about how traffic doesn't move in the middle, and you can pretend what we've done in the past 10 years or so has been great for all involved, but if you're honest, you know it hasn't been working. Let's meet somewhere a little closer to where the middle used to be and start fixing it.

Luth
Out

A parent´s sacrifice

2011-06-24T21:34:00.002-04:00

The wife (Mrs. Poup) and I thought it would be a cool experience for our oldest spawn to do the non-school, and therefore, non-language club trip to France and Spain. (school boards can´t take the risk to even nominally endorse a trip that actually provides some kind of education or meaningful experience these days)
We also thought it would be cool for one of us (me) to go along.
So far we were right. It´s been VERY cool.
So cool, in fact, that I feel kind of guilty for being here.
But I won´t let that stop me from dispelling the BS I´ve heard about France - from, I suspect, people who seem to forget we kind of owe them our independence.
See, here´s the thing: I´m no stranger to world travel. I am quick to enjoy myself, but not to be impressed. I´ve been to London, Port au Prince, Rome, Munich, Baghdad, Kuwait City, Doha, Keflavik, Tegucigulpa, ... I´ve even been to Detroit, LA, Salt Lake City and Ann Arbor (and a bunch of other places - I was just dropping the names of the weird ones) ...and so in the course of my travels I´ve had opportunity to hear all kinds of stories about how weird, dirty, inhospitable, anti-American, overly commercial, and other versions of how shitty France, especially Paris, is as a destination.
And guess what I´ve discovered: not so much.
Granted, a lot of the must-see sites, as is the case in most of Europe, are a tad more religious than I would need them to be, but, also like most of Europe, even those sites represent the amazing ability of humans to overcome and leave something better than they found it.
The fact that these historical sites still exist is proof that WE CAN all just get along... even if many of these sites remind us that we didn´t at some point.
Anyhoo...
Thus far, every day of this trip has been better than the last. We started in Paris (after an overnighter on two planes). Martremont, Sacre Couer, Notre Dame, The Louvre, Eiffel Tower, Seine River Cruise, Sorbonne/Latin Quarter... Two days there was not enough to get more than a taste of it, but the taste was absolutely delicious.
Then it was a train ride to Biarritz. For those of you who have never experienced a train ride in Europe... well, I may as well not even bother trying to describe the beauty of efficient public transportation...clean, comfortable, friendly, cheap... I know... I know, Gov. Kasich is right on: why would Ohioans want anything like that?
Biarritz was a refreshing change from the mad bustle of Paris. Quaint, quiet, calm, but every bit as beautiful and awe-inspiring. And like every other stop thus far, it was better than the last AND it reminded me not to listen to any "conventional wisdom." Everything about France was spectacular!
San Sebastian and Bilbao were next. (and speaking of new experiences, each better than the last, I think I´ve found a new favorite place in the world)
With me are bright, creative, resourceful teachers who love their jobs, work their butts off (even during their summer "off" on a non-school trip), and who seem to genuinely like their students; parents who are actually involved in their kid´s lives BEFORE rehab, uplanned pregnancies, etc.; grandparents who seem way too aware of a life outside of small-town, midwestern America to actually be Americans, at least as the news portrays us; a tour guide who seems to enjoy his work, know his stuff, and who has a sense of humor; and a group of 12 mature, respectful, semi-responsible teenagers who will likely one day look back on this trip as a pretty powerful experience.
There have been several moments thus far on this trip wherein I´ve been confronted with just how lucky I am... to be able to send a daughter on this trip... to have met people and seen sites... to have breathed the air, tasted the food, felt the warmth of the sun, shielded my eyes while watching it sink into the ocean or rise over a mountain range... to have been alive right here, right now...to be excited to get home to another great daughter and wonderful wife and mother...
and it all started there in that dirty, worthless, overly commercial, expensive, anti-American Paris.
Don´t ever go there. It´s horrible.
Oh! the sacrifices we parents make.
Luth,
Out.

NOW Congress questions war-like intentions?!

2011-03-29T19:51:00.001-04:00

You've got to be shitting me! Mitch McConnell has suddenly decided that it's Congress's job to stop a President from going to war? WTF was he in 2003 when we invaded a country where the dictator was NOT waging war against his own people, was NOT criticized by the U.N. AND the Arab League, did NOT have WMD (as it seems to have turned out), and clearly did NOT have anything to do with the 9-11 attacks? Where was he to stop an invasion in which we were NOT joined by every neighboring military force?

Is his (and the rest of Congress's, and the entire Fox News audience's) memory really that short? I guess we can forgive him for forgetting our nearly solo, non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq. After all, the strategy was so well planned that it was over and done almost immediately.

What's that? Oh, this just in: we're still mired in that useless OIF mess!

So really, before we go casting those stones, let's glance outside our shattered glass houses for a minute and just admit that the only reason to criticize the current president for going along with the rest of the world and preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent Libyans at the hands of their completely f'd up dictator is because nothing President Obama does will ever be good enough for his opponents. EVEN if what he does is kind of the right way of what his predecessor got so wrong just 9 years ago!

Please.

Luth
Out

Apples, oranges, and more myths about teaching

2011-03-19T13:07:00.003-04:00

You hear a lot of talk these days about how teachers only "work" for 9 months a year. Technically, even that's a stretch according to the logic of the comment. They really only "work" for about 180 days. (well, most contracts cover something like 192 days, give or take but still...) In many circles, that's really only 6 months! So the teacher in my previous example, (the one with 27 years experience and a PhD) could make $89,000 for just 6 months worth of "work." Holy shit. How are so many people laying off a job like that? Could it be there's more to it? Is it possible our definition of "work" when applied like this is a little twisted?

The problem with this logic is that it only makes sense when you define the word "work" as "performance delivery." Let's look at how this definition might apply to other professions to gain a better understanding of what that means.

Wal-Mart is a retail giant. Their actual "work" consists solely of selling stuff to customers. So by the definition that says teachers only "work" for 6 months a year, Wal-Mart employees only "work" when customers pass through the checkout line. Stocking shelves isn't work. Unloading trucks isn't work. Cleaning floors or bringing carts in from the parking lot isn't work. Hiring, paying, scheduling employees isn't work. Hell, by this definition, Wal-Mart management and administrative folks never work a day in their lives! The only folks who actually work for Wal-Mart are the cashiers. And they only work when accepting money from customers during the actual exchange of that money for a Wal-Mart good or service. Bagging purchases isn't work. Answering questions isn't work. Counting out a drawer at the end of a shift isn't work.

How about actors or entertainers? The average musician is lucky to make one hit song in his lifetime. That song is usually around three minutes long. So by our definition of work, the average musician only works about three minutes in a lifetime. The missed takes in the studio while recording this song aren't work. Subsequent play of the song on a radio, in a commercial, etc. aren't work. The time spent learning to play an instrument, writing a thousand shitty songs that eventually become the hit, rehearsing, auditioning, putting bands together, touring, breaking bands up...not work.

Actors appear in a play or on a movie screen for about 90 minutes. So they only work for the 90 minutes that it takes an audience to see the movie or play. Producers, directors, set-builders, stunt men... none of those people ever actually work by our current definition of working. Just the actors who actually deliver a performance - and then, only during the actual performance. The fact that it can take up to a year to film a movie doesn't factor into our definition of work. The only actual work we're counting now is the time during which the performance is actually delivered.

How about manufacturing employees? Their job is to put things together. So stocking their supply bins isn't work. Cleaning their areas and keeping them free of hazards isn't work. Gathering, inspecting, maintaining tools? Not work. Attending production meetings isn't work. They only work when actually putting a part on whatever they're building. Picking up the part isn't work. Inspecting it isn't work. Tossing a bad part aside isn't work. Work, by our definition, only happens when the employee is in the act of putting that part on whatever he's building. Clearly, by this definition of work, people like production schedulers, HR specialists, or, say, quality assurance engineers don't ever actually work. Truck drivers who deliver the parts don't work (at least not in this scenario), the people who process payroll for manufacturing plants don't actually work. The folks who built the building don't work. Not by our new definition that says work is only performance delivery.

How about boxers? They only work something like 7.5 to 25 minutes - or three to ten 2.5-minute rounds, maybe ten times a year. We've all heard people say, "I'd get in the ring with Mike Tyson for $10 million!" And according to our new definition of work, we should all be able to do that. Training isn't work. Developing one's talents isn't work. Starting in Golden Gloves at the age of 10 and living in the gym for ten years isn't work. A decade as an amateur getting the shit beat out of you isn't work. Going from normal training regimens to intense 12 hours/day, 7 days/week workouts for 8 weeks before the fight isn't work. Work, by our definition, only consists of the time spent in the ring during the actual fight.

I like that comparison because like a boxer, when the bell rings, teachers are ON. There are no timeouts between the bells. Teacher's "rounds" usually last around 45 minutes. They get a little longer than boxers between rounds. (During which, technically, they are not working.) These breaks between rounds are usually something like 3 to 5 minutes, during which they get to do fun things like break up fights, answer homework questions, call parents, meet with their boss, set up for the next class, monitor a hallway or playground, and occasionally even go to the bathroom.

Those "6-hour" days that teachers "work" are pretty intense. There's no leisurely stroll from the coffee machine to the bathroom or the water cooler. There's no asking if a colleague saw that episode of Idol last night - those are all saved for the 20-minute lunch period, which, by the way, does not count as work either! There's no room to nurse a hangover, or check your portfolio, call the bank, drop off a library book... or pretty much anything else, as is generally the case in most non-teaching jobs. You can't fake it. You can't call it in. Kids will eat you alive... but only for the 180 days you're actually "working" so it's no big deal. Hell, it's a part-time job.

Of course, grading papers isn't work. Meeting with parents for conferences isn't work. Helping students with homework outside of class time isn't work. Neither are getting a degree before being qualified to apply for a license, continuing with one's education (at one's own expense) over the entire course of the career in order to be able to keep a license, or writing lesson plans, serving on committees, planning and overseeing graduation ceremonies, field trips, pep-rallies, interventions, drug programs, teen pregnancy programs, or just listening to a student whose parents are never home or never sober or never not yelling at them. These things aren't work and teachers don't get paid to do them. They only get paid for their 9-months of "work."

And then there's the whole concept of working for an "entire year." The apples and the oranges. Let's take a closer look at that as well. The typical American work week is 40 hours over 52 weeks, adding up to 2080 hours a year. No one in America regularly works every single one of those weeks. It is common practice for manufacturing to shut down between Christmas and New Years. Now we're down to 2040 hours. Many manufacterers repeat this for inventory (not work, by the way) again in the summer. 2000 hours. Most full-time employees take at least a week off (and if they're full-time, most are paid for it) each year. 1960 hours. But let's be generous and say the average American "works" 2000 hours a year. That's 250 days. Hmmm. Nine months is 270 days. The average American employee works LESS than 250 days. Sounds like MOST Americans only "work" 9 months a year!! (Of course, by our definition, they're not really "working" all that time... they're just getting paid.) So when you "adjust" teacher pay to reflect what it would be IF teachers worked for an entire year, do you also adjust the pay of people with "real jobs" AS IF they worked for an "entire year?"

And we haven't even begun to cover the actual hours worked during the school year for most teachers. I'll bet it's closer to that 2080 figure than most people with similar education and experience work in their "whole year" jobs.

C'mon man...Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can oversimplify tougher arguments this! Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.

Luth
Out

Teacher pay and "tenure" myths

2011-03-03T23:47:00.004-05:00

Strangely, I've been in two conversations in the past month wherein a conversant has invoked the outrageous pay for teachers in a particular area school district.

I'm going to make up names to protect the innocent here, but I can't help but be amused at the way some people arrive at what they believe to be facts, especially when it involves something so easy to track down like the public salary of a public employee in a public institution.

So anyway, in the first conversation my counterpart noted as fact that teachers in this school district can achieve "six-figure retirement packages." She added that she's seen the contract that guarantees this.

Given that the general formula for calculating teacher retirement in the state of Ohio is something along the lines of 80% of your highest three years, this means teachers in this particular district must average $125,000 a year for three years in order to make $100,000 a year (six figures) in retirement. So, in the course of those high three years, they'll actually make more than $125,00 in order to achieve that as their average.

A quick check of the particular school's website gives us the following myth-busting information:
The top pay on this year's scale (presumably the highest) is $89,354.00.
I know, I know... seems like a lot for a teacher, right? Does it seem like a lot for someone with 27 years of experience in their field and a PhD? 'Cuz that's the only way you'll hit this rare territory. I'm willing to bet there are few outside of teaching with those qualifications who make that little... and even fewer who are entrusted with the responsibilities of a teacher.

But the bigger point is, 80% of 89,000 will never be six figures.

This doesn't mean no teacher in that district could ever retire with a six figure pension. All he or she would have to do is pick up a mere $36,000 in supplemental contracts, like coaching, class advisor, band director, department head, etc. Given that the average supplemental contract runs somewhere in the $1,500 neighborhood (according to the district's April 2010 board minutes) this teacher would merely have to coach 24 different sports each year... for three straight years, after teaching for 27 years and earning a PhD. That sounds do-able.

I'm calling this one busted.

While the other conversation referenced this same district, it was in relation to "tenure." Another popular myth when it comes to teaching these days. If by "tenure" what you refer to is a "continuing contract," then yes, tenure still exists in the teaching profession - as it does in just about every profession. But here's where the misconception begins. New teachers are typically offered one-year contracts. Like all contracts, upon termination, there is no expectation of renewal. Do your job, and you will likely get renewed, but there's no obligation either way. You don't have to stay. They don't have to keep you. Various districts then have procedures to move returning folks into two- or three-year contracts, typically for the first five to ten years of their career. Once you reach that stage, you are then eligible to be offered, or to ask for a "continuing contract."

This, apparently, is what folks think of when they say "tenure." What most folks outside the profession don't realize is that this is where MOST employees OUTSIDE of teaching start. You may have to survive a probationary period of between 30 days and a year, but once that's over, you become a "permanent" employee... just like teachers on a continuing contract. This doesn't mean you can't be fired. It just means your employer must show cause to fire you. As long as you perform according to your job standards, it's pretty tough to show cause for termination. Again, this is no different for most employees than it is for "tenured" teachers on a continuing contract. The only difference is that few employees outside of teaching need to prove themselves for three-five years AFTER getting a degree AND a license to achieve this "tenure."

So yeah, teachers in this district could retire with six-figure pensions, but it's pretty unlikely. And yeah, teachers can still achieve "tenure," but I don't think what you think is what I think we were really thinking. What?

Luth
Out

Save Money by eliminating collective bargaining?

2011-03-03T21:02:00.006-05:00

I'm about the most anti-union liberal you'll find, but Governors Walker, Kasich, and Christie must be on crack if they think anyone other than complete idiots believes collective bargaining by public employees is the cause of today's state budget struggles.

I can't blame them for trying. To quote one of my favorite movies:

"They got this depression on. I gots to do for me and mine."

And as another character in that movie says,

"Hard times will flush the chumps. Everybody's looking fer answers."

Here's an answer: It's a recession (and it has nothing to do with collective bargaining rights)

I don't want to get into the arguments about whether or not raising taxes increases or decreases revenue, (although Walker's office's own figures make pretty clear that he's offered Wisconsin corporations, whose taxes are already ridiculously reduced, more in tax cuts - over two years - than their one year gap needs) but I will get into some of the myths you have to buy in order to think Walker... or Kasich (who's been a lot quieter with his union-busting plans since the protests in Wisconsin grew so loud)... or Christie are on track with this wacky idea.

Myth 1: Public employees make more than private employees
I know, I know, two charts in a million-page BLS report showed this was true, but those two charts don't prove much other than the old saying, "figures lie, and liars figure." If you look beyond those two charts made famous in USAToday, at some of the rest of those million pages in the BLS report, you'll note that simple adjustments for little things like education, or the size of the employer, tell us what common sense tells us: public employees still make between 5 and 15% LESS than private employees.

Here are some examples from a Rutgers study that dug a little beyond the two BLS charts:

Average National Salaries by Education
Public ..... Private
$44,000 ..... 44,000 ... high school diploma
$56,641 ..... 89,041 ... bachelors degree
$79,330 ..... 157,141 ... professional degree (lawyers, doctors)
(note how teacher and professor salaries tend to hold the high end of this down! NICE! What do they do to create jobs?)

Yep, those public employees are ROBBING us with their out of control salaries.

OK, you say, but what about retirement benefits? Well, if we're talking about states like Wisconsin, the benefits currently being paid to retirees of the state of Wisconsin are being funded out of the salaries of current Wisconsin employees, as is the case in most retirement systems, including Social Security.

In fact, another study by University of Wisconsin Econ professors showed after adjusting for education and employer size, public sector employees make 11% less than their private sector counterparts.

The Economic Policy Institute says it's more like 4.8% (8.2 until you factor in benefits)... but it's still LESS. Public employees make LESS than their private sector counterparts. No one's saying they're underpaid or overpaid, just that they make less. LESS. L-E-S-S.

What these big business, dare I say Koch-addled? governors are telling us simply isn't true.

Myth 2: Unions won't discuss cuts in desperate times
Bullshit. Like the auto industry showed us, management gave away the store rather than bothering to negotiate with unions during the good times. This same shortsightedness leaves them searching for someone to blame during the tough times. How much discussion has Governor Walker had with the unions that represents Wisconsin public employees? Collective bargaining simply means that management and labor DISCUSS these cuts, not that cuts can't be made. In fact, government intervention that prohibits such discussion sounds like just the opposite of what Republicans came to Washington to do. It sounds like bigger government forcing itself into matters where it doesn't belong.

Myth 3: Eliminating collective bargaining is the ONLY way for Wisconsin to balance their budget
Well, let's check in with free-market, high rolling, big business Texas, who did away with their public employees' collective bargaining rights years ago. Oh wait, maybe we shouldn't, since their deficit is bigger than Wisconsin's!! Hmmm, must have been something else wrong there. OK, how about we look at Federal Air Traffic Controller salaries. Seems like I remember some little incident wherein they gave up their rights to bargain. Oh, that's right, FEDERAL employees are even MORE overpaid than state and local employees. Sounds like doing away with the bargaining rights might just have the opposite effect Governor Walker is looking for in their case. So we'll skip them too.
OK, let's look at some of the numbers in Wisconsin. They're facing a one year shortfall of about $140 million. Governor Walker would have us believe that doing away with collective bargaining rights so he can cut the salaries of public employees is the only way to fix the problem. In essence, he wants to TAX - that's right, I said TAX 175,000 Wisconsin residents (public employees). How else would you describe taking money from their paychecks to run the government? But I thought he wasn't going to raise taxes?!

Before you look up what percentage that is of Wisconsin's total population, let's point out that the governor's own figures claim they'll cut $165 million just by restructuring debt. The governor won't discuss the fact that a 1.5% tax increase on just the wealthiest 2% of Wisconsin residents and corporations - a far smaller chunk of the population - would more than cover their woes even during this recession... even if these hikes were temporary, because he won't discuss raising taxes. Not even 1.5% on the wealthiest 2%. (but wait...he'll raise them by a far higher percent on 175,000 public employees??) Never mind the fact that corporate tax revenue to the state has been cut in half since 1981. Never mind the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue reports 2/3 of Wisconsin corporations pay NO taxes. NONE. NADA. ZIP. In what kind of world is it right for corporations to have more rights than actual citizens? Is this what he won't discuss with public employee unions? Is it because these corporations don't use the public roads, utilities, police and fire protection, or other services the state provides? (seriously?) NO. (you weren't actually thinking about that were you?) It's because these corporations funded the governor's campaign.
All right, all right. I got off the rails a little there. The point is, it sure seems like there's a lot more wiggle room in this budget than the governor is letting on.

Myth 4: Public employee salaries are insulated from and therefore do not reflect what the market would support
Have you been following this story at all? OK, even if we use the most conservative figures, public employees make about 95% of what their private sector counterparts make, less when compared equally by education, less still when comparing by size of employer, but let's go with 95%. So this means that they make about 95% less than what the free market supports in the outside world. In other words, the marketplace has determined these salaries are about where they should be. So... why then are these free-market governors trying to intervene with what the free and open market has established. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what they came to Washington to do? Oh wait, that's right. They only manipulate the free and open market for the banking industry and the hedge fund managers who made $1.5 million PER HOUR last year! We certainly can't discuss raising their taxes even temporarily to close the recession induced gaps. After all, we can squeeze a little more out of teacher and garbage collector pay before we have to burden those guys!

So... tell me one more time how doing away with collective bargaining rights of public employees solves the recession-induced budget woes of the state of Wisconsin?

Or is this just a political move capitalizing on desperate times in order to bust the union and claim a quick, hollow victory to brag about in the next election cycle? Hmmm... maybe it's that kind of shortsighted thinking that helped Wisconsin get into this mess in the first place. Or maybe it just has something to do with the worst recession in 75 years.

Shhhhh, my common sense is tingling.

Luth
Out

Their best stuff for free?

2011-02-02T22:30:00.004-05:00

H&R block is giving away their best stuff free, eh? What a generous organization. Apparently what they saved in advertising review, they're passing on to us. Ya see, their best stuff, according to the commercials, is helping you fill out a 1040EZ - you know, the form designed so the average American, with NO tax prep experience, can fill it out WITHOUT having to go to a professional tax preparer?
So apparently, the rest of H&R Block's stuff is less than their best. Which means, anything you might actually NEED professional help with, and that you'll pay your hard earned money for, should probably go to some other tax preparer. Someone whose best stuff is actually the stuff you might need help with.

Strange, strange commercial. And here I am, giving them this review of why it's bad for FREE!
I guess my real question is this: Did H&R Block's ad people count on Americans being the idiots we are and decide to run what they knew was actually a commercial that speaks badly about their real work anyway? Did they count on a society who can't stay focused on anything more than 140 characters, or who won't think for themselves? Or did they just not realize that this commercial says what they do best is what a high school kid can do pretty darn good without any help?

I'm sticking with my brother-in-law for my taxes this year, but if I ever get back to the point where I can do a 1040EZ again, who knows, maybe instead of filling out that single page all by myself, I'll actually brave the elements and traffic and the embarrassment and take it to H&R Block and get me some of their best stuff, for FREE!

Luth
Out

State of the Union - Mo' money!

2011-01-25T22:53:00.004-05:00

Yep, mo' money it is, but is that really a surprise? We're a bigger nation than we've ever been. We're facing bigger problems than we ever have. Our infrastructure is older and as neglected as it's ever been. Our population requires more care and feeding than it ever has, AND our revenue is less than it's been in a while. Now, I know raising taxes is no guarantee of increased revenue, but raising taxes and cutting spending just might be... ya think?

Let's ask Ohio's new governor who, teamed up with the rest of Clinton's EAs, managed to balance a budget and turn over a deficit to, oh what the heck was that guy's name who succeeded Clinton... dangit. Well, you know who I'm talking about, and you know what came of that extra money. So we've got the experience to make this work...as long as we don't have to read anyone's lips.

Let's at least make sure the guys in the previous post pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the teachers in the last post. How's that for a start?

Luth,
Out

Follow the Money

2011-01-25T21:01:00.004-05:00

About a year ago, lefty wacko Les Leopold posted an article on that equally lefty wacko HuffPost site purporting that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 made as much as 658,000... wait for it... (for those of you not familiar with these numbers go ahead and guess...)

...hedge fund managers in 2009 made 658,000 what?
average bonus?
annual salary?
per hour?

No way, none of those guesses can be right. It would be ridiculous if during the year in which the efforts of people in this particular industry put 10% of the rest of us out of work, destroyed a much larger percentage of most our retirement accounts, spurred the foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of mortgages, and produced (as in Gross Domestic PRODUCT) pretty close to nothing, they made money reflected by any of those multiple choices!

Well, if you at least guessed that the $658,000/hour was a wrong choice, you're kind of right. Actually, Les Leopold's numbers suggest that the top ten 2009 hedge fund managers earned $900,000 PER HOUR! Yes you read that correctly. $.9 million PER HOUR.

But the 658,000 figure is even more exhilarating. Leopold's article suggested that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 (combined) earned 658,000 starting teacher SALARIES. (He figured the average starting teacher salary, with benefits, to be about $38,000) Since I know some teachers in Ohio start a little below $25,000, and some a little above it, I'll accept Leopold's figure even if in my experience, it might be a little generous.

Of course some hedge fund professional associations disputed the other figure and I couldn't find any direct sources to back it up, but you can check Leopold's math for yourself (the math appears legit, even if no legit sources for any particular hedge fund manager's salary can seem to be legitimized) at the original post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/why-are-25-hedge-fund-man_b_531420.html or you can pick up his book, The Looting of America.

Nope, before posting this, I went for some numbers I could find and back up at least as much as my OpEd heroes, Rush, Bill, and Glenn could sink their teeth into. According to Absolute Return magazine's 2010 "Rich List" Appaloosa Management's David Tepper made $4 billion in fees and earnings last year.

To be fair, Mr. Tepper's earnings would only have paid 105,263 new teachers. To get anywhere near Leopold's 2009 claims, he's gonna need some help. Next on AR's list was the evil George Soros who had to scrape by on $3.3 billion. That would only cover the annual salaries of 86,842 new teachers. Leopold was clearly being extremely hyperbolic in his assessment. (by the way, ever notice when someone like Soros uses that money to campaign for something he's an "elitist" who's "buying votes," but when someone like T. Boone Pickens uses it, he's a "patriot" and whatever he spends it on is called "speech?")

Anyhoo, to get anywhere near Leopold's clearly exaggerated 2009 claim we'll have to use AR's numbers for the remaining 23 of the 25 top hedge fund managers, who, together with Tepper and Soros, put up a record $25.3 billion in fees and gains for 2010. (poor guys had to suffer through a down year in 2008, making only half of what they made in the previous record year, 2007...ah the ups and downs of hedge fund mgt.) And so our 2010 tally would only cover 665,789 (and a half) salaries of first year teachers. Wow. Perhaps Leopold wasn't exaggerating.

Maybe we just need another perspective to remind us that we are a capitalist society and that being successful isn't such a bad thing. Let's try this: since at least 10% of America's hourly wage earners were out of work in 2010 as a result of the kinds of things Tepper and Soros do for a living, maybe if we look at their salaries from the hourly perspective it won't hurt so bad.

OK, so there are 40 hrs in the American work week, 52 weeks in a year, so that's 3.3 billion divided by 2080... well, there you go. Soros (the #2 guy) only ended up making $1,586,583.00 per hour in 2010. PER HOUR... $1.5 million PER F-ING HOUR.

I guess it wasn't really comforting to view it that way. Well, at least we know where our nation's priorities lie. And at least we can take comfort in how our culture rewards those who contribute most to the well-lobbied-for corporate tax structure - no wait, I meant to type: those who contribute most to society. Just look at society today. How could we ever ask for more?

Luth,
Out

First Amendment Clarification

2011-01-15T10:06:00.002-05:00

Lest anyone think a liberal 'blogger is calling for laws about what politicians and media folk are allowed to say, I thought I'd better clarify.

Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, it's time we grow the F up. We shouldn't need a law for adults to WANT to behave like adults in public. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it. What we need is for the rest of us to voice it when we disagree with the childish behavior of both our politicians and our big media personalities... or even with that guy in Wal-Mart talking on his cell phone in the diaper aisle screaming the F-word in every sentence!

You know me, I LOVE the F word, but when did it become acceptable for it to be part of every sentence someone's yelling in Wal-Mart?? I suspect it hasn't become acceptable, but rather, we've lost the adult skill of addressing the unacceptable-ness of it. Instead, we childishly stew, letting our anger at it, or at our own inability to address it grow into some hostile seething. The seething is then somewhat soothed when we hear Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh complaining about the same thing on the radio, but then hyperbolically calling for some drastic measure - in a PURELY entertainment-esque metaphor - NOT to be taken literatlly! tirade that makes us feel better. But it doesn't really. It just makes us feel less alone in our powerlessness. Then we confuse our own ineptitude with the EIB or MSNBC proposed solution and start believing such exaggerated silliness is an actual solution.

The thing is, the solution is simply, politely, asking the "gentleman" at Wal-mart to please use more appropriate language in public...around your mom, or your children. The solution is for all of us to grow the F up.

Have there been moments when, in the angry aftermath of some ridiculous statement made by a politician that I felt some childish satisfaction at a mean comment Olberman, or Rush made about the comment? Sure, then I remembered I'm an adult, that neither side in that childish spat was getting us closer to solving the issue, and that this particular form of entertainment is nothing more than that. I remembered that when it comes time for me to figure out where I actually stand on an issue, I need to think for myself and try to tune out the BS... the entertainment. Like what Jersey Shore characters, or AM radio "characters" say and actually tune in on what really should matter.

It's no surprise that this has been the theme of the week on The Daily Show. Many fans who stood in line for the free tickets in recent miserable New York City weather this past Monday might have felt a little slighted as the Monday show's entire first segment was Stewart intelligently and carefully explaining why it's not fun to make fun of the news when the news involves the tragedy of the previous weekend. As it was, he probably lost half his audience in that brief speech but it was eloquent, needed to be said, and probably wasn't and won't be heard anywhere else.

Later in the week, The Daily Show hosted Tim Pawlenty, who admitted to having said things in public he later wished he hadn't, but remained defensive as Stewart laid out his plea for SELF restraint. It was as if Pawlenty assumed Stewart was calling for repealing the 1st amendment. He didn't seem able to grasp what Stewart actually said: that we and our politicians should WANT to use speech that made a clearer distinction between them and crazed gunmen or extreme talk show hosts.

Am I the only one saddened by the fact that the only "news" show that's handled the truly important topics of the week with an adult approach and an appropriate and respectful deference and urgency is on Comedy Central?

So, back to the point: Yes, I believe Keith, Rush, Rachel, and Glenn should be ALLOWED to say whatever the hell they want. And, as a legion of idiots, we should be allowed to hang on and repeat their every word. No, there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents this.

What there should be is an adult segment of our population, say those over 17, who are able to see this for what it is, react negatively when appropriate rather than embrace it as the solution to the world's problems, and then to be able to seek more appropriate, relevant, and useful information upon which to form their opinions. They should then act on and voice those adult opinions in grown up ways. We should tell our politicians when their speech is inappropriate and worse, when their actions (or lack of) are ineffective. We should ignore entertainers whose idea of entertaining is simply preying on the ignorant who can't form their own opinions.

The dude using the F word in Wal-Mart only thinks that's ok because as a society, we have agreed that it is. This is in no small part because we hear and pay lots of money for very similar language on afternoon radio and evening cable tv. The initial confrontations of our collective childishness won't be smooth. They will require the MOST adult among us to use all of our skills to do it. But that's what we have to do - it's not legislation I'm calling for.

We should just all grow the F up.

Luth
Out

After the hangover... more on hate speech

2011-01-13T23:08:00.003-05:00

Funny you should come back now, Ray. When I awoke from the hangover of yesterday's post, even I felt it was reactionary, premature, maybe even immature. I was thinking all day about posting something to that effect, but when I read it again, I noticed how short I stopped from drawing any direct link between the right's hate speech and political violence. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I simply extrapolated Krugman's point: that there's a difference between strong rhetoric (even emotionally charged strong rhetoric...even if it's less than researched, ie opinion) and inciting violence. One is common only to the right. One is ubiquitous.

It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)

BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."

Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)

Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.

Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)

Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.

True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.

The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.

We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.

There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.

There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.

Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!

Luth
Out

Hate Speech and The Right

2011-01-10T17:49:00.003-05:00

Let's start with this link to Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1

From there, let's talk about the real difference between emotional, biased reporting... say the kinds you'll find plenty of examples of on MSNBC, and hate speech, the kind you find examples of on Fox. Or better yet, let's let Krugman sum it up with a few quotes from the article at that link:

Krugman begins by asking this question:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

By way of an answer, Krugman pieces together some crazy shit that Fox and the right will certainly begin to wildly explain away, but a few of the more salient points follow (from Krugman's piece):

As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.

... there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

I know... I know... Krugman, like so many Yale and MIT trained, Harvard Published, and Stanford, Yale, and Princeton-employed economists is clearly one of those liberal wackos who's long since fallen off the left end of the flat earth...nevermind the Nobel Prize, or the John Bates Clark Medal. He's clearly an idiot who knows not what he's talking about! Right.

I don't even know how to respond to the kind of blindness that doesn't allow folks to see exactly where the rhetoric of the right has led us. If you can't or won't see it for yourself, there's likely no changing your mind, but the fact remains that incitements to, and the use of the language of violence, and all out calls for it are found on just one "news" network, and, at least as far as a cultural swing, just one end of the political spectrum... and one end alone.

There may be childish, emotional arguments, name-calling, and jabs coming from the MSNBC end of the spectrum, but folks there don't protest funerals or urge their followers to pick up guns or behead people... they don't Tweet for them to "reload."

In order to avoid having to use the F-word in this post, I'm going to finish with some more from Krugman's piece:

Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

...Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand.

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”

I gotta tell ya, to hear this ivy-leaguer point out many of the same observations I've noticed throughout my years of surveying Fox, CNN, and MSNBC kind of makes me feel a little better about the state U diploma I FINALLY got in the mail this week. I also gotta tell ya these observations are about more than a little disagreement based solely on one's political bias. They represent a decisive difference in one's actual respect for one's fellow man. I suspect this difference may have something to do with some kind of ulterior motive... say, perhaps, a reward in another life...one that justifies all manner of horrible behavior in this life, eh?

Ah, but that's a line Krugman will not cross. Our current paradigm is such that social scientists, no matter how dismal, would rather fail to explain a phenomena than suggest there may be a religious cause to it. And with that, before I either use, or incite use of the F-word...

Luth
Out

Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional?

2010-12-18T16:46:00.003-05:00

Somebody needs to tell the BMV that. I know, I know, health insurance is different than auto insurance. People can just choose not to drive, then they won't need to buy auto insurance. As you might imagine, I don't quite see it like that.

Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.

But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.

No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?

OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?

While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.

Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.

Luth
Out

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't be a bigot!

2010-12-11T11:33:00.005-05:00

Senator McCain is out of excuses. The same ambivalence that cost him a presidential campaign now threatens to destroy what little respect anyone still has for him. He said he'd support the repeal when the generals supported it. Now he's changed his mind. He's one of many who don't seem to have learned from history and can't approach the issue of don't ask, don't tell from any kind of rational perspective.

It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.

It's that simple.

Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.

Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.

Luth
Out

Secrets Gold Dealers Don't Want YOU To Know!

2010-10-27T22:21:00.002-04:00

1. Buy low, sell high (duh)
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now

Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.

Luth
Out

but still... ya gotta vote!

2010-10-25T20:59:00.003-04:00

Lest the subtitle of this 'blog fool you into thinking otherwise, you HAVE to vote. It is not just a right of citizenship, it is your duty.

Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?

Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.

And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.

We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.

As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.

I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.

Luth
Out

Money Equals Speech...

2010-10-14T22:11:00.002-04:00

...but not for "games of skill" prizes in Ohio. So, my lawyer friends, explain this to me. When it comes to campaign contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court says money does in fact equal speech, and as such can't be limited without violating the constitution. However, the Ohio Supreme Court says when it comes to prizes awarded for a single "game of skill," this particular form of speech must be limited to $10.

Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.

I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?

As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.

Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.

Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.

The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.

Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.

One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!

So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.

Luth
Out

Think twice - it might make it even funnier!

2010-08-25T18:45:00.004-04:00

By now most of you have seen this brilliant letter in response to a much less recent and less famous alleged Dr. Laura rant:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do
it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you
can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My former boss sent it to me 'cuz she knew I'd think it was funny even if neither of us cared about its authenticity and didn't plan to pass it on to anyone else. She was right. I got a good laugh out of it and didn't even consider checking it out further.

A lot of times, when I get something like this emailed to me, it's not funny, and it's been forwarded by about a zillion people. I usually run it through Snopes.com before I make anything more out of it, but in this case, since the citation info is right there for the picking, I just fed Dr. Kauffman's info into the old Google machine and out came the following link:

http://drlauraletter.com/

...and what's there is WAY more entertaining than the original letter. Ok, maybe it's not a lot funnier, but it's far more extensive and thus entertaining over a longer period of bathroom visits, sleepless nights, or long flights. it is at least way more interesting that the typical Snopes entry (although I give the Snopesters their due deference!)

I've noticed a trend when it comes to this kind of stuff: the more official the attribution looks, the less likely it is to be legit. (Hey, don't take that the wrong way - I'm certainly not questioning the infallible word of the Lord here, just the attribution of the rest of the letter) Similarly, when you get an email that says "this is real, I checked it out on snopes," it is almost guaranteed to be NOT real, and really busted on Snopes. (apparently the boneheads who believe and pass on some of this unfunny crap and claim to have verified it don't know how to read a Snopes entry)

I don't know about you, but that tickles the living shit out of me! Even when these ridiculous things clog our boxes and include a challenge to "check it out for yourself" AND even when they provide a place to check it out, people still don't bother to apply any thought or effort of their own and pass them along as though they believe and/or agree with them.

To be clear, this particular letter is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm passing it along here because it's funny even if we never learn who originally created it, and even if Dr. Laura never actually said the homophobic garbage it was in response to. And I think I've made it clear that I'm NOT passing it along to lend it legitimacy or in the hope of spreading some important message. And to be extra super duper clear, I'm (again) not questioning the quotes attributed to God...(don't need to in this case!) I only question the authenticity of the letter's author and some of the stuff Dr. Laura allegedly said to cause it. My rant had more to do with other, far more unbelievable but presumably serious emails that get passed around like an STD in a freshman dorm.

What will it ever take for us to think for ourselves?

Anyhoo, just thought I'd share.

Luth
Out

PS Can you tell I have a paper due?

'splain this to me, Lucy

2010-08-20T21:58:00.003-04:00

OK, so the right end of the spectrum is made up (mostly) of people who claim to be:
-more patriotic
-more religious
-more likely to want less government

...and yet these are the folks who now want the government to stop the building of a church at ground zero. WTF?!

That's the problem with religion - everyone's an atheist when it comes to every religion but theirs.

It's also the problem of our dangerously short memories. These same folks, who somehow associate an entire religion with the 15 lunatics who flew planes into those towers, tend to forget that people in this century, calling themselves good Christians, claiming to act for God, killed a lot of people too. Even the Crusades lasted in some fashion into this century on this and neighboring continents. On other continents, dictators regularly try to cleanse their nations of God's "mistakes" or "impurities." It ain't just Muslims.

By this logic, we should ban the building of ALL churches in family neighborhoods... maybe restrict them to areas where strip clubs are located so everyone knows exactly what dangers they face when they venture into that neighborhood.

And speaking of stupid shit, what's with opinion polls on matters that aren't subject to opinion like whether or not Lebron will stay in Cleveland, or whether or not the president is a Muslim. These things aren't matters of opinion and it doesn't matter what uninformed (or even informed) opinions people have. 99.9% of people polled can say I'm a dumbass but it has no effect whatsoever on the fact that I'm a friggin genius!

I guess there's some entertainment value in it... so, how many of you out there believe Glen Beck is a Christian and his show is God's work?

Luth
Out

Drill Baby Drill

2010-05-19T22:30:00.002-04:00

What could possibly go wrong? How could a plan that expedites untested technology on the deepest well ever in order to speed up production have any flaws? Surely BP was completely prepared for any contingencies and thought everything through... otherwise they'd never be able to get this spill under control in only 6 months.

No, really, why should anyone be concerned with gulf coast mom and pop shrimpers, fishermen, tourist-trade folk or anyone else down there who just walks away from a multi-generational family business just because of a little oil and a few tar balls? They were just waiting for an excuse to get unemployment. They're just lazy socialists. We can make fun of them now for being dumb enough to think the government can or should save them. Let's face it, they don't contribute to national campaigns anyway. And we can always find some other beach at which to vacation... who needs the Gulf of Mexico? Or the southern part of the east coast?

Seriously, what could go wrong with a plan to burn up every last drop of fossil fuel, watch the world come to a screeching halt, and THEN start thinking about alternative fuel sources? If we came up with something better than that, then it wouldn't work to say such genius things like "the Democrats only want you to have power when the sun shines or the wind blows... their energy plan is for you to drive a smaller car."

Besides, who would ever want cheap, clean energy that doesn't melt glaciers or destroy mountain tops or drop acid rain? How else would we fade the paint on our cars and houses without acid rain?! There's simply no reason to question the sound thinking and firm logic behind Drill Baby Drill!

I'll ask it one more time, Treehuggers, why do you hate America?!

Luth,
Out

Still Think Sexual Repression Is a Family Value?

2010-05-06T20:29:00.004-04:00

If you're like me, and let's face, not many are... wait, where was I? Oh yeah, if you're like me, you too probably think "that dude spends more time in the closet than that snowman sweater my grandma sent me for Christmas in 1983" any time you hear some righteous Righty extolling the evils of homosexuality. I honestly can't believe anyone even says anti-gay shit in public anymore. It's practically the first alert that they'll soon be caught in or coming out of the closet. Funny thing is, if they weren't such hypocrites, no one would care these days. Most of us are beginning to understand that folks are the way they are. Those who believe in God understand we don't understand how He or She makes us. Those who don't believe know that arbitrarily created and randomly enforced "morals" don't count for much anyway.

So when the world learned this George Alan Rekers guy, who advised W, worked with James Dobson, and built an empire of anti-gay BS, hired a gay prostitute to accompany him on a European vacation, it wasn't all that surprising. What's surprising is how many people don't get the connection between the hypocrisy of his behavior and the religious guilt and repression that almost inevitably leads to it. Heard the one about the Catholic priest and the altar boy? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

When your mission is to guilt people out of natural, instinctive behavior, you're bound to end up with some unwanted side effects like fanning the flames of AIDS in third world countries because condoms are evil ( ahem Mother Theresa ahem) or steering pedophiles into the calling because "normal" men aren't really interested and women aren't allowed.

Look, Reker's Freddy Mercury moustache means only that he likes moustaches. It was his vehement and vociferous anti-gay crap that tells us all he didn't hire his boy toy to carry his luggage. And I don't think he was trying to save the young man either... at least not in any Christian way. As funny as it is to make jokes about this guy, it's scary that he has in fact shaped American legislation. He's advised the Department of Health and Human Services, was instrumental in Florida's gay adoption ban and the Family Research Council that he co-founded with James Dobson serves as an initiation for any Republican who wants to run for national office. I really don't care if he likes boys, what scares me is that he helps make laws that tell others they shouldn't. Thank goodness the story gets funnier or I'd begin to think we were in an Orwell novel.

Even funnier: speaking of values, a recent report indicates Blue states seem to be better at family values than Red ones. Who'd a thunk? Don't believe it? I wouldn't either, so don't take my word for it. An article in National Journal Magazine notes the following strange stats:

Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red.

What's even funnier still is how a couple of professors (and, granted, one is from the insanely liberal George Washington University and the other is from the even more insanely liberal University of Missouri's flamboyant Kansas City campus) explain the phenomena. I'll have to use their quote because it's precious, but after this, you'll have to read the rest of the article on your own cuz I'm going back to blabbing about it...

In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.

Or at least that's how it used to be. In other words, Blue folks wait until they are adults to have kids and form families, but Red folks, who cling to 50's morals and birth control technology, have babies while they're still kids and then the family responsibilities turn them into adults. Only problem is, modern society no longer forces them to stay married so instead of learning how to be adults by stepping up to the responsibilities of their unprotected fornicating, they walk away. (for further anecdotal evidence, see "Alaska" or "Palin")

Hey, don't be mad at me, these are social scientists observing the real world and saying this stuff, not me.

I actually have a number of problems with this aside from the obvious things like: a) no state, city, street, or even one-bedroom apartment is completely red or blue, b) even red folks have learned to ignore ridiculous rules about who should use birth control, c) even blue households include single moms and fatherless kids, 4) this crazy new idea of allowing women in the workplace now allows them the option of escaping dangerous or worthless husbands more than they could in the 50's (and that's a good thing) in both red and blue households, etc. and so on.

But the real problem I have with it is that someone, somewhere, will miss the point entirely and assume it means that we should look to Democrats for values.

What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, they apparently follow the "values" that Republicans pretend to, right? I'll tell you what's wrong with it: The same thing that's wrong with anyone telling me how to run my house. Values are individual, cultural, religious, historical, social, physical, you name it. What's important to you may never be important to me (BMWs for instance). What's important to me may never be important to a desert nomad who has never heard a White Stripes song. So don't tell me what I should believe, or how I should raise my kids, or how to have sex, or whether I should ever get married...(that actually sounds pretty conservative, don't it?)... whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or Ghandi or Elvis. It's not up to you. And it sure as hell shouldn't be up to a political party. They're second only to organized religions when it comes to mass damage through values imposition. (The HUAC, The Inquisition...)

When it comes to the values of a community, it's best to keep it simple - do the most good and the least harm. Or just leave people alone. Seriously, what difference does it make in your life if your neighbor is a lesbian... or your pastor ran off to Europe with a gay prostitute... unless you're jealous!

Luth

Out

Healthcare Reform Bill Top Ten list

2010-03-21T09:18:00.006-04:00

Here it is, just in time for tomorrow's vote on healthcare reform, the top ten reasons why this bill, weak as it is by now, needs to pass:

1. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!

AAaaagghhh! - Here's a tip: we already have it. We already pay for people who don't have healthcare to go to an emergency room for sniffles or care that could be provided much more effectively and less expensively in a clinic that would gladly see them if they had insurance. We already pay TOO much for that and there's no stopping it under our current "system." Ever complain about a $50 Tylenol or a $50 bandage from the ER? Guess why that is? Ever wonder why the only insurance available for a self-employed head of a healthy household costs around $500 a month JUST for catastrophic limits? (that's right, you still pay cash for every doctor visit, prescription, etc. but for the privilege of paying $500 a month, you can rest assured that at least you won't be bankrupted by a sudden illness or accident.) Why do you think that is? It's because that insurance company has "socialized" their profit by having YOUR healthy family subsidize a less healthy family. So tell me why doing that without lining the insurance company's CEOs' pockets would be such a bad thing?!

1a. - Tell me one more time why the world's richest, most free, most productive, highest GDP country is the ONLY one that doesn't provide its people with nationalized health insurance? Tell me one more time why we shouldn't be embarrassed about that rather than ignorantly insistent that what we have is better?

1b. - The DoD's (military's) Tri-Care system and the DVA's Veterans Health Administration are BOTH "socialized" healthcare systems. They are also consistently ranked among the top systems in the country for customer satisfaction, quality of care, and thriftiness. Sure, they have their occasional problems: Tri-Care is having some trouble providing consistent coverage for the "on again/off again" reservists and guardsmen who are called to active duty and then returned to their civilian lives too frequently these days, and VHA occasionally has some trouble with one or two of its 250,000 employees, but both socialized systems are far more effective than the lack of a system the rest of us have.

2. Abortion

(You're right, you're right... it looks like a silly topic to include on this list... like there's no relevance... or like any argument surrounding it is as ridiculous as some rumor you heard but ignored like "only black jazz musicians smoke marijuana" OR "Bill Gates will mail you a personal check for $400 if you complete this survey." I know, I know, but still) When it comes to the abortion argument, we need to stop the hypocrisy. Stop PRETENDING human life is sacred while we gladly support practices that end it quickly and expensively, or put profit way ahead of it - like our current model of health insurance! Don't believe me? Here are some examples: support for the death penalty or the Global War on Terrorism, opposition to helmet and seatbelt and gun laws, opposition to taxing alcohol and tobacco and junkfood, opposition to regulating giant food additive makers, oil companies and other environment destroyers. There's support for the freedom to build your house in a forest that burns regularly or on a flood plain... or any part of some other deadly natural cycle, but then the cries for help and bailouts when that natural cycle threatens your overpriced home and pets - you want us to subsidize THAT when it was your own stupid decision that put your own "sacred life" in harm's way?!

The abortion argument has about as much relevance to insurance reform as WMD had to the invasion of Iraq.
I'll grant you one little shred of connection - public money MIGHT save a mom's life by terminating her tubal pregnancy so that she can live and raise her BORN children, BUT even if we personally oppose saving that mom's life, don't we have an obligation to promote the greater good rather than childishly cling to this one little personal peeve? (I can't believe we're still talking about this.)

3. Logic

The only logical reason to support the current system is if you personally profit from it. Unless your name is among lists that include George Halvorson, Jeff Kindler, or Cleve Killingsworth, you really don't have any evidence-based reason to oppose public healthcare. Sure you can believe what Glenn Beck tells you about what it will cost, or that it's some evil liberal conspiracy, but that's all political puffery... emotional appeal... and everyone knows it. You can cite the people who complain about the system in Canada or the UK or Switzerland, but be sure to ask them if they'd trade that system while you're at it, cuz they generally offer up a quick, "no f-ing way." It's human nature to complain and there will always be anecdotal "evidence" that all systems involving humans have flaws, but those public health systems have legions of loyal supporters and they provide economic and family stability that our "system" actually seems to be destroying.

4. Portability

Tired of that dead end job, but too tied up in its insurance plan to get a new one? Thinking about starting up a small business of your own to cure cancer in your garage but know you can't afford the coverage for your kid's wheelchair batteries? Want to give up that gig at Wal-mart in order to start a non-profit that feeds and shelters homeless nuns, war heroes, and people who lost their jobs for blowing the whistle on their pedophile bosses? How great would that option be... if only you weren't beholden to your current employer's insurance plan. Sorry, your small business venture (once thought to be sacred in America) will have to take a back seat to giant insurance's profits, because that's apparently what we collectively believe in these days.

5. Profit

Yeah, speaking of that, I can't emphasize enough that there's nothing inherently evil about making a profit. I'm an American. Hell, I'm one who has signed on the line to die for my country. I believe in capitalism wholeheartedly. But I also understand that life is slightly more complex than sound bites generally allow for and thus I grasp the concept that sometimes profit and product are mutually exclusive. For instance, many aspects of health maintenance or "wellness" require long-term investments... to make it concrete let's say investments in electronic health records for example (like VHA developed and uses), or wellness exams that make use of these long-term records in order to increase a patients quality of life now and until they die. The typical insurance company only has that patient for 3-5 years, until the patient moves on to another employer-paid insurance plan. It's simply bad business for a for-profit healthcare system under our current model to invest in any kind of long term plan. it's far more profitable for them to push high-profit "treatments" or diagnostics for which they get paid now. (thus far I've picked primarily on health insurance companies, but here's where the Big Pharm gets in the game too) The bottom line is simple: AS LONG AS SOME COMPANY'S PROFIT IS THE PRIME MOVER IN THE HEALTHCARE MATRIX, YOUR HEALTH AND WELLNESS IS NOT. Perhaps healthcare is one of those things, like the military, that's best left to the non-profit realm. (Adam Smith seemed to think so)

6. The Current Model

Under our current model, an estimated 30-70 million American households are one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. (while the numbers are similar, we're not talking about "the uninsured" here - we're talking about people with good jobs and insurance right now) That means 30-70 million American households just one hospital stay away from shutting down a mom and pop business, or joining the welfare role, or withdrawing everything they currently buy from the national economy. Still think "socialized medicine" is a bigger threat to the American way of life? Consider the trend since you first learned how your parents' coverage worked compared to how your coverage works today. Is your policy more or less comprehensive than it used to be? Do you pay more or less of a percentage of your monthly income for that coverage. Do you pay more or less/higher or lower co-pays these days? Is that really the direction you want to keep going? If the trend continues, soon only college-aged non-smokers, non-drinkers who can prove they exercise three times per week will be able to get a catastrophic protection policy for thousands per month. The rest of us will have been deemed uninsurable for conditions like "over the age of 30" or "served in military" or "mined coal." When you speak of this current model that you so want to protect, is THAT what you're talking about? Cuz that's where it seems we're headed.

7. Socialism (not to be confused with #1 - Socialized Medicine)

The founding of this nation, to include the formation of a representative democracy as our form of government, is a socialist idea. Pooling resources for the common good is hardly a bad or ineffective or un-American idea. The Cold War is over. There really aren't any communists any more to rail against or fear, and most of the "socialists" of the world provide their people with things America simply can't figure out how to provide. So why is socialism such a bad word? And why, again, shouldn't we be embarrassed that we can't do what so many other countries do? Why can't we do it better?! Giving up on our ability to do it better than any other country seems rather unpatriotic to me. I think if we could get past this meaningless and irrelevant political debate, we'd all agree that Americans should DEMAND that our government provide us BETTER public healthcare than lesser governments provide their people!!

8. Selfishness

I want better coverage than I have now. I want my decision, or my wife's decision to leave or stay at our current jobs to be based solely on the jobs, not the insurance coverage I can't get anywhere else. I want the decisions about my healthcare to be made by my healthcare providers, NOT insurance company policy. I want my kids to focus on college when they're in college, not the fact that they will have no coverage when they turn 22. I want struggling chemists (or my mechanic, or my favorite local musician...) to be able to get a tooth replaced and get back to the lab/shop/stage rather than worrying for weeks about how they'll pay the dentist. I want dentists to focus on replacing that tooth, not how or if they'll get paid. I want my entire medical team, from physical therapists, to social workers, to surgeons to be paid for their expertise, not some code created by an insurance company. I want my neighbor's kids' asthma medicine to be as well subsidized as Viagra or Nicorette. I want my mom to be able to visit an audiologist and compare the virtues and performance of a variety of hearing aids from a variety of manufacturers rather than having to visit the retail stores/sales staff of each manufacturer. She's not shopping for a TV, but that's how hearing aid shopping works these days! What other health related issue requires you to go the Best Buy route?! Is THAT the current model of which we're all so fond?!

9. Money

Since the Reagan era, when record breaking deficit spending became the norm, we have paid more and more but expected less and less from our government. I can't live with that. Since there's no indication that we're ever going to pay less, then let's expect more. There are plenty of government managed models of successful, efficient healthcare out there, some in foreign countries with 40% income tax rates, but some right here in this country. Let's pick one, and run with it. 10 years from now, other countries will be lining up to see how they can do what we do. It will hurt a little at first, but soon we'll wonder how we ever managed to be without it. Not only that, but systems like VHA get better results and higher customer satisfaction at about 2/3 the cost of commercial systems. Why should we continue to throw that extra 33% away?

10. F the "party of No"

And I'm not just talking about Republicans here. I'm talking about anyone who votes no on issues from local school levies to national politics without offering up a better solution in place of what they're voting against. For the longest time I wasted my breath asking these folks for THEIR better ideas. A wise Republican actually pointed out to me that those kinds of people have no better ideas. They just vote no and believe they've done their part. I'm not foolish enough to believe that will ever change, nor should everyone have to have every solution to every problem in order to be justified in working to defeat an issue. But in this case, it's a little beyond granny voting down the school levy she can't afford on Social Security. The folks who vote on healthcare reform this week are paid public officials who have had since the early 90s to come up with a better plan. Their JOB is to solve this problem and they've had 20 years to come up with something more than just a NO vote. At this point, let's not let perfection be mud on the wheels of progress. Let's not let their FAILURE for 20 years prevent even a small step at a move toward a solution. Let's start with "good enough" and then work to make it better. And in the next election, let's make it better by getting rid of anyone who thinks that a NO vote is sufficient performance for the pay and the lifelong healthcare benefits we provide for them.

Luth

Out

Activist judges complete W's legacy

2010-01-25T20:49:00.004-05:00

It took me a while to figure out that W was actually a genius who was boldly, blatantly, and with no regard for individual Americans, selling out individual Americans to the corporate interests that got him elected and promised to keep him rich long after his presidency.

I never wanted to believe that anyone would do that... not even W, but over the course of two terms, he convinced me. What other goals could he possibly have had? He never mentioned any others. He's certainly got little to show for any other efforts. He didn't address the runaway irresponsibility piling up on Wall Street. He blew the savings accounts on wars for... for... what was it again? Oh nevermind. And then he promised us his legacy.

And now the Supreme Court has delivered that legacy. They have iced the corporate cake by interpreting the 1st amendment to apply to corporations as though they truly were individuals (but without the individual responsibility, of course) AND by equating CASH with SPEECH.

So, while the old quaint saying, "one man, one vote" still holds true in this great nation, if that man is a CEO, he can buy up all the air time in every small market during every election for the next 10 years to ensure that no one who opposes his candidate can run a TV ad in that market. But at least we all still get our one vote!

...and he can do it by spending his shareholder's money without their consent, permission or input.

...he can even do it by spending his employees' salaries without their consent, permission or input.

...and we can all just lie there and take it, losing our jobs, then our homes, while the CEO and politician BOTH pass the cost of it all right back down to us. Yep, that's the best part. We get to pay for it, we just don't get choose the message.

OK, so union presidents and the CE or CFOs of PACS can do the same thing. Is THAT supposed to make an individual American voter feel better?

With this interpretation, it will become even harder to tell where the CEO ends and the politician he or she owns begins. It's already difficult to tell a lobbyist from a legislator, but those middlemen can be eliminated now. The CEO can just hand the $$ right on over. Of course, that's only fair since for the last 15 years, the politicians have handed everything right on over to the CEOs.

The lack of an individual conscience that has allowed corporate greed to run DC since the Reagan administration (Yes, including the Clinton years) is directly responsible for our current economic crisis. Those same crybabies who complained about Clinton's activist judges used to talk a lot about Adam Smith too. They talked about leaving the market alone.

They're quiet about Smith and the activist judges now because the activist judges gave them what they wanted.

And so did Adam Smith. When you read him a little more thoroughly/a little less selectively, you discover that not only would Smith have advocated public healthcare in the world's richest nation (have I mentioned that completely irrelevant to this argument idea here before?), but also that the corporate greed of the unchecked "invisible hand" would first destroy all competing markets, and then, finally, destroy itself. (Unless, of course, we prop them up with cash WE will never see again... and by WE I mean anyone who doesn't have a half million or more to invest tomorrow.)

As long as you're on top of the game when it happens, it's a great short term, get-rich-quick plan....just like that of just about every CEO in the last 20 years. Now the rest of us have to clean up the messes they've left behind and pay all the tabs they ran up while they were making sure they got theirs.

And thanks to the Supreme Court decision, they'll be buying up the next round of politicians, running up that tab again, to make sure that broken wheel just keeps on spinnin! Unless, just maybe, we get tired of the reality TV they pay for, and find some way to make a decision on our own.

I ain't holdin my breath.

Luth
Out

Fox News to public: If anyone out there still takes us seriously, we'll show YOU!

2010-01-13T21:55:00.003-05:00

Welcome back dear fans. It's been a while and though I did miss all three of you, it's Fox News that brought me back.

In case there was anyone out there who still took them seriously, they hired WHO?! You've got to be FKM! I get that networks hire folks with ratings in mind, but no real NEWS network would do that to the point of hiring someone completely unqualified to read news, would they? Oh wait, nevermind, it's Fox. Of course they would because they don't expect to be taken seriously.

I joked during the presidential election that I was more qualified to be a vice president than Fox's newest commentator, but geez ow! If you're here, reading this, then this time you know this 'blog alone is proof that I'm not joking when I say I think I've really got her beat in the qualifications department. You betcha.

Think about it:

-I spout off un- or ill-formed opinions with little basis in reality

-I used to be able to see Canada from my back porch

-I once edited a newspaper

-I'm professionally trained in communications

True, I'm no Joe Beercan. I'm happily married. My spouse has a degree and a better job than I do and no one in our family has supported a bridge to nowhere or been involved in domestic disputes. I was never in a beauty contest. I'm actually a veteran. In fact, I prefer thinking for myself... occasionally even before I speak!

Now, I should mention (not in the name of fairness, cuz let's face it, that has no business anywhere near this discussion) that Mrs. Palin and I do have some things in common. I've already mentioned the thinking for myself and the being able to see a foreign country from the back porch, but there 's more. I too once ran for a local public office. I too questioned why Americans should be sent to Iraq (though I wasn't referring only to an immediate family member at the time). I too believe in smaller government, although my version of it would mean gov't keeping its hands out of our wombs and weddings and coroporate sponsorship... and maybe out of marijuana enforcement! I too believe in evolution, no wait....

Look, I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a great gal and just like W, she's probably great to have a beer with, but if that's the qualification for high profile jobs these days, then I went to college with some great potential commentators and U.S. presidents even if some of them never finished. In fact many of the ones who were most fun to have a beer with didn't make it past Thanksgiving of our freshman year!

I also understand that both Fox and Palin have their loyal followers - MILLIONS on Twitter!! - but this really comes down to one of those things where you can't have it both ways. Either Fox News is serious about being a news channel, or they're not. If they were serious, they'd hire professional journalists rather than just ratings grabbers. Likewise, I think the Republicans need to decide if they're serious about a candidate to run against Obama. If they think like Fox, they can only be serious about giving Obama a second term!

Luth,

Out

If Obama said it, it's wrong

2009-11-19T17:24:00.004-05:00

"...the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties."

Judge William Young said this to shoe bomber, Richard Reid, before sentencing him to several life sentences for attempting to blow up an American passenger plane with plastic explosives in his shoes. Here's how we treated him: humanely... including a fair trial, defense, the whole nine. The life sentences prevented him from becoming a martyr and this example of American justice did more to unite the nation and the world than just about anything since. And then, just as Judge Young predicted, we all forgot all about it.

The rest of Judge Young's speech is available here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/reid.transcript/ I defy you to read it without getting goosebumps... without being proud of this country and how our justice system - not "revenge" system - represents us. It's even available on Snopes.com too 'cuz apparently not too many people believe in our justice system enough to believe this story can be true. At the time, Rudy Giuliani believed in it wholeheartedly. Jeff Sessions praised the outcome as well.

A few years later, 9/11 co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, fell victim to a similar example of American justice. Again, his tirade at the judge was ignored, a jury spared him the death penalty and he too was prevented from being held up as a martyer among his supporters, and in spite of our having invaded Iraq in the time between these two trials, many throughout the world felt these verdicts were a true symbol of what America is really about: freedom, fairness, individual justice, to use Judge Young's words.

Giuliani praised both verdicts, although he did say he thought Moussaoui should have been sentenced to death, but he had no qualms with both trials being held in civilian courts. (He apparently wanted to grant Moussaoui martyrdom) As a matter of fact, Senator Sessions praised the outcomes of both trials as well. Now they've changed their minds about trying terrorists in U.S. Courts. As have a lot of others from their camp.

So tell me: what's changed other than the fact that the guy suggesting Moussaoui's boss be tried in a civilian court is an Obama appointee?

I hate to play the cynic card here but let's face it, justice IS what the American justice system says it is. Something tells me legal technicalities won't get this guy off. For that matter, military trials have their own brand of technicalities as well. Sessions is either naive or stupid to suggest we can't predict an outcome to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial. I'll give Sessions the "naive" option if he really believes otherwise, but he's stupid for forcing us to admit it up front.

So let's just admit it now: if KSM gets the same treatment as Moussaoui and Reid, (and Vegas odds say he will) and especially if the judge is able to rip off a Young-like speech at the sentencing hearing, all will agree it's a great idea. The only thing stopping some people from admitting it now is that the idea came from the Obama camp.

That's starting to get old.

Luth

Out

Fair and Balanced White House Press Policy

2009-11-07T10:01:00.003-05:00

As a teenager, I was a bit of a rebellious sort. I spent most of my idle time pushing the boundaries of what a kid might get away with without actually breaking any laws or at least without getting caught. At some point I learned that when you live your life dangerously close to those boundaries, a lot of people are watching you just waiting for you to slip over that line, no matter how innocently or accidentally. When you do, they pounce and make an example of you.

It’s not necessarily fair… ok, maybe it is fair. After all, while the slip may have been innocent and accidental, toeing the line was very much on purpose! Either way, the reaction is certainly to be expected. One might even say I was asking for it. No adult wants to be made a fool by some smart assed high school kid! And you can bet that if you practice like I did, there’s someone practicing just as hard to nail your ass at the first opportunity. Tough lesson, maybe, but one we tend to have to learn for ourselves.

That’s what happened with Fox News’s access to the White House. And since Fox News, ostensibly, is comprised of grown-ups who should have learned this lesson at least back when I did, I’m a little surprised at their whining about it.

Sure, there are fans of Fox out there who will argue that this is a form of censorship, or ask, “who are they to determine what a ‘news agency’ is or who produces ‘real news?!’” But there’s an easy answer to that one… THEY are the White House Press Secretary, and determining who is and isn’t a legitimate news agency and thus who gets access to the White House – whether they are right or wrong about it – is exactly “their” job.

But there’s also another, simple answer even if a number of folks won’t to hear it: Fox really is no more a news agency than The Daily Show or The National Enquirer. Do they have White House access?

IMHO, this particular press secretary isn’t guilty of any of the things of which Fox fans accuse him. He simply said out loud what a lot of folks, including Fox, per their own propaganda, have known but been afraid to say for a long time. They enjoyed quite a run, but it’s finally ended. They can now choose to drop their single-minded agenda and operate as a real news agency, or they can assume their rightful place among the other less-than actual news agencies.

Don’t buy that? Here’s the argument:

Fox was created, by their own account, to counter what they perceived as a liberal bias among mainstream media. This bias however, only existed if Fox twisted what was actually meant by the word “liberal” as it applies to the media. Here’s what I mean by that: as applied to the press, “liberal” is actually a fundamental requirement of journalists… or should be. It means that a reporter extends all the rights of citizenship to the subject of his or her story. It means assuming a suspect’s innocence until that suspect is proven guilty. It means reporting the facts of a story and accounting for as many possible perspectives on it as may exist. It means NOT creating a story where there is none, making oneself the story, or pushing an agenda onto the story or shaping the story to fit an agenda.

This kind of fundamental journalism is sometimes perceived as having undue sympathy toward a suspect or subject of a big story, but it’s actually rather patriotic to assume a fellow citizen should be given the rights and protections promised in our Constitution. You’d think Fox would be all over that, but no, they weren’t. Instead they played upon this notion that a well-trained reporter is overly sympathetic to the evils that plague society (simply because that reporter didn’t act as judge, jury and executioner). This play on the real meaning of liberal was then mixed in with how the word also tends to be associated with a particular political party and wham, bam, Fox’s self-professed reason for existing translates into them being a tool of the Republican Party.

First they twist the definition of liberal (as it applied to journalism) into a political meaning, then they falsely assert that when folks describe journalists as liberals, folks mean “Democratic-leaning” (a premise neither proved nor accepted) and they then use this overly simplified and invalid argument to justify their Republican propaganda. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. They’ve done it for years. Most of the time they brag about doing it. I was initially impressed by the balls it took to try to get away with it.

In fact, I’d be completely sympathetic to there being just another opinion out there or another perspective on a particular news story, but that’s not what Fox says they do. They say, “we’re bringing our bias… to counter someone else’s bias, but still, we’re biased… we admit it, hell, we brag about it. It’s been our business model for years. We’ve succeeded on it as a form of entertainment to the point where our market share allowed to us into the real news arena and before anyone realized what was going on, our news people were right beside the network news people at all the big events! And then, because we’d portrayed this false “left-leaning bias” myth for so long, folks were afraid to point out that we weren’t ever really a “news” organization except in the sense that we reported bad news about Dems and good news about Repubs and there we were. Deal with us.”

But the Obama White House, bringing the change they promised, dealt with it.

Sorry boys, your charade is over. You can argue that the White House can’t tell the difference between opinion pieces and regular news all you want. Just like you can’t shake the Devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding - if Glenn and Rush and Bill and folks like them dominate your airtime, then they are what your network represents just as stories about fallen celebrities and alien probes ARE what the Enquirer represents.

It’s not a matter of the White House getting to decide what is or isn’t real news (although that IS the job of the White House Press Secretary) it’s about Fox getting away with being so close to the line for so long that they forgot there was a line until they got caught standing way on the other side of it. You sowed, you reaped. Congrats. Now quit yer whinin’

Luth

Out

Ohio's Gamble

2009-10-19T08:48:00.004-04:00

If we saved all the money that the two sides on the Ohio gambling issue have spent in the last (what seems like) 20 elections, we probably wouldn't have a recession in Ohio. My favorite pro-gambling commercial shows two "corn-fed" (typical, healthy) middle-aged Ohio women sitting on a tour bus explaining that they're old high school classmates and that they've been getting together for years for this gambling trip to a neighboring state.

They make clear that they are upstanding, moral citizens (though they stop just short of calling themselves good Christians) who think it's silly that they have to take their money elsewhere for this annual get together.

It's cute, probably effective but it just emphasizes that the money behind it and the pro-gambling side comes from deep, generally out of Ohio pockets and thus, that most of the profits from any future legalized gambling here will end up back in those already deep, out of Ohio pockets.

I don't care about any of that. If you want to toss your money away in a casino, more power to ya... and yeah, I feel for you having to drive all that way to do it. Maybe you should be able to do it in Ohio. What do I care - as long as it's not in my neighborhood because I do know that I do not want my neighborhood to end up looking like the neighborhoods surrounding the strip in Vegas or Atlantic City, but there are plenty of places in Ohio where even THAT would be an improvement. The only concern I have is that details in this and past proposals seem to favor a specific out of state company who already has permits in place for construction that may never happen. That just strikes me as a little odd... a little not right.

But the real reason I'm posting about this commercial is because of a thought that makes me laugh every time I see it. Whenever I hear these two women pleading their innocence and the absurdity of having to drive elsewhere to gamble, I can't help but projecting other stories of "vice" into that commercial. I had hoped to find time to actually write little screenplays for my own versions, but that ain't gonna happen so instead, I'll just drop some little variants proposals on you and see if maybe it doesn't make you think about the topic before you vote in a couple of weeks:

OK, so instead of two middle aged women dressed conservatively, casually, riding a nice charter bus to Indiana or Detroit/Windsor or Erie or Buffalo to gamble... picture this:

Two slacker college kids on a flight bound for Amsterdam where they must fly to buy good, legal pot. They'd love to spend their money vacationing right here in Cleveland, but, darn it, the prudes here in the US won't legalize it so all that money and all those jobs are only on the other side of the ocean. If only we could pass issue 3 and keep that money and those jobs right here in Ohio!

Or how about two business men on a flight to Tokyo, Frankfurt (or maybe even parts of Nevada, Honduras, Mexico?? I really don't know much about this issue) because these two high school classmates, husbands, fathers, upstanding community members, active in local community organizations, just can't find local, legal prostitutes in Ohio like they can elsewhere. If we could all join them in passing issue 69, they could keep their money and all those jobs right here in Ohio! How silly is it that they must fly overseas or out of state for their once a year prostitute weekends?!

I'm sure you get the picture by now but let's throw one more in there: This time 4 friends wait on a small, remote, rural air strip in Texas as a less than poorly maintained looking commuter plane makes its approach to land. As the plane taxis toward the 4 guys they explain how they went to college together and now all have families and responsibilities - they're great guys! - who get together once a year for this trip to Columbia... just to maintain the bond of their friendship... and to snort coke all weekend long. They'd love to be able to do this back in Ohio, supporting small business airports, dealers, hotels and restaurants, but those darned prudes in Ohio just won't legalize coke and bring up to 50,000 jobs back to the heartland. Join these 4 guys in voting YES on issue 3. Bring those jobs back to Ohio!

As I mentioned, I have no moral qualms with legalizing gambling in Ohio... or drugs or prostitution for that matter! Just as long as it's not in my backyard. AND like most of my conservative friends, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on that matter and just buy a big enough backyard that I don't have to worry about it. After all, why should government tell us what kind of business we should run. We're capitalists and we oppose big government/socialist intervention!

If gambling is good enough to provide fundraising for schools and churches, it's good enough for the rest of us and big gov should keep its hands off!

Luth

Out

Peggy Venable's Flawed Complaint

2009-09-03T22:50:00.002-04:00

Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/03/peggy-venable-obama-speech-school-children/

…or rather, let me save you some time…

Aside from sounding like a letter you might read on the local paper opinion page during that time of year when high school government students are required to write a letter to the editor, there are a number of salient flaws in an opinion piece Fox news ran from former Reagan education liaison, Peggy Venable.

First of all, her “professional” opinion assures her, with certainty, that what Obama proposes in his school visits is “indoctrination” and “an abuse of power.” This is based on a suggested lesson plan the president’s education staff has forwarded to schools wherein the following questions might be posed for discussion:

-why should we listen to elected officials?

-why is what they say important?

Ms. Venable, I hate to break this to you but:

1) Asking questions for discussion is NOT indoctrination or an abuse of power. In fact, most people would argue that discussions (especially rational ones, as opposed to fallacy or repeated BS) foster just the opposite of abuses of power or indoctrination and...

2) This lesson plan is merely offered to schools who CHOOSE to use it after CHOOSING to air the president’s speech to their students. (choice is generally considered antithetical to indoctrination)

Venable claims that schools never used to encourage kids to respect the president.

Let that sink in for a minute. Read it again.

Never used to encourage kids to respect the president?

Someone’s been drinking too much Kool-Aid! And as long as I’m dropping clichés, may I go so far as to say that the conservatives have officially jumped the shark?

Unless she grew up in some liberal enclave or a commune, I seriously doubt this is consistent with her experience. I’m not saying she’s lying, necessarily, but only that she apparently missed out on anything public education did since George Washington was our president. Kids have ALWAYS been encouraged to respect the president in school. I don't ever recall that being considered indoctrination even if it was. It's nothing new.

Furthermore, many presidents have spoken in public schools before and to say Obama is the first to do so with an ulterior motive is selective memory at its best. (or would that be worst?) Wasn’t that W reading to kids while the Twin Towers were felled on his watch? Are you suggesting, Ms. Venable, that they ran out of substitutes that day and called in the president since he's a public employee anyway?! (Hint: NO, dumbass, he was there for the photo opp, an ulterior motive! in support of his No Child Left Behind agenda)

Venable claims that rather than schools teaching kids to be obedient to elected officials, they should teach that “our system is based on the rule of law, and a robust tradition of loyal opposition, not blind support for the president in power.” Seems like just a few years ago, a retired General Clark was chastised, characterized as a disgruntled former employee of the W Administration for suggesting such blasphemy!

She’s sounding awfully liberal for a Fox opinon page contributor. In fact, if that’s not liberal enough for you, check out this entitlement-laden plea in her final paragraphs:

“All parents should be able to make the choice Obama made for his own children to send them to a private school if that best suits their needs. Until that day happens...” (cuz, you know, lots of parents are the first black family in the White House and share similar secret service security concerns, right?)

Whoa there! What’s with this “until that day” crap? Wouldn’t the conservative response to this quote normally be something like: that day HAS come… every parent HAS that option right now… it’s called get a job, pay the tuition and your kid CAN go to a private school. Ms. Venable seems to suggest that all kids are ENTITLED to have their private school tuition paid by someone else… which would make it kind of like public school, socialist even. But she’d never suggest that, would she?

I feel bad for these people whose memories are so short and who have been so indoctrinated by their party of hate propaganda that nothing this president ever does will be good enough for them… and that no amount of absurdism can ever be detected in their own illogical bile.

I hope I’ve firmly established that I too have some problems with the current administration’s proposals (cap & trade is a waste of $ and effort for what it MIGHT deliver decades from now and to go $1.8 trillion in debt by the end of the year for it and a severe compromise on healthcare reform is outrageous), but c’mon… if the best you can do is find new ways to use words like “socialism” or “indoctrination” in an article about a president’s attempt to make a visit to schools more than just a photo opp, then grow the F up.

He’s OUR president now. America… love it or leave it. Remember that? I heard it a lot during the 2000-2008 stretch. How about some constructive criticism rather than sound bite sniping. How about respectfully tolerating some new ideas until it’s time to vote again. How about remembering that in this civilized country, we rule by ballot box, peaceful assembly, debate, compromise, democracy… you know... all that crap these folks seemingly want to do away with all of a sudden.

Now that I think about it, maybe the fact that someone who writes a letter like this served on the Reagan administration as a White House Liaison to the Dept. of Education explains why she so favors private education now!

Luth

Out

War is cheap compared to Obama's plan

2009-08-25T23:55:00.002-04:00

Up until recently, I couldn't figure out why Repubs were so concerned with spending all of the sudden when they'd backed the lighting afire of so many billions for so many years in Iraq. After all, a lot of what Obama is spending is simply the clean up costs of the 8-year bash we all enjoyed since 2000.

Strangely, I recently ran across an old college chum who just happens to have served on Bush 43's Council of Economic Advisors. Since we were roomies many years ago, I'd had plenty of civilized, if not always sober discussions with him on issues far more complex than I'd ever run into in the classroom back in those days. So I asked him: what's up with this short memory? I promised I'd save the debate for when we next had a beverage together, that I was truly curious to hear his much better informed opinion on this issue.

Before he could answer, and in fact, about the time I figured I wouldn't hear from him again for another 15 years, I ran across this article:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

(sorry, you'll have to cut and paste it... I'm still too lazy to paste in the code to make it a link)

Anyhoo, what this article points out is that while W left office with a $500 billion deficit after his 8 years, and yes, that's SPENDING, so it includes the un-budgeted war costs as well as the budgeted stuff, Obama proposes $1.75 TRILLION THIS YEAR. (The CBO predicts $1.85 trillion, but what's a hundred billion between friends... let's give big O the benefit of the doubt here)

As promised, Obama predicts cutting THAT deficit in half by 2012, trimming it down to a nice lean $600 billion. Which, for those of you who can't think beyond a sound bite or remember three paragraphs ago, is still $100 billion more than the what W left him in terms of deficit. So far, I'm cool with that... progress ain't cheap.

Now I know what you're thinking: give him a second term and that will take care of it... he'll leave office with the budget evened up again. (or, more likely, you're thinking, did Luth fall down and bump his head?!) WROOONG! (on both) Projected out to 2016, O's own numbers approach $700 billion while the CBO's projection reaches $900 billion. In fact, O's friends at the Heritage Foundation and Washington Post project the results of his spending out to 2019 (not sure why or how) where it locks in at around $1.2 trillion, breaking the "t" barrier once again.

That's a lot of dough.

If I knew it would buy my kids and their kids healthcare or electric cars or jobs, I might be willing to risk what that would do to what's left of our economy, but if we've pulled the public option off the table and I still can't buy a half ton pickup with a 4-cylinder diesel engine that gets 20 mpg while towing, I'm out. I don't see what's in it for me. I still like the fact that the current guy with the launch codes can actually pronounce the word nuclear. I still like him better than the last guy, but liking the guy won't get him another vote in 2012. I know when to jump off the runaway train.

The last time I was in Windsor, Ontario, I was amazed at how much it resembled the midwest. I could live there... the other side of Lake Erie is almost as cool as this side! Or Tirennia, Italy, now there's a coastal town for me!

Luth,

Out

Socialize It

2009-08-24T08:03:00.003-04:00

The last great Republican, Abe Lincoln, said the nation needed, “…to care for him who shall have born the battle and his widow and his orphan."

President Lincoln was talking about socialized medicine for veterans. In fact, he rattled off a list of a number of functions a government should provide for its people.

The biggest problem with Obama’s proposed healthcare solution is that he’s dropped a single-payer, government-run option from the list – it’s not socialized enough. That’s right, I’m talking all out socialist, government-run healthcare, not an insurance plan or government managed HMO type thing, but actual public healthcare, just like VHA here in America, and like just about every other civilized country in the world. Not only do effective government-run programs exist as a model for this, but history has taught us that our for-profit system doesn’t serve the vast majority of users very well.

Before you go repeating what someone told you about how the government can’t run anything, consider a few real life examples:

1. VHA – the nation’s highest quality, most efficient healthcare system

2. The USPS – still the cheapest way to get a letter across the nation and self-sustaining

3. public schools

4. roads, bridges, electrical, water and sewer infrastructure

Not only have these government created, run or maintained examples served us well, but no one has come along offering a better option at a better price. I hear the murmurs already about how crappy our public school system is and yet its graduates are still the best educated people in the world. It’s the one thing immigrants still come to this country to take part in. Despite all the whining about it, no private options, charter schools or other wacko reform movements have come along to successfully replace it on a massive scale. Sure there have been exceptions here and there, but none have played by the same rules, and served the massive range of students that the public schools have served.

I can also hear the murmurs about how crazy USPS employees are but that’s a cheap argument based on anecdotal incidents. In fact, the USPS example also demonstrates that public and private entities can work together in a free market. FedEx, UPS and other parcel delivery and expediting services coexist quite nicely with the USPS. So the argument against that is a fallacy as well.

Once you cut through the bull you have to admit that a for-profit system of healthcare will do exactly as it has and get us exactly what we’ve got: max profit, minimal healthcare, minimal control, minimal choice. It would be easier to accept if any of that profit went to or if any of the actual decision making on how to spend it was actually made by health care professionals but no, sadly, that’s not the case. It goes to insurance companies, claims processing companies, drug companies, who have shown us over the last 20 years where their priorities are. Hint: It’s not keeping you healthy.

I’m not opposed to anyone earning a profit, but if conservatives who cite Adam Smith as their bright star of free markets and laissez-faire would actually read what he said, they’d understand that he too advocated for government-provided services. He noted a distinction between services and products and often favored governments as providers of commonly used services. The idea that government should be the provider of certain services is rarely questioned when it comes to things that the right doesn’t want to have to pay for: cleaning up their environmental messes, hiding their profits offshore, building roads, power grids and other infrastructure that allows them to get rich.

So if government sponsored services like roads and other infrastructure are best left to government, then why is healthcare any different. Consider the approach to healthcare most providers/insurance companies take today: sell services that maximize profit in the short term without regard to a patient’s health in the long term. After all, the typical patient’s long term health will be someone else’s problem as soon as he loses his job or changes jobs and falls under a new insurance provider. Under this model, providers have no incentive to invest in long term wellness, computerized records, or even fixing the obvious flaws in their own systems.

A single payer on the other hand knows that the overall wellness of a patient over the long haul will be cheaper for them AND better for the patient.

I’m not saying we should hand over VHA care to all Americans, but it does serve as a model of how healthcare could work in this country – the only remaining developed country (and the richest) where public healthcare is not an option. So before you believe the horror stories about public healthcare, make sure you’ve also heard from the satisfied customers.

VHA isn’t the only socialized medicine in America that customers are happy with. Here’s an article titled, “Hey, Don’t Save Me From Government Healthcare,” by an actual Army troop who claims that his government-run TriCare plan is great:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/hey-dont-save-me-from-gov_b_264098.html

Don’t buy the crap about Canada or England either. For every horror story anecdote you hear repeated over and over, there are thousands of quietly content customers. We even sneak into Canada and Mexico to use their pharmacies! How pathetic must our open market be? And both countries rank well above America when it comes to the healthcare available to their citizens.

Remember, the status quo being defended right now is a system that was ranked 37th in the world… just two countries ahead of Cuba… by the World Health Organization. CUBA! That’s right, the richest nation in the world can’t even provide healthcare –for those who still can afford it- better than Fidel Castro has provided the people of Cuba. And that’s what we’re defending now?! Here are some other places who rank well ahead of us: Oman, Costa Rica, Columbia!? Malta, France… you know how we love to hate them. I guess we hate them for their healthcare freedom!

Listen, the right will tell you that this is just one more attempt for government to interfere with and control your lives and force you to give up specific freedoms. Don’t believe the concept and don’t believe the confessor. They’ll quote an old Reagan speech wherein the actor/president spelled out this very sales pitch. But think about the freedoms we’ve given up, or rather, that the right has given up for us. We gave up the right to private phone calls overseas under the right’s rule. We gave up the right of habeus corpus under the right’s rule. Some Americans gave up the right to a speedy trial or the protections against illegal search, seizure and imprisonment. We gave our lives over to the nation’s largest corporations. Then their CEOs, under reduced regulation at the hands of the right, ran off with our life savings. Let’s not forget that it was still under the right’s rule that we then PAID for this privilege with the first wave of bailouts! ALL under the right’s rule.

I’m not sure what kind of freedom President Reagan was talking about Perhaps it comes from the same mythical source as the right’s arbitrary ideas on morality and family values. Perhaps he meant the freedom to go bankrupt the next time you get sick. Perhaps he meant the freedom to buy your drugs in Canada – no, wait, W made that illegal too!

When it comes to healthcare, thanks to the current system, more than half of the people in this country are just one serious illness, one accident, one extended hospital stay away from bankruptcy. Don’t let that happen to you and don’t be fooled into thinking it can’t. If you don’t like the current president’s plan, and let me here repeat: I don’t either – it’s not socialist enough! Then get to work on fixing it, but don’t buy the bullshit that the right has spread only because they can’t be bothered to come up with something better.

Luth

Out

Values

2009-07-02T23:14:00.005-04:00

Chapter 1 - Measuring Value

I've drooled buckets over the nation of Bhutan's paradigm-bursting declaration of measuring Gross National Happiness rather than Gross National Product. And I know most of you will say, yeah, but how else do you measure a nation's worth... that's just pie in the sky crap, Luth.

But let me ask you this: Isn't Gross National Product - a method of determining the "value" of something wherein the dollar value of units produced is divided by the number of people there - a kind of disturbing, even perverse way of calculating the "value" of anything?

Seriously.

Is that how you determine the "value" of your kids? Your memories? Your musical or athletic ability? The last good meal you had? Anything of any real importance to you?

Didn't think so. So it's not just me and my liberal ideas... it's not just pie in the sky. GNP is pretty arbitrary and if the past ten or so years have taught us anything, it's that dollar values don't measure the true value of anything worth having. Dollar values, my friend, are the real pie in the sky. Just ask Lehmann Bros.

Chapter 2 - Family Values

All right, how many more times do we have to hear that a leader from the party of family values is actually a normal human being with normal human instincts, and, like most normal humans, fallible?

I don't care if a senator found a boyfriend in an airport bathroom via his wide stance, or a governor met his girlfriend online... it's none of my business and it's none of yours unless you're that governor or senator's spouse.

No, that doesn't bother me in the least and it certainly doesn't say anything about their ability to govern. The problem with both instances... and any others I've left out, is the hypocrisy of those particular folks. Both criticized a sitting president for the exact same behavior as though it had never occurred to them and could never happen to them... as if they themselves weren't also human.

Why is it that the party who implies that they've got the most authoritative command of Christian values is the first to judge (rather than forgive - very UN-Christian, by the way) UNTIL one of their own gets caught?

I'll tell you why: when that's what you build your platform on, you've got no choice but to pretend you are in fact holier than thou and thus set yourself up for just such a fall. It's simple really, when you espouse moral superiority via standards, etched in stone, which violate your human instincts, you are by necessity, definititon and design establishing standards by which no one can measure up. You then either have to admit that you're just like the other guy and are only saying things that you know sound good and will get you elected (so you're a liar, a panderer and a hypocrite) OR that you're JUST a hypocrite. Time will prove one or the other in every case. What's that you say? They're the same conclusion? Yep, and time has proven them.

So give it up party of values, party of "no." Either get in the game with some alternatives to what you don't like about the majority in power, or jump on the party train and enjoy it, cuz it left the station about 160 days ago.

Chapter 3 - The Value of Free Markets

Why is it that the party of free markets is so opposed to a little government competition in health care? Isn't competition good for the market? To hear them say it, no government organization could ever win such a competition anyway. So why not give it a shot. And I'll head you off at the pass before you whine that such an experiment would be a waste of tax money because there are plenty of folks who said the same thing about the Iraq war, but that sure as hell didn't even slow it down. If we've got two billion a week to blow on experiments, let's at least get something out of it. After all, aren't they quick to say things like: do you really want the people who brought you the post office to provide your medical care?

Let's think about that question for a minute. The one known government entity that generates its own income and will get something delivered from coast to coast in about a day and a half for 40 fricking cents is the one they use as an example of inefficiency?

Yeah, I'd do that. How bad could it be. The USPS has managed to be self-sustaining since they replaced the friggin Pony Express... through all kinds of markets, through all kinds of setbacks, still chugging after the telephone AND the Internet were going to shut them down instantly.

Seriously, offer a friend, or the UPS guy 40 cents to get something to LA or Baghdad for you before next week and watch how they respond. The USPS ROCKS!

I'd say if there was a health insurance company, or a healthcare network that could perform and deliver as efficiently as the USPS does (for 40 cents a pop!) then I'd trade my plan for it in a minute. And you would too... don't lie.

And then there's the Veterans Health Administration, lauded by Fortune reporters, authors, Business Week, Time, and just about every other news organization for being the best healthcare system in the country and among the best in the world. Yep... right here in our own little government. How do they do it? Well, by focusing on lifelong wellness vs. selling profitable treatments until you change jobs and move on to become some other insurance company's problem for one. By establishing the nation's first nationwide electronic health records (with peerless security, by the way) allowing displaced Katrina victims to receive uninterrupted care no matter where they ended up and allowing their new providers access to their complete histories for another.

Sure they make some mistakes - you'll have that in the nations largest healthcare network - but unlike their commercial competition, VHA SHARES its mistakes publicly and immediately in order to remedy and prevent repeats across the country. Private providers surround mistakes with lawyers and you never hear about them until someone you know dies. (Until they call VHA hospital directors and say, "I've got this friend who wants to prevent this thing from happening in HER hospital... I've read you've dealt with it... what can you tell me, I mean, my friend about it?")

Surprise! There's a government-created and managed healthcare model just waiting to be tapped right there under our noses but someone out there doesn't want us to try it. VHA didn't get invited to the table to discuss healthcare reform with the new administration?! Hell, the Clinton administration even got a Republican congress to approve sufficient budgeting to cover EVERY U.S. veteran and their families FOR LIFE through VHA because the facts showed it would save billions compared to providing the far less efficient Medicare and Medicaid for those same veterans currently not covered. Imagine that, the Gingrich House and the Dole Senate actually agreed with a Clinton proposal to spend money on what these days is considered "socialized" healthcare. VHA must have been pretty damned good for that to happen! Of course, W wiped that budget out and pushed VHA back to the antiquated system of prioritizing only battle-injured veterans in spite of the promises made upon enlistment, in order to fund his war. But hey, the Value of Healthcare is another chapter.

The point is, if government is so inefficient, and free markets/open competition is so great, then what's there to lose by allowing the government to enter that competition. Give them a fair shot in the free and open market... or isn't that what you mean by "free" and "open?"

Chapter 4 - The Value of Being the Victim

Charles Swindoll (yes, Ray, I know he was a pastor!) says that life is only 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react - the attitude we CHOOSE to adopt regarding that 10%. I believe that to be fact... though I might suggest the ratio would be even more lopsided.

Not only is attitude THAT important. Not only do we CHOOSE the attitude we wear, but Attitude is THE ONLY thing we choose FREELY. We must die, pay taxes and all of the other inevitabilities in life, but how we feel about all of these things is entirely up to us. We can say, "that guy in traffic pissed me off after a really bad day" but no one can reach inside your head and activate that part of your brain but YOU. If you're pissed as a result of something that guy did, then it's because YOU decided to be pissed... not that guy. He can't decide that for you.

When it comes to values discussion, this fact of life effects everyone regardless of party affiliation, social or economic status... heck, I believe it's what got us into this economic mess (though it was steered a little by the runaway spending of the previous administration).

Here's what I mean: back in the golden age... the Reagan years, Wall Street big wheels were victims of too much regulation. By playing that victim, they pushed to have all that regulation lifted beyond all common sense. I mean, c'mon - blind, naked short selling? Even if you don't know what that is, it just sounds like something that should be regulated if not banned outright. If you do know what it is, then you know it's a little like selling something you've never owned, without any knowledge, consent, permission or proceeds of/to the rightful owner, but you keep all those proceeds. Now, describe for me any place in the world where that would be considered an above board, proper activity... aside from Wall Street since the 80's that is. Example #2: Bernie Madoff, no explanation necessary, I hope.

So anyway, those victims got most of the finance regulation lifted by playing the victim and promising that if only that heavy jackboot of basic common sense regulation were lifted from their throats, they could get the nation's economy back on the right foot. And it worked! (while the economic cycle was on an upswing and until the cycle shifted back downward and then until we started dumping unbudgeted billions into Iraq) Then they were victims again and needed more of the jackboot removed cuz even though they were growing richer and richer off of the nation's investments, the investors themselves had experienced a bit of a free market correction - meaning that while the brokers' fees and the house shares remained VERY lucrative, most investors' account values dropped nearly in half.

Now we'll add the investors to the list of victims - oblivious to the cyclical market, and wanting desperatly to earn something for nothing by just dumping some money into a fund and forgetting it until they were millionaires come retirment time at age 50, they too repeated the mantra: lift the regulation... cuz that's what my rich broker said and I want to be rich just like him (or her) and the only way I'll ever get there (according to surveys of Americans during this wonderful era) is to win the lottery or win a lawsuit, or to get ridiculous returns on my 401k that can only be possible through a) miracles and b) total deregulation of the financial industry. For the love of Pete, we can't actually be expected to WORK for a living and SAVE our money for retirement... we're victims here!

As the victims succeeded in relaxing all the rules, new investment strategies followed, like the highly successful junk bond market, the savings and loan industry, and the securitized debt trade. Victims of their own success, the sky became the limit. The first million wasn't enough. Now we need the second. A bedroom and bathroom for every person in my household isn't enough. I now need two for each! 3500 square feet in a 10 year old house isn't enough... I need 5000 in a brand new house! A car that gets me to work and back isn't enough, it needs to take up most of the road and proclaim my status to the world and burn a gallon of fuel for every thousand feet, because I can and I am a victim and I am entitled to that.

Victims all. If that's what we choose to be, then that's what we are, which brings us to...

Chapter 5 - The Value of Perspective

The week before we went on vacation, the brake/shift lever interlock switch on our 6-year old Honda Odyssey went out for good, moments after I'd arrived at work 30 miles away. This $9 part that I eventually swapped out in the dealer parking lot where I bought the replacement, caused my wife to be late for her last day of work before the vacation.

On the third day after our return a piece of metal, consistent with that prevalent in the wife's work parking lot, caused a flat tire on said van that was discovered as my wife came out to leave for work one morning.... moments after I'd arrived at work... 30 miles away. My brother came over and plugged the tire for her, but not until she was late for work again for the second time in about four days of work.

My wife and my daughter both made comments suggesting it might be time to replace said van... as though these two minor incidents costing less than $12 and 15 minutes to remedy (total) were an indication that the quality of the vehicle were somehow suddenly called into question. Mind you, this is a six year-old, completely paid for van that safely carried my family and friends over 130,000 trouble free miles getting 20-25 mpg along the way.

They could have decided that either my wife or I should stop going to work - that's a perspective that's at least as logical as the bad van theory. They could also have decided I should buy a motorcycle since only two wheels reduces the chances of another flat by 50%, but we're not big on statistics.

I don't tell this story to make fun of my beloved wife or daughter - given the situation my wife found herself in twice in a two week span... and a span of only four work days... I can certainly understand her frustration. I tell this story simply to point out how a different perspective changes what we determine to be "the truth."

For instance, when the Bush administration opened up the floodgates of the bailout by handing over the first $700 billion, including $20 billion to GM and Chrylser, the "truth" was that this necessary influx was the right thing to do for such important American industries. But now that we're 160 days into Obama's task of sorting out how to guarantee the conditions of those loans are met, suddenly the "truth" has taken on a slightly different interpretation. What was once a solid move is now a socialist agenda and runaway spending. Nevemind that Bush offering bailout money is kind of like Jose Cuervo paying for alcohol rehab. Nevermind that Obama was handed this mess but is now being blamed for causing it. Nevermind that he's been in office all of 5 months.

Perspective changes the truth - even for people who claim that "situational ethics" is a horrible thing.

Which brings us to...

Chapter 6 (or "Conclusion" if you prefer) - The Value of a Short Memory

I remember W coming in to office with the first federal budget surplus in my lifetime. I remember him telling us first that we invaded Iraq because that's where the 911 terrorists were, then because they had weapons of mass destruction, then because Saddam was an out of control dictator, and then because the Iraqis (apparently more than people in any other nation) sought democracy. I remember him telling the world the mission in Iraq had been accomplished. I remember when we started spending $2 billion a week there. I remember W initiating the bailout. I remember W leaving office with the highest deficit in American history. And I have a vague memory of those same people who support the continued spending of that unbudgeted $2 billion per week suddenly worrying about spending money right here in America.

I wish my memory were as short as the memories of others.

I'd value that.

Then again, who am I?

Luth,

that's who.

ON Cleveland Sports: A championship in my lifetime, AND the WHS music program

2009-05-29T07:54:00.004-04:00

Wednesday night of this week, the Tribe FINALLY managed to string together three measley wins in a row with one against the Devil Rays. (At least they didn't wait until June for that!) (And yeah, I still call them that) Their timing couldn't have been better. After all, it sent the message that if this year's hapless Tribe can string three in a row together, then surely the far more capable Cavs can do the same.

The Cavs three game streak began last night. (now they only need to win two in a row... a much easier proposition) I predict the Cavs won't lose another until maybe game 3 or 4 against the Lakers and that will be the final loss of the season for the soon to be NBA champs. That's right, they'll be only the 9th out of nearly 200 playoff teams to come back from a 3-1 deficit to win the series. They're THAT special. I feel bad for Orlando fans this Saturday night. Life will truly suck for them as they prepare to come back to Cleveland to have their season ended!!

Another, far more interesting note to me:

Wadsworth High School band legend Sam Mayes retires at the end of this school year after 30 years of teaching and directing, 27 of it at Wadsworth, the last 9 at the Central Intermediate School where my daughter plays clarinet in the 5th grade band and sings in the 5th/6th grade choir.

Mr. Mayes came to Wadsworth by way of Coventry, a neighboring district, and there, by way of Indiana University of Pennsylvania(where he played trombone, Ray.) He even joined the "trombone line" last night to play the featured parts of Slip and Slide with about 15 5th grade trombonists? tromboners (no, that can't be it).

I was too dumb to have figured out that I could have passed some of my high school prison sentence playing an instrument for free rather than sitting in class, so I only knew Mr. Mayes from a student's perspective as that goofy new guy with bozo the clown hair. He came to WHS and took over as band director my senior year.

I knew him from a parent's perspective through two daughters in his band. He was the guy who somehow kept the band's population steady at nearly 50% of the class's populations. That's over 150 kids in both the 5th and 6th grade bands. They were so big that neither class/band had any space to practice as one unit except the performance stage, which was only cleared for use during concerts so they practiced in chunks. I also knew him as the guy who created the first 6th grade Jazz band in the school's history, populating it with nearly 50 kids... who always play Louie Louie as part of their Spring concert... and always feature solos from brave students (last year there were 7 solos but only 3 last night... SOLOS, by SIXTH graders in jazz band!!)

5th and 6th grade is a remarkable time for band kids. The school year starts with strange, scary, often annoying noises coming from their instruments, but the CIS band staff somehow manages to pick the right songs and steer the kids into delivering solid, if not occasionally amazing performances. Last night's final concert fell into the amazing category. My wife and I kept assuring ourselves that both the 5th and 6th grade bands weren't just AS good as many high school bands we've heard, they were truly better. I don't know if they kicked it up for Mr. Mayes's last show, or if the program is simply that rock solid, but it has never been a chore to attend these concerts. It has always been a pleasure. Last night was exemplary.

The auditorium they play in won't hold all of the parents from both grade levels, so they kick the 5th grade parents out after the band is done, then the combined choir sings (over 100 kids, all of whom come in an hour before school for every practice) and then they kick parents out again and then the 6th graders and the Jazz band finish the show. Mr. Mayes and his three bands received three standing ovations last night. They were the first in my memory at these concerts.

For me, being part of all three was a small thank you to him and to all the teachers who put in that kind of effort, that kind of magic over the course of an all too often unforgiving, thankless career. If you watched Mr. Mayes for more than about 30 seconds at a concert, you could instantly see his was a labor of love, but it's still a tough job that never gets the credit it deserves... not in pay and certainly not in respect.

Mr. Mayes is one of many examples of what's great about public education, what's so important that music remain a part of it, and a reminder that most of the people involved with it are VERY good at what they do... even if they don't all achieve his level of success.

Luth,
Out

Taking stock... counting blessings... returning to center.

2009-04-20T09:56:00.002-04:00

I know I’ve way overused the “I just read this in Esquire” premise for a post, but you can’t pick on a guy for where he finds his inspiration. Well, actually you can, and most people do, frequently, but I’m not going to let that stop me.

David Granger, the magazine’s editor, writes a column every month called “This Way In” by way of introducing and setting up each issue. Yes, I actually read them, most of the time anyway, and most of the time they, at the very least, demonstrate why he holds the post he does with that organization. He is insightful, unafraid of expressing unpopular opinions and an accomplished writer. His vision for the magazine is clear in its continuous reach for something new while maintaining its traditions.

Every now and then though, Mr. Granger exceeds that standard and contributes a piece that outshines, or at least rivals all else that follows that first or second page. This month’s is one of those times.

His was a simple message, to be clear, but in a time when the redundant and pedantic “now more than ever” has been added to every proclamation from Twinkies ads to rationalizations for illegitimate wars, it can’t be stated enough.

His message is this: For most of us it’s not that bad so man up, count your blessings, and quit yer whinin’!

He establishes this as an undisputable truth with reasons dear to my heart. I’ll lay a few of them out here and then add a few of my own as a means of justifying my own existence:

1. every generation wants theirs to be the best and the worst of times so we tend to exaggerate our situation – I knew a guy in college who ALWAYS noted this about Buffalo, NY

(Granger invokes HALF of the classic Dickens first line and a hypothesized editorial response to it from the European poor to illustrate the repetitiveness of this truism)

2. even if it were as bad as Al Gore says, and we did everything he suggests, we’d only, by the most generous predictions, succeed in reducing global warming by .3 degrees by the year 2100.

3. the current economic crisis, while nothing to sneeze at, means it’s easier to:

- get a seat at great restaurants and most offer value priced specials!

- unhinge our economy from the volatile futures market where it never should have been

…all things that should have happened long ago!

To Granger’s list I’ll add:

- buy cheap real estate

- catch up on that degree you abandoned

- change careers (we all need different kinds of motivation, for instance: being fired)

- buy cheap stock in companies you KNOW will be around in 10 years

- vacation in Cuba and bring home legal cigars (OK, maybe not quite yet, but…)

I guess what hits home most to me about Granger’s advice or observation is how it applies to politics. Trying times cause us to take stock. We should do that more often. While I’m happy that the American political trend seems to be a resurgence of the voice of the largely moderate electorate, I think we should take a little more notice of it.

The extremes from both poles have had the floor for far too long. I truly do not begrudge Rush or Billo for making a career out of this. In fact, if anything, I’m a little jealous. Not so much of their “success” as of their ability to fool the rest of the media into believing they matter more than they really do. Actually, that’s a misstatement as well. If they didn’t actually matter, the last three elections would have been vastly different. We would have discussed issues that really matter in a rational, reasonable manner. WE didn’t, hence Rush and Billo matter.

The Air America crew – and I’ll go ahead and put names to them: Al Franken and Janene Garafolo, (the only ones I can recall) were no better. Though I obviously lean slightly more in their direction than in Fox’s, I’m just as disgusted with their extremism as I am with that of the other side. In fact, maybe even more so for their lack of ability to pull off a successful campaign already modeled for them by their polar opposites. Perhaps they didn’t go extreme enough. Or, as I like to fool myself into believing on occasion, perhaps it’s just that their FAR LESS extreme/FAR MORE reasonable content simply doesn’t sell (watch the talk shows and the news if you doubt my theory) But even I have to admit that they tried to be just as extreme, they just weren’t as good at it as the right.

The point is, these folks don’t represent US. They represent extremes and while America might be extremely greedy, extremely shortsighted, extremely forgetful, and a lot of other adjectives to the extreme, as a nation, we tend to chug along with a high degree of stability, which is to say, overall moderation and reasonability. We’re really not bad neighbors to have most of the time even if we tend to be a little boring once the extremes are ignored. And in spite of ourselves, we’re still the best hope in the world for the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants.

We provide the best opportunity to rise out of one’s born class regardless of color, creed or even competence. We take care of our own (most of the time) better than just about any other group of people on the planet and when we falter in that, we’re the first to admit it even if we fight over the best way to fix it. At least we fight about it and allow for the fight/discussion to happen instead of repressing all opposition!

We could get better at that fight and I believe we have in the past year. Rush and Billo have proven themselves to be exactly what they are: shock value entertainers with no concern at all for what they’re spewing aside from the ratings and cash it gets them. Al Franken has put his money where is mouth was and opted to do something about it rather than just talk and make money. Like him, more Americans have taken a true interest in politics than we have in a long, long time, but there still remains a lingering doubt.

This doubt is reinforced each time I hear someone say something like “I hate all parties and all politicians. You just can’t trust any of ‘em anymore.”

On the one hand, it’s refreshing to hear this from people who formerly spewed party politics rather than contemplate a thought of their own for more than the time it takes to pop the top on a beer. On the other hand, this is exactly the attitude Granger is railing against.

Opting out is not an option. Politicians are what they are and have always been. They’re no worse nor better in our time than they ever were. Ditto the media, education, communication, technology, the economy, religion, guns, abortion, etc. and so on. Dropping out of the participatory process that is America in general and our political process in specific is just a lame excuse for your laziness.

It’s the dropouts who allow the extremists to take control in the first place… and only after watching them run away with everything great about our world are we finally drawn back into not just the polls, but the process itself. Party extremists can get people to the polls, but it took a campaign like Obama’s to actually get folks back into the process. If he hadn’t mustered up the now famous high-tech grass-roots campaign, pulling people in as volunteers and campaigners, he never would have gotten folks to the polls. Moderation was his stance. The only extremism came via his oppositions accusations.

Suddenly people are shocked to hear that he, like Clinton, is actually a moderate. Welcome to mainstream America. Don’t believe the extremist hype. Jump in the pool and discover that the water, scarce as it seems to be growing, is actually rather fine.

Does this mean we shouldn’t strive for that .3 degree reduction in global temperatures Al Gore’s less optimistic critics say we can achieve? No. Does it mean we should continue to artificially inflate rapidly self-destructing American companies rather than letting the market run its course? No. Does it mean we should abandon the workers through whose efforts those company’s helped establish American dominance and make it the great place it is and continuously tries to be? Of course not.

What it means is it’s time to STAY involved. It’s time to remember to count our blessings and realize it’s not that bad, or at least that we can make it better. It’s also time to remember that it’s worse for some, better for others. It’s time to do what we can for ourselves and for others so they can make it better for themselves as we strive to make it better for ourselves. These goals aren’t mutually exclusive and the vast majority of us are glad to share them as common goals. That’s not socialism, it’s America. There will always be folks content to do the labor, earn the meager wage, buy the products and live their lives firmly in a comfortable, anonymous middle class. Without them, the big wheels have no customers, no one from whom to make massive fortunes and remain or arrive among the elite, no one to build or deliver their products. But those elites must also remember the contributions everyone makes along the way. Elite (in terms of wealth) does not equal better or worse. The measure of one’s success or contribution isn’t always monetary.

Granger points this out expertly with his “unhinging our economy from the banks” idea. The nation of Bhoutan takes it even further by dropping the notion of Gross National Product in favor of Gross National Happiness – wherein they spend the nation’s cash not on that which returns the most cash, but on what returns the most happiness for their citizenry. Now that’s extreme, but somewhere between what they do and what we do, there’s a far more acceptable and realistic solution.

Now that those of us who comprise the middle of the bell on that famous curve have come back into power, let’s keep it that way by vowing to never return to those extremes again.

Expect more from your government by remaining an active participant in and customer of it. Don’t give up and let the extremes on either side shape the future for you. Don’t be the “no voter” who never proposes any solutions but rather constantly criticizes the solutions someone else proposes.

Limbaugh's Assassin Logic and Lapsed Memory

2009-03-06T08:46:00.003-05:00

It's no surprise that Rush Limbaugh's memory is short. In his battle against our "welfare state" he forgets that he once received public assistance. In his battle against Obama's "bastardization of the Constitution," he quotes the Declaration of Independence but cited the (either misquoted or paraphrased) words (depending on whether you think he’s a gas bag or a genius) as part of the Preamble to the Constitution, and in his battle against anything Democratic, he seems to have quickly forgotten that the President of the United States is OUR president, the nation's president, not just the president of the people who voted for him.

It wasn't too long ago that Rush was reminding liberals of this. Rush seems to have forgotten that outside of the campaigns very few but those who are as extreme in their views as Rush, ever want any president to fail.

Rush seems to have forgotten that while many of Bush's policies seemed doomed to failure from their inception, simply pointing that out is a far cry from actually rooting for them to fail. I'm not telling anyone anything new when I say I wasn't a big fan of the war in Iraq. It's never been justified. It's never accomplished anything and the cost will never be recouped. BUT not only did I, a card carrying liberal, NOT want it to fail, I actually participated in it at MY commander in chief's request even though I thought it was a stupid idea and I didn’t vote for that commander in chief. That’s what Americans do. I hoped, with that eternal optimism that many Americans have, that I’d discover something in Iraq that aligned with what Rush and Cheney and Bush were telling us back home… that some shred of logic might make it all clearer to me. I was disappointed, but I did my job and made it home.

What did Rush do? He ran his mouth in support of the war, forgot that it hasn’t panned out as predicted, then quickly abandoned his false patriotism to publicly wish for the failure of the man elected by Americans to lead America.

In my weakest moments, I too was pretty disrespectful to my commander in chief. I regret that I let my frustration get to me to that extent. I have no excuse. Unlike Rush, I was never under the influence of prescription pain killers that weren't prescribed to me. While I voiced my opinion about who the NEXT president should be, often invoking the actions of the current administration's all too public failing policies as evidence in support of what I believed, I never hoped that the current president would fail at anything. I simply wanted to replace him the next time around because of the failures no one else could even conceive. That’s what Americans do.

Unlike Rush, I realize that our leaders, as representatives of our nation, set the course of our nation. Though Rush tried to mitigate this throughout his 90 minutes of blather to C-Pac last week, there's no getting around the basic idea: root for the nation's leaders to fail and you're rooting for the nation to fail.

It doesn't surprise me that Rush feels this way. He's supported failed national policy for most of his working career. In fact, if it weren't for applying false logic, oversimplification, and yelling louder than anyone else in the room in defense of failed policy, he wouldn't have a job. No one would know who he is.

What surprises me most about the speech is how closely it ties the Rush mentality with the American presidential assassins described in Sarah Vowell’s Assassination Vacation. In this humorous travelogue/autobiography of all sites associated with three president killers, Vowell provides a glimpse into their lives, their thoughts (through diary entries and other museum displays) as well as the lives of the presidents these men killed, the lives of the presidents that took over, their opponents and supporters, and the stereotypical American. (You know by now that I’m no history buff, but this is the kind of book that is an interesting character study that just happens to make the history come alive in the process only because its subjects just happen to be historical figures. You know what, that’s not even entirely accurate since Vowell and her many traveling companions are not historical. OK, so I’m not a literary critic.)

Anyway, two weeks ago, comparing Rush to America’s presidential assassins would have been purely to elicit response... nothing more than my own, misinformed opinion spread over the Web as the Web allows and begs, but Rush has given my comparison teeth with this latest media charade. Using not only a well covered semi-political event, but also Fox TV's coverage of it as his forum, Rush made clear that he is an ungrateful, childish, disrespectful and extremely arrogant hypocrite... just in case anyone was still wondering… who actually believes his own dogma. He demonstrated that the only thing he even pretends to honor from the greatest nation in the world is his ability to pull large amounts of cash out of its bleating lambs. This is all to say, somewhat more frighteningly, that he seems to have an awful lot in common with John Wilkes-Booth, Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgolsz.

Jealousy, you say? Perhaps a tinge on the surface, but Rush is actually my motivational example that money and fame generally aren't worth what one has to give up for them.

There was a time when Elvis was a hero of mine, but the fat sweaty guy in bedazzled, oversized collared, fringed jumpsuits who eventually died on his toilet was a quick lesson for me about what a hero is. These days, when someone famous shows up on an infomercial, or on one of those "Where are they now" or "Celebrity Rehab" shows, that same lesson is learned all over again. But good old Rush has saved us the trouble of wondering when it will happen to him. Instead, he's made the leap on his own with one last dying gasp broadcast on his beloved cable channel. Naysayers might argue that he's always spewing attention-worthy drivel clearly intended to capitalize on the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" theory for achieving fame, but this new low has "grand finale" written all over it.

Even I didn't believe he would ever sink this deep into the smelliest mud... actually voicing his desire for the nation that made him rich to fail. I'm surprised he didn't offer himself up as an example of what's wrong with us these days. That would have been the final nail... the Kool-Aid stains on his chin.

So anyway, how does this link Rush to the likes of Wilkes-Booth, Guiteau and Czolgolsz – killers of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley - you ask? On the most basic level, they, like Rush, they truly believed they would be greeted as heroes for their courageous acts by a grateful nation. They were arrogant SOBs who believed they were divinely called to right the wrongs under which the entire nation suffered. Wiles-Booth thought himself a pillar of the Republican party. Guiteau believed that as well and that he deserved, and was even qualified to be the U.S. Ambassador to France. Czolgolsz, well, he was just an anarchist so maybe there’s no real link… no, wait, anarchists want government to fail so that in its absence, life will be beautiful. That’s more like Rush than I thought. Isn’t anarchy just the logical extension of the notion “that government is best which governs least?”

It’s also no coincidence that Roosevelt, who stepped in for McKinley, was a centrist who brokered revolutionary deals that, while not necessarily pleasing to both labor and industry, addressed both of their needs in a rational manner void of politics and partisan patronage. It’s almost as though, as Vowell puts it, he stopped being a Republican. (her words, not mine) I’m sure the pundits of the day felt Roosevelt was driving the nation to ruin with such revolutionary ideas as rational discussion, compromise, and trying to understand several perspectives before pronouncing policy.

But back to the arrogance of the assassins…

In the context of a joke, Limbaugh actually told his C-pac audience that God is jealous of him. Even in his attempts at self-deprecation, Limbaugh redefines arrogance. The only thing those assassins had over Limbaugh is their willingness to fully commit their egos, and their lives to the final task. Limbaugh, comfy in what he takes from our nation – at least until his wish comes true and the nation is no longer, won't go that final step/bite the hand that feeds him/prove his hypocrisy, but what he told his audience and the Fox viewers, was that he fully supports the thinking.

Wilkes-Booth believed that he spoke for both the North and the South and that his actions would not only heal a bleeding nation, be lauded, seen as justified, praised even, but, more specicically, that he could save the Republican Party from what Lincoln had done to it. He was shocked and almost suicidal when he learned this was not the case.

Czolgolsz must have been shocked when, while standing in line to shake President McKinley’s hands/shoot McKinley at the World Fair in Buffalo, he was actually tackled and beaten by a cop and a citizen who had been in line behind him. McKinley, bleeding on the floor of the convention hall, actually told the cop who joined the citizen to go easy on his assassin. Proving that those who actually rise to leadership rather than just lobbing arrows at their leaders from behind, can put personal desires aside and do what’s right rather than what will make them rich and famous. That’s a hard job to have. Rush’s job is much easier… so much so in fact, that I do it for free!

Charles Guiteau's trial was known for the entertainment value provided via Mr. Guiteau's nonsensical tirades. Though he made it clear with the speeches that he had lost his grip on reality, he undermined his own defense team's insanity plea by actually putting together entertaining speeches, even poetry about how wonderful he is and how God told him to kill President Garfield... that, in fact, the murder would save the Republican party.

The only difference seems to be that back in those days, folks had enough sense to laugh at Guiteau, not with him. They came to the trial to hear what kind of goofiness he would spew next, NOT to hear the "truth" about what's best for our nation.

Luth,
Out

Milestones and stumbling blocks

2009-02-21T10:35:00.003-05:00

Finally! America has, once and for all, put behind us that ugly racism that has held us back, distracted, disrupted, halted progress, shed blood and generally drained energy and resources since our very beginnings.

With the election of the first black president, it has finally dawned on ignorant boneheads that the self perpetuating crap they've believed all their lives is just that: crap. People all over this great nation are starting to realize they've been lied to by their friends and relatives about stereotyping and generalizing. People finally realize they no longer have any excuses for their lots in life outside of their own performance. Women suddenly own land and a majority of seats in leadership commensurate with their numbers of the population. People of colors and cultures different from our euro-blanco norm finally are judged not by their accent or skin color, but by their individual traits, character and ability.

Finally after eight years of President Bush being caricatured as a monkey in weekly political cartoons, the guy can get out of the spotlight and rest and the new president can safely be caricatured as a monkey without any hidden agendas or underlying meanings being associated with it other than pure, journalistic license invoking the close relationship between humans and apes... humans of any color, of course. The subtle joke being, obviously, that while we have evolved from, and share the vast majority of genes with that slightly lesser species, we still share many many traits. Thank goodness we've left race behind us so we can get on to the real problems that face us even if we still share too many of those lesser traits.

After all, we do still resort to violent outbursts on innocent victims even if those victims are close friends of the ones who have cared for and fed us all our lives. Sometimes these outbursts are the results of unrestrained emotion and pass as quickly, and without permanent damage as a mild spring storm. Sometimes the outbursts are the concerted effort of an entire nation resulting from fear, intolerance and ignorance, and the damage is ongoing and irreparable.

We still succumb to the innate drive to reproduce, sometimes at irresponsible and alarming rates even though we've eliminated most of the threat of predators and competition for food and shelter that used to justify having twice the amount of offspring that we expected to survive. In fact, we succumb to that particular instinct even with no intention of reproducing or, more often, with the clear intention of NOT reproducing. In fact, there's another milestone: thank goodness that in our present state of evolution, we've managed to disassociate the myths, traditions, emotions and even the biological purpose from the pleasurable act that can, but doesn't have to result in reproduction!! Separating out the baggage from the process will surely lead to more responsible behavior like longer lasting marriages, more responsible parenting, and an overall awakening when it comes to relationships and sex.

We still willfully deceive each other for little more reason than because we can, and we still, perhaps rightfully, are suspicious of each other because, after all, as the higher species, we are not only capable, but all too ready to use these distinguishing traits simply because we can... as if to prove that we have taken that step beyond the last, less developed form of ourselves. Many of us have even evolved to the point of being able to justify these deceptive behaviors as a practice in a skillful art that were it not practiced might be lost, as though we might DEvolve if we don't cheat, lie, steal and manipulate regularly... or better still, that the cheating, lying, stealing and manipulating is justified as a means to some end that better serves all of humanity... you know, like Blago was trying to do for the people of Illinois... by any means necessary.

But at least we've left the racism behind us. On Abe Lincoln's 200th birthday (and the state of Ohio's 206th!!), nearly 150 years after the Civil War, almost 50 years after the Civil Rights Act was signed, and after a history of sacrificing our sons to defend the basic rights of others around the globe we have finally arrived at a point where nothing is valued higher than ensuring those basic rights, freedoms, and fair treatment for every citizen in our own nation. We have evolved beyond race. We have turned the page on that dark chapter and left it behind us once and for all. As our first black attorney general so eloquently pointed out, America is ready to move on now that we've fully, completely addressed and left behind the "awkward, painful" race issue. Man, am I glad that's over with.

Luth,

Out.

I got yer stimulus package right here!

2009-02-03T18:54:00.003-05:00

I don't really have a stimulus package, but as you may have guessed, I have an opinion on the president's and here it is:

I'm as mixed about it as I was about Super Bowl XLIII.

I was raised better than this, but I just couldn't commit to hating the Steelers. During the Browns' missing years I gained a new respect for the Steelers. I began rooting for them just to spite Art Modell but in the course of that it occurred to me how similar the two towns and the two teams really were...or are...or were. Whatever. Once I got over my upbringing (a deeply ingrained hatred of the Black and Gold and all they represented) it got easier and easier to root for this hard-nosed team built around The Bus, one of the last true franchise players in pro sports, and a lot of other pretty cool guys who played Browns-style football (only Pittsburgh was actually good at it).

In addition to that, I get pretty annoyed with the typical Browns fan's hatred blinding them to the logic of rooting for one's own division in the big game. If a neighboring high school team knocks your team out of the state semi-finals, don't you root for the neighbor in the championship? Don't you still want your region to represent? C'mon! How far do you have to go to prove your loyalty/hatred of the rival? Besides, that hatred should be reserved for the Ravens these day anyway. I just can't buy the escalating hatred for Pittsburgh long after the Browns season was over.

OK, now that I've cleared that up, I have to admit that I, like most of America, have fallen for Kurt Warner's story as well. What a guy, even more so for disproving F. Scott Fitzgerald's "no second acts in American lives" theory. And the Cardinals? One of the original NFL teams, still owned by the orignal family (who arguably has held the team back for most of those years) and with the longest running drought since a championship second only to that of the Chicago Cubs. (and thank God for that or what would Browns fans have to prop us up?!) That was American Hero Pat Tillman's team, for the love of Bob!! It was Cuba Gooding Jr's team in Jerry McGuire. These poor guys probably still don't know where they'll be playing next season. How can you not love 'em. AND they were the underdog. What's more American than rooting for the underdog? Unless, of course, you have to put money on the game, and then we're back to the Steelers.

So anyway, yeah... I was a little torn about that game. As it turned out, I solved the dilemma by rooting for offense. Even here I was a little torn. I love watching Akron native and NFL defensive player of the year, James Harrison, as well as the throw-your-body-into-the-train-wreck antics of Troy Palomalu. Offense may sell tickets, but I LOVE defense. Still, I had to do something so I just rooted for offense and so I was thrilled when the Cards managed to grab the lead late in the fourth. Then I was pushed to the limits of football ecstasy when Ohioan Big Ben Roethliswhatever engineered that last drive throwing not just one, but two perfect passes to both corners of the end zone for Buckeye alum Santonio Holmes to catch. (NOTE for the record that Holmes only managed to catch ONE of those perfect touchdown passes!! and was still named MVP over the guy who threw both of them - and they were both PERFECT passes)

Torn... that's how I feel about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 too. I can't quite bring myself to argue against education funding. (or anything else in the package for that matter but...) It truly disgusts me how much Americans expect out of public education but how little we're willing to give for it. Worse, how we sacrifice class after class's education experience to shave a few cents off our tax bill year after year. Only in public education do we expect folks to work for near-poverty wages but be more educated than the majority of the working population, take over most parenting responsibility, be the model of integrity and professionalism, subject matter experts, counselors, cops, cheerleaders and friends. How is it that the business model doesn't apply to teachers wherein the best and the brightest are attracted to the job with the biggest salaries? We talk about teacher accountability all the time, but rarely about accounting for their services, devotion and professionalism the way these traits are accounted for in almost every other profession - with cash! Ditto for administrators who run some of the most efficient corporations in the nation with the smallest budgets in existence. Think of the Superintendent of a large city's school system. This guy (or gal) is the CEO of an organization with hundreds of facilities and thousands of employees. Name one other corporation in American like that where the CEO doesn't make MILLIONS and yet we argue that low six figures is too much to pay the suprintendent and we expect far better results. Nope, I won't argue against finally spending a tiny fration of what education is worth...

BUT, there's a time and a place for everything and I'm just not sure now is the time to finally deploy the long overdue funding help that public schools need from the state and federal level. I can't help but wonder if that part of the package shouldn't be put on hold for a year until some other parts of the plan have begun to work their magic.

Speaking of that magic, wouldn't it be great if part of this package provided needed goods and services while at the same time creating jobs, upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure or even converting the nation to more sustainable power, fuel etc. Now that's stimulus. Even if you're among the minority of economists who don't believe that increased government spending at a time when the rest of the country has finally decided to save/not spend acts as a stabilizing force, you have to realize that putting people and companies to work across the country repairing those bridges before they fall into rivers, upgrading the power grid before more rolling brownouts, and building new sources of energy and alternative fuel infrastructures so we never have to worry about OPEC price adjustments ever again is not only a great idea, but one that also supports the mom and pop diners near the construction sites, the Red Wing shoe stores, the materials suppliers, the banks, the Caterpillar factory and dealerships, the gas stations on the way to work... and on and on and on. That's stimulus. Those are the kinds of investments that should top the list of spending in any stimulus package.

But alas, the biggest part of the Obama plan doesn't go to that kind of stimulus. Nor do the second or the third or even the fourth biggest chunks. The true "stimulus" portion of Obama's proposal comes in fifth among the categories of spending, after tax cuts, education funding, healthcare and welfare programs.

I will say this again: I cannot bring myself to argue against increased federal education funding. And I'm not suggesting there will be no return on investment from educational spending - there will, exponential return... over time...

BUT, shouldn't we maybe generate a little revenue first? Get some people back to work? In fact, I'd even argue that the tax cuts should fall lower on the list, after all, taxes are one of the few things that have remained stable in this economy! We're all used to paying them at the current rates and if you're unemployed now, your taxes are cut anyway, so why cut 'em... but that's another argument for later.

So here's my plan: We keep the spending categories Obama has proposed, and we keep his numbers, but we put the numbers to the categories like one of those matching tests from high school where you have to draw lines to connect the word with the definition. Take the biggest chunk - the $275 billion in tax cuts - and connect it to the Upgrade the Infrastructure category... after all, this one is the one that will literally put people back to work and better still, they'll be working on fixing shit that's been falling apart due to lack of funding for far too long. I'm willing to give in a little on some mortgage tax breaks to help homeowners and (groan) the banks, but not much.

Then let's take the second biggest chunk o cash - the $142 billion for education - and connect it to the alternative energy/fuel/power transmission infrastructure improvements which also immediately puts people back to work and better still they'll be working on breaking the Middle East's grip on us and creating sustainable, clean sources of energy allowing us to remain rugged individuals each with our own 4wd vehicles and air conditioned homes with heated driveways well into our grandkids' and their grandkids' generations.

After that you can rearrange the remaining categories - the healthcare spending, the welfare spending, and the tax cuts - however you want... hint: I'd connect the next biggest chunk o cash with education, but that's just me. I could be swayed to move it to healthcare too. In fact, if we'd fix healthcare, just about everyone with employer-paid insurance would probably see a $500 to a $1000 per month raise right away anyway.

I could even be persuaded to leave education off the first-year phase of the plan as long as it appears again in next year's phase with similiar numbers... adjusted UP for inflation, of course.

So anyway, yeah, I'm critiquing the Democrat now, but I'm a little torn about it.

Next dilemma: Who's the bigger menace to society:

A) a pot-smoking Michael Phelps or

B) a woman with no partner in her life with 7 kids already and no way of supporting them who then takes fertility drugs and has 8 more ?

Luth

Out

Gross National Happiness

2009-01-20T23:07:00.005-05:00

In Eric Weiner's The Geography of Happiness he talks of the nation of Bhutan, its efforts to maintain its history and culture, but mostly of its policy of Gross National Happiness.

The first two words in that phrase should sound familiar enough. Even if you don't know what they mean, Gross National Product or Gross Domestic Product should be phrases you've heard before. Often, the terms are used to describe not just the wealth, but the overall health of a nation. Bhutan has a different take on this. Instead of measuring their worth, their government's worth, and their national policies by measure of what they produce (and, of course, by association, what they consume) they've chosen to rate themselves on a policy of national happiness.

"But," you think to yourself, "you can't measure happiness."

"Why not?" says Weiner and a growing number of phsychologists, sociologists, magazine editors and jounalists. In a recent Business Week survey, Bhutan was rated the eighth happiest nation in the world. It made Weiner's list of places to check out because he had seen the survey and was familiar with the work of a psychologist from the Netherlands who spoke of it, and because he wanted to find a place that was relatively poor by most standards but still made everyone else's lists of happy places.

What intrigued me about Weiner's description of the place was the fact that the underlying idea behind Bhutan's otherwise VERY idiosyncratic methods of achieving Gross National Happiness was the idea that living within one's means virtually guarntees the policy's success. Before having a local explain this to him directly, Weiner notices a road sign on which the following is hand painted:

When the last tree is cut

When the last river is emptied

When the last fish is caught

Only then will Man realize that he can not eat money

Ok, ok, so they're all tree huggers? Well, not really. Some of their dedication to preservation, at least in the form of preventing littering, comes to them much more honestly... via superstition or faith, if you prefer. Weiner relates the story of three hikers walking past a lake into which they've thrown their trash. Without warning a dense fog enveloped the area and caused the hikers to get lost. Only one of them was ever found. Legend has it that the spirit of the lake took the other two hikers as punishment for their "sins." Folks in Bhutan don't litter now. And sure, they're not above animism, but it's not the ONLY reason they believe in sustainability.

When he finally manages to track down a government official who is initially "too busy" to be interviewed for the book, Weiner asks him why he has just seen graphic footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a presentation the official has just hosted. The official's response sums up the policy:

"I truly believe that a country that is committed to happiness cannot be bellicose; if we don't pursue a sustainable way of life, we will be fighting for resources. Not just for oil and not necessarily between nations. It might be a fight for water between San Diego and Los Angeles."

While this official's answer doesn't exactly address the footage about which Weiner inquires, it does represent the essence of Bhutan's policy: they're frickin nuts!

Just like every era-marking idea in the history of man.

Only when someone, somewhere, has the balls to say or think or try something totally nuts is history made. Only when the common thinking is challenged in a way that allows a new idea, a new way of thinking, a completely different view of the world to gain some traction are problems we've never foreseen on the verge of being solved.

In the case of Bhutan, an entire nation has bought into this madness. According to Weiner, they owe much of their current thinking to an ancestor who came along about 500 years ago named Drupka Kunley. Natives sometimes call him the Divine Madman. Weiner compares him to Woody Allen and Howard Stern. He was a bit of a drunk, a womanizer, apparently had what some might call a flatulence problem, and he laid down the ideals for a nation that now places the happiness of its people above the wealth of its people.

The Bhutanese have done this in some strange ways, not all of which sound all that great, but doesn't every plan run into some roadblocks? While they still keep a very strict limit on tourism, forgoing potential millions, they have added cable TV, hospitals, schools, and even a few "roads" if you use the term loosely. Men are advised (but not forced) to meditate at some point in their lives for three years, three days and three months and not too long ago, the government ran power lines up into the Himalayas to provide a village just for this meditation. There's no profit involved. It doesn't cost anything to go and meditate there, and there's little financially to be derived from any phase of the ordeal, but that wasn't a consideration.

I'm leaving out many of the details, but you can read Weiner's book (it really is interesting and it looks at a lot of other places in the world while doling out digestible chunks of data driven "happiness research" along the way) or you can just Wiki Bhutan for yourself. My point, and I do have one, is that regardless of how nutty this particular nation of people may be, the fact that they still exist, and by most standards are doing just fine, seems to indicate that the time has come for their crazy idea to be recognized by others.

This means a shift in thinking.

Nietzche says something like this in Daybreak:

"It is not enough to prove something, one also has to seduce or elevate people to it. That is why the man of knowledge should learn how to speak his wisdom: and often in such a way that sounds like folly."

Plenty of smart people have told us for a long time that money can't buy happiness, that it's not a true measure of wealth or health. That nations cannot be measured solely by it and yet, for the last twenty years of my life and long before, I suspect, every indication of where we are and where we are going as a nation has been in terms of the mighty dollar.

Weiner poses a riddle early on in his chapter on Bhutan. It's as if he's having trouble wrapping his brain around the nation's crazy ideas even though he went there for the sole purpose of grasping them. The riddle goes like this:

What do the following have in common: The War in Iraq, The Exxon Valdez, and the rise in the U.S. prison population? The answer, of course, is that they all contribute to... favorably contribute to our Gross Domestic Product. In pure economic terms, that makes all three of these items "good."

Now look, I'm not saying that Bhutan has all the answers, nor does Weiner. In fact, he bemoans the lack of a good cup of coffee just about everywhere in the country and notes that many of the "cafes" his tour guide drops him in serve only instant... bad instant. And I'm not saying we could suddenly drop the economy that currently has our nation chugging along so briskly and wonderfully overnight. But I am saying that the staying power of this idea is a sign that we're ready to evolve as a species into a higher form of managing ourselves and our world.

Though plenty of people WAY smarter than me have told us many times before that money isn't everything, we've never been seduced to any alternatives. We've never been elevated to any new way of thinking about it. Eric Weiner's book has thrown some sand under our wheels as they spin on the financial ice. Dr. Ruut Veenhoven, Professor of Happiness Studies and his World Happiness Database in the Netherlands, Positive Psychology programs popping up at Clarmont University in California, and now Penn State, surveys by Business Week, and a whole lot of searching for a better way HAVE elevated us to this idea.

It is rarely enough to prove something. We must be elevated to it. It must be presented to us as folly, so we are forced to consider it over and over until something about it strikes us as real.

The Geography of Happiness speaks this truth as though it were pure folly. It is entertaining in its most biographical purposes, pleasantly enlightening in its dissemination of research, but most importantly, it elevates us to an entire shift in thinking. It introduces us to guests standing at our doorway who appear a little scary compared to the guests we're used to, but dammit, I think it's time we let them in, offer them something to drink, some good conversation, and just see if we can't enjoy what we have to learn from them for a while.

What have we got to lose?

By the way, while cleaning up the 'blog, I found an old post lying around in draft form, realized how overdue a new post was and though it's probably too late, I thought maybe this might remind us all, on the day after a historic inauguaration, that it is in fact time to move on... that and I'm pissed I never got around to posting it when the time was right (when Mary Tillman's book came out almost a YEAR ago!! ) so if you're like the three other regular readers of HorsePoup, and you're jonesing for something else to read while waiting for the paint to dry, click on May 2008 and check out another "new" post full of piss and vinegar over the different treatment of two grieving mothers who lost sons in OEF/OIF.

Luth,

Out

Bailouts

2008-12-03T21:21:00.004-05:00

I was digging around the archives looking for a post I thought I'd created, but it must have just been an email I sent to the die hard fans on my mailing list. It was my proposal for the banking industry bailout and it went something like this:

If you want my money, these are the rules: (for PUBLICLY OWNED/TRADED COMPANIES)

1. Salaries of all "c-level" employees (CEO, CFO, CIO...) are not to exceed 20 times the average salary of your full-time employees, or, if you prefer, not to exceed 30 times your lowest paid employee including part-timers.

2. C-level benefits packages must be available to all full-time employees at similar proportions of their incomes.

3. No other form of compensation (options, parachutes, trusts) may be provided to C employees that are not also available to and resonably attainable by all other full time employees.

4. You can return to your ridiculous pay structures as soon as you've paid back all principal and interest.

If you don't like these terms, don't take the money. Four rules. Simple as that.

Remember, it's you bastards who got rich while the rest of us lost our homes and our jobs over the last seven years. Don't wait too long for us to come to your rescue.

These rules were part of my proposal for publicly-owned and traded companies, but especially for those financial companies who sit at the top of the funnel, up through which all of America's money passes.

To that I'd like to add that it's time the people on top of that funnel, where the entire nation's wealth is concentrated should be subject to THE MOST scrutiny and REGULATION of any other industry in America. That's ALL of OUR money up there. They skim the most of it off and keep it for themselves as it is, and that's fine as long as their practices are sound. You don't have to be a financial genius to know that naked short selling isn't sound and shouldn't even be legal. WTF!?

But what pissed me off the most about the whole deal was that these are the same people who call welfare, adequate public education funding and universal healthcare "socialism" but when the money goes the other direction it's "vital to our economic stability."

These bailouts are welfare. Plain and simple. The only difference is that the tax money is going straight to the top... as if even the welfare must now trickle down to save us. Our money just wasn't getting funneled up fast enough - Bush's plan to sell out middle Amercia to Big Corporate wasn't working fast enough, so now we'll print more money than we have, hand it directly over to those at the top of the chain and put the bill on the middle Americans who actually manage to keep their jobs... and their kids and grandkids. The dollar goes down, the debt goes up and the guys who got us into this mess walk away with fat wallets, as usual. That's the only "economy" we're saving. The pressure and the deadline (fear tactics) for the billions we handed over to the banks came straight out of the "we must invade Iraq" playbook. And though raising taxes is a horrible idea, every man, woman and child in America is now strapped with an additional 3-grand to pay back at some point... but it's not a tax, so that's cool. We don't want to raise taxes 'cuz it would kill the economy!

So now we're contemplating bailing out the auto industry as well. There are certainly a lot of perspectives from which to approach this. As an Ohioan, whose household income has been comprised in parts varying from 2/3 to 1/2 from the auto industry over the years, it's a tough line to walk. The funny thing is, the employers providing that income have been either German or Japanese since the early 90's. Those German and Japanese employers' biggest customers have been Ford, GM, and Chrysler, but they've also made parts for Honda, Toyota, Nissan and a few others here and there. My wife and my brother both currently work for German companies whose primary customers are the Big Three. Fortunately for both of them (and me) their companies also supply the OTHER American auto industry, so while their business has slowed with the economy, their fates don't rest solely with the Big Three.

Having lived in the shadow of the Honda Engine plant in Anna, OH, I'm amazed at how many large companies and mom and pop shops spring up to support that operation. What's so amazing is how so many jobs can be ignored by so large a segment of America. Whenever I hear someone tell a Honda driver to "buy American" I wonder what they're talking about. I don't know if it's true anymore, but the Ohio-built Honda Accord was for a number of years the MOST American of any car "made in America." Show me a car company that has invested more in Ohio jobs in the last 20 years than Honda? Show me a plant newer than the Marysville assembly or Anna engine plants. My point is, the auto industry in America, and especially in Ohio, isn't dead, there are just a few new names.

There are plenty of viable automotive manufacturers employing thousands of Americans across the U.S. They don't need bailed out and sales of some of their models have even increased. Their business model is slightly different than the Big Threes' models. They anticipate and build to the market (what a novel idea to let the market dictate) rather than just building cars that won't be bought to satisfy ill-advised union contracts accepted when times were good. They pay decent wages in a clean, safe environment, and best of all, they pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes, and they and their employees are likely to survive this recession. That union part is a whole other post, but the business model is a key part of my plan for the auto industry bailout... so now that I've told that story, I can tell this one:

I will add only one modification to my bank bailout rules for the auto industry and it is this: auto industry execs need not apply.

Don't patronize me with your $1 annual salary offers. And don't bother telling me you'll now do what Jimmy Carter warned you about in 1977. We probably shouldn't have done it for the banks either, but two wrongs won't make it right.

Ford says they can weather this storm, having finally acted on Carter's pleas about 28 years later. Yep, they started building a more fuel efficient product line about three years ago. They can meet payroll and suffer through until about 2011 according to them, so they don't need it.

Chrysler already had their chance. I don't know what their prospects are and I've given up trying to understand how much of it belongs to Mercedes, so someone will have to enlighten me on that, but they're out anyway.

The best thing that could happen to GM is to declare bankruptcy and start over. I'm not sure what effect that will have on the entire U.S. economy, but it's a long time coming. This is a company who had a production electric car on the market more than ten years ago. Do you know how many of those they could have sold had they continued to work on that and have, say 100,000 of them perfected and ready to go last spring when gas prices topped $4 a gallon? Gas will cost that much again, and how much closer to having that old idea ready to go will GM be? They put their money into Hummers, full-size trucks and SUVs not because that's what they predicted the market would bear next year or five years from now, but because that's what was profitable right here and right now. Now that moment has passed and they find themselves in a bit of a pickle. Well, you get what you pay for... and what we've paid for all this time. Don't ask us for more.

My advice to GM is to stick to the small government manifesto that they preached to congress 30 years ago: let the market run its course. (actually, they said what's good for GM is good for the nation, but the point was "leave us alone") So we should heed that point now. If your business plan accounts for that market, you'll be just fine. If not, the market will correct itself and you and in the long run we'll all be better for it. Maybe they should ask their buddies in Big Oil for some extra cash.

I'm sure it will cause quite a ripple if the big G really fails and I'm not sure how comfortably my household will survive it, but like the evil drill sergeant always said during PT, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later." Might as well pay him now cuz it sure looks like we're all screwed anyway. Why prolong it?

It doesn't make much sense to offer loans to a company we know can't pay us back when we can buy a majority stake in that company for about 10% of what they seek in loans. I was an English major, but that's not tough math. I have to agree in part with Michael Moore - Detroit born and raised, former UAW employee - when he says the best plan for GM would be for the gov't to take it over, convert its facilities to start retrofitting America for mass transit, and when it turns a profit, pay ourselves back and sell it off the highest bidder. (I know, I know, his arguments are usually just the left version of Rush Limbaugh's... oversimplified, etc. but hey, why not start up a New Deal kind of CCC - Obama's been talking about it anyway. As soon as we're done in Iraq, we've got a couple a billion a week to pour into it!)

I've heard the argument that cities like LA, who needs it most, were built before true, efficient mass transit was a real concern and that it just won't work there, but I have only one thing to say to that: Rome. It may not have been built in a day, but it was around a long time before the first commuter train ever appeared. There's no reason we can't line every major commuter path in American with light rail, skyrocketing the economy and reducing our dependence on so much oil all in the same public works/GM project. How many frickin jobs will that create?

All right, it's way past my bed time and I've covered more than enough topics for one post.

Laters

Luth

Abortions, movie reviews, big government

2008-12-01T20:16:00.002-05:00

Well, you couldn't have avoided it on the news. A baby born in Saudi Arabia was pregnant with the fetus with whom she'd previously shared her mother's womb. The Saudi doctors interviewed for the Pravda article I read weren't sure how common, or uncommon this was, but they were sure it was the first time they'd seen it.

Turns out, according to that same Pravda article, it's more common than we might think. By that, I mean the article listed a few other examples of it happening in the recent past - which makes the phenomenon more common than I thought, anyway!

So the natural question that follows, on this blog anyway, is whether or not aborting this "baby" is murder. It's been conceived already so it's a life, but that's not how the medical experts in the Pravda article describe it. Here's a paragraph from the article:

A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor. In principle, its cells must have some degree of normal metabolic activity to have remained viable. However, without the gestational conditions attainable (so far) only in utero with the amnion and placenta, a fetus in fetu can develop into, at best, an especially well-differentiated teratoma; or, at worst, a high-grade metastatic teratocarcinoma. In terms of physical maturation, its organs have a working blood supply from the host, but all cases of fetus in fetu present critical defects, such as no functional brain, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. Accordingly, while a fetus in fetu can share select morphological features with a normal fetus, it has no prospect of any life outside of the host twin. Moreover, it poses clear threats to the life of the host twin on whom its own life depends.

It's alive, but only in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. In addition to posing a threat to its "twin host" it is described as a tumor. Which leads me to wonder... how different is that "tumor" from a single fertilized egg in a normal pregnancy? (alive, in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated) How about in a pregnancy resulting from rape... in a 12 year old? It poses very similar immediate physical threats in addition to the lifelong less physical threats of raising the child.

It's been explained to me by some very intelligent Catholics that the miracle of conception is the precise moment at which this mass of cells becomes a life worthy of protecting. That's when the soul is... well, whatever... you need faith, not science to follow that part of the explanation. Prior to conception, no problem, but once conceived, whole new ballgame. So the doctors who saved the pregnant Saudi baby's life are murderers. Likewise the doctors who removed the very human remains from a 36 year-old Indian farmer or the 6 month-old Indian boy noted in the same article... murderers all. Well, actually the farmer was the murderer in that case since his body refused to host his former twin for 36 years. His doctors can only be accused of removing the "still-born fetus" from the farmer's abdomen after he finally complained of stomach pains. But enough about that from me... for now.

MOVIES

Took a break from Christmas shopping/holiday travels to see Four Christmases with the Mrs. Luth this weekend. This in spite of a review that said something like: "their difference in height far surpasses their chemistry" referring to Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon's characters. This kind of blather is exactly why I continue to spew my nonsense here. At least I don't expect to be paid for it. While I will agree with that particular reviewers 2.5 of 5 stars overall, I have to wonder if the the reviewer even watched more than about ten minutes of the movie.

Initially, the two main characters offer little more dialogue than the practiced lines about why they've been together for three years but have no plans to get married or have children. They've delivered the practiced lines so many times that it's clear neither of them really believes them anymore. They're just reading from the anti-marriage script and flaunting their selfish crap about not wanting to get bogged down in the legality or the labels. Mistaking that for a lack of chemistry was a pretty clear indication to me that this reviewer didn't know what he was watching.

Two of the four Christmases portrayed could have been shortened considerably, but they had their moments and the other two were downright funny. One in particular relied too heavily on a ridiculous send up of a mega church Christmas eve service. (the warm up music was Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll part 2) That's only funny if you don't already find all that pomp and circumstance ridiculous to begin with. Vaughn is the guy you expect - funny, vulnerable, macho, stupid, clever, tough and wimpy at the same time. Witherspoon is pretty much the same character from Legally Blonde without so much over-blondeness, which is to say, mildly attractive and funny too, so what else did you expect or want from them? I mistakenly assumed Jon Favreau cast himself in a larger role than usual in the movies he directs, but he was hilarious as the not quite professional cage fighter brother in two of the Vaughn family Christmases. The scene where he and his equally red-throated wife dominate a game of Taboo was a highlight, but the actual director was Seth Gordon, who, unlike Favreau, resisted the temptation to insert himself as a character.

As a break from the holiday hustle and bustle, it was well worth the money and it made for an enjoyable and rare night out without the kids. I'm not sure it would have fared too well had it had any real competition though. I wasn't really surprised to hear that it took in nearly 40 million in its first weekend, beating out only a kids movie and a vampire movie. Although it did manage to top a James Bond movie and a third installment of Transporter!! for the weekend take anyway.

We went, partly to see if it might replace National Lampoons Christmas Vacation among our holiday traditions, but alas, Vacation remains unseated at the top of the Luther Family Christmas traditions. This reviewer's recommendation: it'll entertain you, but it'll wait for the DVD too.

BIG GOV

My boss is retiring. While cleaning out her office, she ran across the summary report Al Gore prepared for Bill Clinton before they left office that detailed their efforts to reduce, revamp or eliminate government positions, agencies and in general both the size and the scope of federal government. Backed by OBM dollar figures and OPM body counts, it was a pretty amazing look at the party of big government's largely successful efforts resulting in a budget surplus and the smallest gov't since well before the Reagan years. Which begs the question, on this blog anyway, how in the heck can anyone claim to be a Repub these days because they want smaller, more efficient government? I'll try to remember to dig around for a link to the summary report somewhere cuz you have to read it for yourself. But given the cost of gov't over the last 8 years, the price we paid in interest rates, unemployment and inflation after the Reagan-Bush years, and the numbers in the report, it has to be obvious to anyone not blinded by party loyalty that, just like the Party of Lincoln, the roles and goals of the parties have changed quite a bit over the years.

It's stuff like that that helps me justify true independence. I may be liberal, but liberal ideas can be found on both sides of the aisle if you're willing to look with your eyes open. Allowing them to be closed by the blinders of strong party affiliation is what, IMHO, has led us into the quagmire politics has become.

I want better. If they're gonna hook me for 25% of my income, dammit, I want better. I don't care what party brings it as long as it gets brung.

Luth

Out

Illini

2008-11-17T19:47:00.003-05:00

It's been over 20 years since I've been in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois. Or is it Champaign-Urbana? Either way, it was about what I remembered... overcast, cold, windy. But it was a lot colder in Memorial Stadium for Illini fans on Saturday since the Buckeyes stomped them to win back the Illibuck (a wooden turtle substituted after the live one expired)(oh yeah, and the Illini juniors won't actually hand it back to their Buckeye counterparts until next year... kind of a weird trophy/ritual, eh?)

Anyhoo, had I given much more thought than I did to this trip when I first learned I was invited back in September - when it was still quite warm and the 5-hour bus ride after my 3-hour drive to Sidney was still months away - I probably would not have gone, but it turned out to be pretty cool.

I went with two brothers- and a father-in-law and though we were all rather tired after beginning the bus trip at 5 am, and all pretty much passed out by (some of us, like me, well before) 9 pm Saturday night, it turned out to be a good time thanks to the Buck's victory and that team from up north's loss. A hatred of that team up north seems to be universal throughout the Big 10 as the entire stadium cheered in unison when the Northwestern score appeared on the scoreboard.

There were at least as many people in scarlet and gray on our side of the field as there were in orange and blue, and most of us were civil, even cordial with each other throughout. There's always that one fan though... and this poor guy got paid back in spades when he left with 2:30 left on the clock. He had just announced loudly an Illini fumble recovery for a huge gain, but when the play was reviewed, overturned, and the ball returned to Ohio State so we could just run out the clock, he and his buddy (who apologized for this guy's behavior all day) got up and left as though no one would notice. That was the loudest the crowd got throughout the game. Cracked me up... the guys next to me too, and they were Illinois fans! I really didn't think the guy was being that obnoxious. I was entertained, but apparently he'd pissed off a lot of others and they were glad to return the favor when he left.

Anyhoo, it was a great game, the rain held off, there was beer for breakfast supplied by our hosts on what was billed as a "non-alcoholic trip," I got my picture taken with a Woody Hayes impersonator, I slept for about 12 hours before the long ride home Sunday morning, and life was, in almost all respects, good.

Except for one thing that's bugging me. I hear Obama has made it clear that he won't support so-called "sagging pants ordinances" like those made famous in Florida. He considers them a waste of time at a time when our nation has bigger fish to fry.

I'm disappointed in his judgment. If we as a nation won't enforce laws upholding common decency, it won't be long before everything goes to hell in the old basket. There will be guns, drugs, crime, unemployment, witches and all kinds of evil overrunning us. For the love of Bob, man do something about the PANTS!

Luth,
Out

Yes we can

2008-11-05T21:46:00.002-05:00

I wonder if the way I felt last night and this morning is what people felt when Kennedy was elected. I've never been as excited, and a little scared, over a presidential election in my life.

I remain amazed that people whose parents were born into slavery were able to vote for America's first black president. I was alive to see that. I participated in that. I am proud of my country today... proud in spite of the vitriol Rush Limbaugh is already spewing about the 50 million voters who didn't vote Obama. Rush needed to pay a little more attention to Senator McCain's speech last night.

The fear I feel is the same kind of fear when I take on something new at work... something I'm not sure I can do. It's that fear that makes we want to try it. Without that fear once in a while, I'd be looking for another job. That fear is what gets me out of bed in the morning. The work part is just beginning and I hope that we are ready for it.

For some the hardest part will be throwing away the old model - this is not to say that everything W has done is wrong. He actually got some things right in the second term, quietly, without ever admitting they were wrong in the first term, but what I mean is the model that says government is meant to be tolerated rather than is supposed to serve. Perhaps that's why the line about "government that governs least governs best" is so popular. I don't disagree, necessarily, but if government was really helpful (say, for instance, like VHA!) wouldn't we want it to do more? Anyway, that old model... the fear mongering, the divisive party sniping, has got to go if we're ever to solve the large and complex problems facing us. I'm not saying Obama can lead us through this any better than any other candidate... well, OK, maybe better than Palin, but rather, the enthusiasm, the turnout, the depth of involvement in our political system that he inspired in so many people CAN bring about change that we never imagined possible. We've got to start believing that.

If all we expect from our government is that it doesn't interfere too much with our lives and it doesn't screw up too much, then why would we be surprised if that's all we ever get from our government. I truly feel that Obama's history-making win is a sign that we're ready to expect more... that we believe something better can and should come from government. I believe it means we've decided it's time our government worked in a way that makes us actually want more of it.

I admit I'm not a history buff, but I don't ever remember hearing of a presidential candidate who energized people the way Obama and his campaign did. He is often criticized for having never lead anything bigger than a senate staff or the Harvard Law Review. Not that those aren't impressive credentials, but they pale by comparison to the campaign he pulled off. The money he raise, largely in small contributions, the numbers he motivated to turn out, the absence of game-changing mistakes and the 50-state effort should put to rest the idea that he is not ready to lead a nation. He already has.

Now if that nation is ready to be lead, to believe that we can once again be what our dreams tell us we can, and if Obama can do in office what he managed on the campaign trail, then I don't think we can be stopped. There was a lot of talk during the last few years about how every empire eventually falls and that our time seemed close, but I don't think we're ready for that just yet. I think we've got a little more of a run.

For such a relatively young nation, America often comes off as arrogant... arrogant beyond its years. But so do naive kids. The upside of this is that the same youthful naivete also makes youngsters quick learners and less resistant to change. Kids learn fast because they don't worry as much about embarrassing themselves. (and they'e not afraid of bumps and bruises) They can adapt more readily because they aren't trapped in ruts. I believe the results of this election prove our young nation has exhibited those positive youthful traits. I think we're ready. I think change is beginning. It'll be a little scary. It will take some work. It will probably involve a little arguing, but I think we're worth it. I also think what we can offer the rest of the world once we get back on track might erase some of the years it would otherwise take to fix our reputation outside our borders.

Dropping the old model will be tough for many. Creating a better replacement will be even tougher. But it's worth it.

I think it's an exciting time to be alive. Who's with me?

Luth,
Out

Tomorrow's the big day/Luth's tax plan

2008-11-03T20:55:00.004-05:00

Will we decide we're ready to get on with our lives, that government should serve us and not just be tolerated by us? Who knows. I'm sure the changes we're all holding our collective breath for are beyond the reach of any one president, but I'm also pretty sure another rich white guy who doesn't seem to know what he stands for and who's running mate is less qualified than my father-in-law (seriously) to run the country ain't the answer.

I had hoped to discuss a lot of things on here before now. I had hoped to give a brief lesson on the Laffer Curve, made most famous outside of economic circles in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off by Ben Stein's character... and how even conservative economists all but shot it down within its first year in public light because, among various other problems with it, one interpretation is that if it's true, and if we haven't reached the peak point of taxation, then MORE taxes are the answer to economic growth, not less. Another problem is that there was never enough data to suggest this wasn't the case. Turns out it's almost impossible to follow up on the theory of such a dynamic issue using only static data. That's why the theory is discredited among economists but works so well in a campaign wherein the greatest virtue seems to be being just like Joe the (insert trade of choice here)rather than having some complex vision for our future. If you don't have to think it through, it sounds great. It's Limbaugh Logic and it polls all too well with Joe Six Pack!

I had hoped to talk more about how or why John McCain somehow escaped the scrutiny faced by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or John Edwards. I still don't get that. Since the primaries started, I've been amazed by what I've learned about Senator McCain. As I've made abundantly clear, I really thought he was one of few congressmen earning his keep, but looking back over his career (military and political) now makes him look a lot more like someone who simply latched on to what would gain him some ground for his next election. And I get that you have to win before you can do anything else, but if his plan is different from W's, then he hasn't really proposed anything else yet... except a McCain victory, which, based on his career history, is about all he's planned.

I don't know if a president has the ability to truly shape our economy, but I know that the guy who turned the place over to W left him some extra money, a warning about Bin Laden, and a rolling economy. Eight years later we're back in the extrapolated Reagan era - big business is rolling in it while the rest of us are wondering what we'll have to cut next... still waiting for the trickle. It didn't work for Reagan in most senses and it isn't working now.

I have an economic theory that those of us in the bottom 95% really make up more of our economy than we're given credit for. Even in these economic times, we still have to fill our tanks, buy groceries, pay the bills. That day to day spending IS the American economy. Yacht, mansion, and Bentley orders may be down, but we still have to get to the store weekly to keep the cupboards full, even if the economy means they're full of peanut butter, jelly and store brand bread. The bottom 95% of income earners in America are the ones who buy the products that the top 5% are selling. The last eight years have proven that they can only rob from us for so long before we don't have any money left to buy anything anymore. That's when the economy collapses. That's where we are. That's why a progressive tax makes at least as much sense as the Laffer Curve as an economic principle.

A progressive tax plan says simply that those who benefit most from the resources government provides pay the most for those resources. Is it really that crazy? Is that really socialist? (maybe in the sense that FDR, Warren Buffet, Allan Greespan and John McCain are, well used to be, socialists) I drive one car on the road, have one house that needs fire protection, draws electricity off the public grid, etc. and so on. Should I really pay a larger portion of my income for those roads, power, etc. than Sam Walton (for instance), who as a result of using the entire country's roads, power grids, sewers, etc. also pockets more profit than I ever aspire to? There's nothing wrong with him making as much money as he has, but it comes with a tax liability equal to if not in excess of my own. Is it really crazy to think otherwise? I'll share that burden with him in the form of sales taxes and abatements to defray the cost of him opening up a new store, but after that, he's on his own. Is that really too much to ask? Is that perspective so crazy?

Look at it this way: I have a house, he has a house. I have an income, he has an income. I have a job, he has a job. So far we're equal and we're taxed equally. but Sam also has a fleet of trucks spread out across the American highways. He's got stores and warehouses scattered over every state. Each one requires government funded roads, power, water, sewer, police and fire protection. Given that I don't profit from all of those assets, why should I share the tax burden they require?

Jobs you say? Sure those assets of Sam's provide jobs... for people who also pay income taxes, shop at Wal-Mart and pay sales taxes. The only guy left out of the picture here in the Laffer Curve model is the owner of that vast network. The burden is his. It is NOT a penalty for his success, it's his responsibility. Let me repeat that, it is NOT a penalty for his success. It is his RESPONSIBILITY. It is the part of the American dream that begets future American dreams. If Sam's stuff sucks up more of those services we're all paying for, then Sam needs to pay more than those of us who aren't sucking up more of the services. It is selfish to think otherwise. It is unpatriotic to think otherwise. It is greedy to think otherwise. It is illogical to think otherwise. That burden is Sam's. That burden can only be shouldered by the bottom 95% of American taxpayers for so long. We're reaping the results of the flawed Laffer Curve model being the basis of our economy for 20 of the last 28 years. How much longer must we test a theory we know to be flawed. How much more of "the wealth" must be redistributed from the bottom 95% to the top 5% before we can no longer afford those roads, power grids, services any longer?

Redistribution of wealth isn't some abomination of a libertarian tax plan in a capitalist society, it's one of the primary reasons for taxes. Taxes fund government and government provides the basic services that would be unreasonable for individuals, including individual corporations, to provide on their own. Asking those who use and benefit most from those services to pay the most for them isn't socialist. In fact little could be more American. We all pay our own way here... except for all those things we share the cost of that government provides. Why shouldn't Sam pay his share of that?

I doubt anyone who would be swayed by my ramblings will read this before they head to the polls tomorrow, but there's always 2012.

Here's to a bright new America, starting Wednesday!

Luth,
Out

What it really boils down to

2008-10-29T21:22:00.003-04:00

I know I promised to plagiarize more of the Tom Dickinson article that lays out why one more rich white guy shouldn't be president, but I'm tired of playing the game of arguing over things as presented by the two party system that most Americans actually agree over about 99% of the time between elections.

So here it is: I want a president who is thoughtful, intellectually curious, even-tempered, firm in resolve, but not afraid to admit he (or she) doesn't know everything and who is not ruled strictly by ideology or party politics. That's it. I'll deal with just about everything else... party, issues stance, you name it. I just want someone who can and has made sound decisions as opposed to someone who fancies himself "the decider."

Given those requirements, I obviously have to be willing to accept things about that president that I may not agree with. I'm OK with that. I guess that's the liberal in me. But it's worth it to me to buy off on a few issues in exchange for someone who considers more than one option before stubbornly choosing a path the rest of us must follow... and pay for.

There's only one candidate in this race who fits that description. His past performance is a long list of evidence of this mild mannered curiosity both in his personal and public lives and he's demonstrated it throughout the campaign as well. His opponent, on the contrary, has made of career of just the opposite, which, contrary to his claims, makes him exactly like the president we've lived under for that past two terms. How's that workin' for ya. But this post isn't about him.

I wonder if being a self-made man (or woman), acquiring one's wealth and fame (or notoriety) in one's own generation, by one's own efforts is what makes this kind of candidate? Now that I think about it, Bubba Clinton fits that part of the description. Few other candidates have. Most rich white guys that we elect come from legacies they didn't have to earn. In fact, the most recent, if left to their own decisions, would likely have squandered those legacies guaranteeing that no good came of them and that their offspring didn't get the benefit of them.

Barack Obama knows better. He's made his own way. He knows that this nation provided him the opportunities he's taken full advantage of by his own efforts - the definition of the American dream. If he were a Republican, I'd vote for him. If he were pro-life, I'd vote for him. I think too much has been made of his faith, but I'm going to vote for him.

I like the fact that his financial support comes largely in $10 - $100 amounts. Sure, he has the same big contributors that all candidates of his stature have these days, but he's got more grass roots, small contributors than anyone in our era. He's won hearts and wallets one citizen at a time. That may not mean much to everyone, but to me, it means he's beholden to citizens from all walks, not just the big time contributors. He's kind of like the NPR of candidates. They've got their big sponsors, but they can't survive without the little guys too, and they deliver based on that understanding.

I expect the same of my president. Four years from now, we'll check in and see how things went, but I'll put my money on the thinking man (or woman) any time.

Luth
Out

I am not George Bush

2008-10-21T22:41:00.002-04:00

That's a pretty good line, and while it may be true in most respects, like, say, the names on the birth certificates, much of their lives, political and otherwise, are so similar that they could both be the same character in Oliver Stone's largely fictionalized new movie about W. Or is it about McPain?

Both are political opportunists whose platforms change with what they think it will take to get elected. Often, McCain's sole purpose in distancing himself from Bush (though he backs the war and the tax policies he once voted against) is purely where the polls say such a stance will put him.

Both spouted the "we will be greeted as liberators" crap, but now say they knew all along it would be a long, difficult process.

Both have associated with - and McCain was even reprimanded for it - shady, convicted fundraisers.

Both have defended contributing CEOs who run their companies into the ground, bail out under golden parachutes, and then deny any accountability to their shareholders. (and both like to use the term "accountability" when it comes to $28,000/year teachers!)

Both are third generation prodigies who squandered every opportunity provided them by their privileged births and yet, in spite of the failures in their wake, always seemed to end up better off than they were before the screw-up, due not to their own abilities to land on their feet (neither of them usually did) but rather because of their fathers' and grandfathers' stature.

Both have histories of drug or alcohol influenced, occasionally violent, womanizing episodes they rarely speak of these days. In fact, McCain lost all favor with the Reagans when he divorced his first wife, although that didn't stop him from invoking Uncle Ronnie on the campaign trail. Nancy's endorsement of McCain, long after he was named the party's candidate was a brutally limp, "Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party." (and he STILL claims he's a Reagan Republican!) (and to be fair on this aspect, Bush seems to have at least put his marital life in order)

Both have, at least at some points in their careers, alternately spoken out against and in favor of campaign finance laws, negative campaigning, deregulation of industry, smaller government and balanced budgets.

Both used their fathers' influence to map out their military careers. McCain used his father's influence to actually participate in a war that Bush used his father's influence to avoid. But both were self serving motivations. McCain saw his quickly fading chance to gain command in the Navy rapidly slipping by unless he somehow parlayed his less than stellar flying record into a combat mission in Vietnam. (At that point, he'd succeeded only in destroying two U.S. Navy planes, and, to be fair, he would later even that record out by destroying two parked Russian MiGs) Most pilots lose that privilege after destroying the first U.S. plane. McCain got two chances and a shot at some medal-worthy missions after that.

To be fair to Bush, he was apparently a better pilot than McCain, but (and to be fair to McCain) due to Bush's cushy assignment to a plane that would never be deployed in Vietnam, we'll never really know) To be fair to McCain, he fulfilled his enlistment and has the paperwork to prove it... a rather long, though undistinguished Navy career compared to Bush's prematurely-ended-without-documentation Air National Guard Career. So yeah, there are some significant differences when it comes to military records to balance out some of the striking similarities. In fact, McCain's record almost makes Bush seem like the honorable one.

Both got into grad school - McCain to War College and Bush; Harvard - in spite of very poor academic performance, due to their pedigrees. In spite of these privileges, both would always suffer the Oedipal curse of never living up to their fathers' examples. And both would parlay their mediocre (at best) military histories to a base of voters who will believe anything the right candidate tells them as long as it sounds macho and especially if it involves fighter planes or Alaskan babes who shoot large animals.

McCain's Navy history really sheds some light on his true character. If you ask him, or listen to his campaign, he is a hero for having ignored protocol, getting shot down, and having been taken prisoner. I'll give him all due respect for surviving the prisoner part, but his previous flying record shows a history of bad decisions in the cockpit consistent with many of his colleagues' stories about how he probably should have (and his aircraft could have) avoided being shot down.

Then there's his story about how he refused the offer of early release, a story McCain has used to build his hero status. Again, all due respect for having survived that ordeal, but so did 600 fellow captives (as well as thousands of others) refuse the offer... in accordance with the Code of Conduct which forbids making deals with one's captors or making statements against the U.S., which was one of the conditions of his early release. This deal was most likely offered to all of McCain's fellow captors and all refused. Yet only one of them is touting it as a qualification to become president. (It should be noted that only one of them received medical care when his captors realized - somehow - that he was the son of a top admiral in the U.S. Navy) McCain himself admits that his POW experience provides him with "a good story to sell." Says retired Air Force Lt. Colonel John Dramesi, also a Vietnam POW, "McCain says his life changed when he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man, but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

Dramesi's memory of McCain includes a conversation they had shortly after finishing their stints in military graduate school. (McCain the National War College thanks to dad, Dramesi; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, without a dad's influence) Both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for graduates so they can gain a little shadowing experience with more experienced military officers on duty overseas. Dramesi told McCain he chose the Middle East because he expected it would play into the nation's future. McCain told him he was crazy... that he was going to Rio where he'd "stand a better chance of getting laid."

Yep, just like he said at the convention...service above self, honor, duty, country... you know, that old chestnut.

I must disclose the source of all of this revelation - Tom Dickinson's article in March 29's Rolling Stone. And I must tell you that I'm disclosing it because much of Matt Taibbi's recent stories for the same magazine about McPalin include tons of unverified reports that come from the likes of liberal versions of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and which were later destroyed by FactCheck.org... but only after being spread throughout the liberal blog world like documented Alaskan history. But where Taibbi is fun to read due to his blatant, but spot on editorializing about how stupid we are as voters, that same editorializing warns you fairly that he's writing a column, not a hard news story. Dickinson's piece warns you fairly that if you've fallen for McCain's "I'm not George Bush" bullshit, you should really watch something besides Fox News for just a few minutes per day. Start slow... maybe with Sesame Street, and work your way up. Maybe even read a few lines from Faith of My Fathers... who am I kidding, like their president, these people don't read books!

I must also disclose that Dickinson's main source was McCain's books (Faith of My Fathers and !! (since McCain's camp never returned Dickinson's calls) in addition to interviews with former colleagues.

Over the next few days, I hope to hit on some of the other sections of Dickinson's article in order to provide his take on McCain's "character" before election day.

Dickinson cites quite a few Republicans who feel McCain simply is not suited to be president... some even question whether or not he should be a senator. My purpose in posting this is to pass on some information I've never seen before regarding a man's career I once looked favorably upon. I didn't blame Colin Powell for not seeking the presidency in 2000 cuz I wouldn't want to subject my family to this kind of scrutiny, but McCain apparently has no qualms about it even if it looks like he won't stand the test of it.

Now where is the liberal media on this seemingly easy to hit hanging curveball?

Hey, come to think of it, McCain has something in common with Obama too - they "pal around with terrorists." McCain not only co-chaired a committee with Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, he named him his foreign policy advisor.

That's not all he shares with Obama. In 1993, McCain opposed US involvement in Somalia and, get this, sponsored an amendment to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR US TROOPS there! (I'm pretty sure he said that was unpatriotic when Obama refused to vote for a bill that lacked a timeline... which is a far cry from sponsoring an amendment!) Oh, and they've both been against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" (McCains words... Obama's vote, though, to be fair, McCain has apparently changed his mind about this too)

Oh man... this is HUGE! I can't wait until the liberal media gets hold of this stuff. It's going to be all over CNN, MSNBC, the networks, all cable except Fox. Those liberal bastards are going to be all over this. It will destroy McCain in the polls and they won't even have to bring up his womanizing like they did with ol' Bubba. When the liberal press finds out about this stuff, most of which is covered in McCain's books or has been a matter of record since the 70's.... hey, wait a minute. What the hell has happened to the vast liberal bias of our press?!

Luth,
Out

Christians, please consider the unborn in your vote

2008-10-20T20:48:00.005-04:00

Given the actual issues facing our nation, to even be reminded that presidential elections in this country have come down to this philosophical tail-chase makes me want to move to Canada, or some other place where folks outscore us on those achievement tests on which we keep falling so far behind.

NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT has ever had an abortion and given the candidates we have now, that will be true for at least another 4 years so his stance on the issue is moot. Irrelevant. Not likely to come up in the next Iraq summit. Not likely to come up in the next bailout hearing. Not likely to come up in the next energy policy development session. Not likely to come up in the next "what will replace our auto industry" discussion. Not likely to come up in the N. Korea... well you get the point.

Look people, I think we can all agree that to even be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion means you're in a horrible situation. For it to be the favorable choice, it's probably even worse. No one WANTS to have an abortion. No one sets out to be in that position. But there ARE circumstances under which... no, forget that. Let's not even talk about it. It's not the point. The point is, it's NOT presidential selection material by at least 10 or 1000 more pressing, day to day national issues. This is indisputable for many, many reasons, but I'll list just a few.

1) It doesn't matter. Given Bush's track record in his first term, I have to assume that a large number of folks voted for him the second time purely on the abortion issue. He's probably the most outspoken anti-abortion candidate we've had in a long time and yet what has he accomplished for those folks in return for that vote? Nada. Zip. No change whatsoever. So what did that pro-life vote get us? (here you should list: the war, the economic crisis, the failed response to one national disaster after another, the largest deficit in our history, the largest sale of that debt to foreign nations ever)

2) Economic policy has a far greater impact on the number of abortions than a president's personal views. Check back through CBO and Catholic Charities stats... the numbers of abortions go down when social program spending goes up. (note: this includes jobs programs as well as flat out welfare, so we're not just talking handouts and note that on this issue in particular, jobs programs have a far more dramatic effect than trickle down theories, but that's only based on the stats - I'm no economist) I'll venture a guess that our current economic situation will end up having an adverse effect on Bush's ability to curtail abortions. (it almost sounds ridiculous to say that, doesn't it? "Bush's ability to curtail abortion..." You're right, it's not part of the job description. It's not up to him. That's another reason why it's a stupid factor to consider anywhere near the top of the list.)

3) A true sign of leadership is one's ability to put one's personal views aside and consider the needs of all first. Now I obviously feel that this means stopping the abortion discussion before it starts and tackling the national issues that are the most pressing. You don't have to agree with me on that, but you have to admit, the inverse of what I'm saying here is that leadership = selfishness. I know it's a fallacy to try to prove a point by disproving it's inverse, but given the number of folks who believe Palin is a legitimate candidate to be president, I figured I'd offer an easy to follow, Limbaugh-esque argument. Besides, W has proven what happens when you get the inverse, so I don't really have to rely on the fallacy.

4) see the last two sentences in #2

5) Often, the selection based on this particular non-criterion is deeply religious based. That's fine for an individual, but don't try to impose that irrational motivation on the rest of us. Believe or not, there are folks in the world (religious and otherwise, pro-life and otherwise) who like to apply a little bit of rationality to their important decisions. I'm not saying faith should never play a part in an individual's decision, but faith, by definition is irrational, so don't try to invoke it as part of a rational argument when attempting to convince others. If you want religion to play a greater role in your government, move to southwest Asia. They're big on that kind of thing. We have a constitution designed to make rationality the basis of our laws. It's reasonable to discuss the issue in legal terms, compare it to murder, etc. but don't just tell me it's wrong, especially when it will save the life of an underage rape victim sentenced to death by an ectopic pregnancy she had no say in creating.

That's enough of that. I wanted to shed light on some of the other crazy-assed things I've heard from McPalin backers:

"Clinton sold us out to China" (not sure what the basis of this one is, but I know our debt became real easy for China to buy AFTER Bush spent the last of Clinton's surplus and began spending us into the place where we are now. We're cheaper and easier to buy today than we've ever been and it's true... China's doing the buying, but Clinton ain't at the helm.)

"I like her (Palin) she seems real." (I agree... a real girl next door... a real Miss Alaska... a real totally unqualified to lead the country neighbor. I'd probably like her too, but not as the leader of the free world. Doesn't anyone remember where the old "I'd rather have a beer with that one" standard got us?)

"Obama's an Arab/Muslim" I hope Colin Powell put both of the reasons why this is idiotic to rest: 1. He's not. 2. So what if he were? Saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists is as crazy as saying all Christians are David Koresh or Jim Jones or Rev. Wright Carter was a Baptist. Kennedy was Catholic. If this argument holds any weight, it's an argument in favor of electing an atheist. After all, if A religion can be wrong, then ALL religions can be wrong. Ironically, atheism is probably the only "spiritual" denomination that CAN'T get elected in this dumbass country.

"McCain's the true Christian" Not only is the idea of a religious litmus test strictly prohibited by our constitution, but this idea isn't supported by his actions. Obama is a Christian as the result of a lifetime of searching for his own spirituality, which included having observed a number of varying faiths. He asked a lot of questions and continues to search for answers. That's faith. That's a spiritual journey. That's believing in something. McCain, on the other hand, is a "Christian" by virtue of something he wrote down on a congressional bio a number of years ago. This is no secret... the church-going only seems to come out when cameras are around prior to an election. McCain all but admits to this... the news hounds have the evidence making the admission unnecessary, but those liberal bastards are keeping all this to themselves! This is actually one of the reasons I liked the pre-party-mind-melded McCain.

So anyway, yeah, consider the unborn in your vote, but only if you're Christian... that's what the signs say. I guess everyone else is free to consider where we want to be as a nation in four years.
Luth,
Out.

Another disappointing debate

2008-10-16T22:04:00.002-04:00

Now that the Clintons are firmly in the Obama camp, Bill needs to give a few lessons to Obama on how to poke the bear with a smile on his face. On several occasions during this week's debate, McCain was clearly on the verge of exploding. All it would have taken was just a little stirring of his boiling pot and he would have lost it. I kept having day dreams of McCain tearing off his lapel mic, throwing it down on the desk and stomping off, but instead, Obama remained cool and calm, as always, and took the high road most of the night.

I'm torn, because this is one of the things I like most about Obama. I look forward to our nation being lead by a calm, educated, rational (for the most part) thinker who actually listens, considers, seeks input, and is clearly willing to admit he doesn't know everything before flying off and firmly declaring his next stubborn intention.

But just once I'd like to see McCain lose it and show his true colors. His temper is no secret and as long as we're deciding our next president based on ridiculously irrelevant factors, one's ability to maintain self control actually sounds pretty important. Why won't Obama just push him a little closer to that edge?

I mentioned this to a colleague the morning after the debate and he noted that Obama can't risk appearing to be "the angry black man." I hadn't thought of that, but it sure made sense once he said it. After all, look at what the media (yeah, those dirty liberals) did to Michelle! People still think she's angry and I suppose this is what scares me the most... that the "Bradley Effect," a euphemism for racist ignorance, will render the actual election a lot closer than the polling shows. The special edition of SNL tonight noted this rather succinctly when a Jesse Jackson character on "SNL News" quoted a poll saying 87% of Americans said they would, in fact, vote for a black man. The follow up question was, "Really?" and the numbers were almost a reciprocal... with only 25% saying they would. Under the cover of the voting booth curtain, I'm afraid we're still a lot more racist than we like to believe.

But back to the debate. There were so many easy pitches to hit that Obama just laid off of I almost wanted to scream. Seriously... that question about why you think your running mate is more qualified to run the country? If I were McCain, I would have asked if I could just pass on that one! Obama had the perfect opportunity to note how his own experience (which makes him seem like a seasoned old pro when compared to Palin) was a favorite topic of McCain's up until Palin was selected, but instead he simply replied with "we'll let the American voters decide."

PUHLEASE!

And how many times do we have to go over the Bill Ayers thing? If you get your news from anyone other than Hannity, you must know by now how ridiculous McPalin's claims are regarding the work Obama did on a bi-partisan committee that just happened to include Ayers as well as several noted Republicans. Why aren't the Republicans on that committee included as having run around with terrorists?

And ACORN? Apparently they're a real patriotic organization when they register Republicans, but when they register Dems, they're cheaters and liars. McCain was their keynote speaker at an immigration event in Florida in 2006 and has supported the grass roots organization fairly consistently up until very recently. Perhaps his newest backers don't like the organization made up primarily of low and middle income American citizens. The membership apparently isn't patriotic enough these days.

Then there's the Palin record that McCain spoke so much about... her tax cutting record?... that's not how most Wasilla residents who are still paying for the hockey arena that seats more people than live in the town see it. And what was that bridge going to cost taxpayers?

Which brings me to another question I've been pondering... Republicans often accuse Dems of saying "trust us to spend your money." And with that, I've often seen the point. But after the last seven years... and throughout the Reagan-Bush era, the alternative seems to be "trust our rich friends with your money and maybe some of it will make it back down to you." That too has some theoretical validity, but practice has proven over and over again (a 12 year stint for Reagan-Bush and now nearly 8 more) that it just doesn't work. Under Republicans, not only has government expanded, but it's cost more than ever. That's not technically a tax increase, but we're paying for it no matter what you call it. Over the last 7 years we've seen that the true difference between Repub and Dem economic policy is that while Dems tax and spend, Repubs just spend. The fact that all that spending will somehow have to be paid for by taxpayers will be ok as long as it's not called a tax increase.

Call it what you want - if it feels better for you, I'll pretend it's not really a tax increase - but when the American public pays off the debt this Republican administration has racked up, it's a tax... on us and our kids and their kids.

And finally, Joe the (not a) plumber. I don't care if the guy's got a license or not. What really pisses me off is the idea that a real guy and a purely hypothetical problem were all presented as actual as though Obama actually yanked the American dream from this guy who apparently didn't even take high school accounting. If a two-employee business is really clearing $250 grand a year, then they should be taxed at a ridiculous rate. The tax will teach them to hire a better accountant or give themselves better salaries (you know, expenses that reduce their profit) Every small business with half a brain knows the business itself never makes a profit, let alone $250k.

And speaking of distorted interpretations of tax plans, Parade magazine ran an article this weekend headlined "How much will you pay?" Note the last word in that headline: PAY. The most prominent text in the article was a table that actually listed how much taxpayers in each category would SAVE, not PAY. Most folks (those making less than $250k a year) make out far better under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan, but if all you read is the headline and the table, just the opposite appears to be true. Is this the kind of LIBERAL media trick folks are always talking about? Yep, for 95% of Americans and even a slightly higher percentage of small businesses, the Obama plan represents a tax cut. So if that's what you're looking for and you don't earn McCain-type money, O's your man.

I don't think I'm done quite yet, but I'm tired of this again.

Luth,
Out.

Liberals and Conservatives

2008-09-29T19:41:00.004-04:00

I had planned for this post to be a sort of return to erudition after that last rant. Sadly, that would require more discipline (and erudition) than I have. But I will offer this endorsement of the latest fascinating TED video I've watched:

(I can't get the $#%@! link to work so paste this in your browser and smoke it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/
jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

I don't know if I've ever actually gotten around to sharing how wonderful this whole TED thing is on here yet... I know I've meant to on several occasions when I've vowed to try to post something more than once a month, but I don't know that I ever did it.

Anyhoo, in this particular video, psychologist Jonathan Haidt gives a scientific explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And get this, there's no screaming or name calling and he explains that BOTH have morals!! I know, I know... it's crazy. Anyhoo, I can't possibly do justice to his prepared 19 minute talk so you'll just have to watch it on your own. All I will say is that it gave me immeasurable insight into my own sort of multiple personality leanings. In fact, if there's any merit to his explanation, I'm probably not alone. His most salient point (IMHO) was that while liberals might be the ones who embrace new ideas, NO new ideas can be exchanged when either side assumes groupthink and fails to acknowledge ideas from the other. It's the teaming up that makes both sides stupid! Ain't it great how we minimize this weakness during election season?!

OK, now on to the real poup.

I was entertained by the morning's speech returns from McPalin, who derided Obama for "sitting on the sidelines" rather than getting involved, like McCain, in solving our current financial crisis. What was really entertaining was when this second attempt at getting involved failed. There are a couple of points here that McPalin seems to have missed, but first I have to instill my own false logic into the picture with one little reminder. McCain, suspending his campaign, except for about a day's worth of appearances in his "rush" to DC to solve the problem, arrived shortly after what seemed like a deal had been struck. Then the deal went sour.

That's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc there... it happened after so it must have happened because of. (It's a fallacy... not really logical to assume that McCain's presence shot the deal down) I know, I know, but I had to do it. It's what people do during the campaign season!

Anyhoo, this morning, McPalin was all "I got in there and rolled up my sleeves" and he was like "Obama was all sitting on the sidelines."

But then another deal went sour and the speeches changed a little. After the news that the latest version of corporate welfare had failed, leaving us precariously teetering on the edge of financial failure, McPlain was all, "Obama and his Democrat allies are playing a dangerous game in blocking this bill... toying with hard working Americans' money by calling Paulson's bluff." See how they did that - they pulled Obama off the sidelines, put him into the game, and then blamed him. Touche... no one will see through that!

But then the news broke that it was actually House Republicans who felt the deal was a little too pro-banker (which in this case was deemed "fiscally unconservative") and McPalin was all, "oh... now what?"

I can understand their shock. House Republicans voting against making the rich richer? Since when? Isn't that what this administration is all about? Where's the executive influence on the hill? Where's the Newt when we need him to put another contract on America? Has the world shifted off its axis?

While we're on the subject, let's call this bailout plan what it is: welfare. Remember how universal health care was called "socialist" or "too expensive" and any social program, hell, taxes in general were labeled a redistribution of wealth rewarding non-producers? Now why would it be called anything different when the money flows the other way? More importantly, why are we just now realizing only this latest round of it when it's been the MO of this administration since day one... corporate tax breaks, oil royalties forgiven, CEO's hiding behind corporate law ("no individual was to blame") and avoiding prosecution while accepting their golden parachutes funded by looting the savings of their middle class investors... how are we just noticing this full-on sell out of 95% of America to the wealthiest 5%? Oh, yeah, it's because the 5% gambled with their winnings and lost!

What Bush/Paulson have proposed to fix it is the largest single tax hike in American history. They are about to tax every single man, woman and child in the country to the tune of about $2500.00. (that's 700 billion/300 million with some rounding in my favor) That doesn't sound like much, but it makes their cheesy little "economic stimulus" checks sound like a really lame idea. Never mind that about half of those folks didn't report any income, or that this is about twice the amount of actual welfare in the 2006 budget. ("Means Tested Entitlements FY 2006")

It's welfare... only it's cool when it's for the rich, even if it's only necessary because their latest gamble didn't pay off. Not one penny of this will put a lower middle class family back into their foreclosed upon home after they missed one payment. And the real real shitty part is that we HAVE to do it! It won't make life any easier for those of us who have been paying the giant corporate salaries or whose money these guys have been gambling with but since Wall Street is on the verge of missing a whole bunch of payments - though no fault of the American taxpayer or investor, as a result of that gamble, WE have to cough it up. Because if we don't we'll see exactly to whom Bush has actually sold America: China, Japan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia...

Remember all that debt that Republican economists keep telling us isn't real money? I'm thinking the folks who hold the notes for it think it's pretty real and I'm thinking they'll want to cash out when AIG gets a taste of their own medicine. So yeah, we have no choice now. We have to pump mass cash into the "level playing field of the open market." And we will, but next time around, let's not forget the high water mark of this debacle.

As of now, it's only reached a few feet into the middle class, but by McPalin's standards, that middle class extends into those households that earn $5 million a year. If you're not in that top 5% to whom this welfare is being handed, you're not safe either. Who knows how high the water will actually reach before a bailout bill is finally accepted. I'm only cocky because all I own is debt. (of course, unlike naked short sellers, my debt is in the form of a house) Either way, when it's called in, I'm a free man... homeless, but free! I don't have much to lose. And I don't expect anyone to bail me out.

It certainly calls to mind one of my favorite bumper stickers: If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." (don't go there, Ray, there are some good Dem stickers too, but they don't fit this particular rant)

Maybe stupid is too harsh a word, but for those of us firmly in the middle class who are one illness or one downsizing away from bankruptcy, this one comes dangerously close. Do you still think only Democrats tax and spend? Do you still think government shouldn't regulate industry upon which the national economy rests? Do you still think the war in Iraq was a good way to spend our money? Do you still think abortion is the most important issue facing the nation? I only mention abortion here cuz everyone's familiar with China's stance on it. Since they own a ton of our debt, we could soon be one of them! Your last pro-life vote could result in us being subsumed by the second largest pro-choice proponents in the universe!

Back to the point: The bail out is a tax funded welfare program. The biggest of it's kind in history. We either suck it up, or we become Chinese. Once it's in place, we'll be closer to socialism than we've ever been. We've become the French. At least our flag has the right colors!

Luth,
Out

Still only a few points difference, seriously?

2008-09-24T21:02:00.003-04:00

I felt an urgent need I could no longer ignore for this short, sweet post. I'll warn you right from the start that it's a rant, nothing more.

First, I must repeat it once again, I used to like this McCain guy. If he remains a senator I probably will again AFTER this election is over, but COME ON. How can anyone seriously be considering voting for this guy after the last seven years, the nasty campaign, the lessons learned over a similar 12-year experiment under Reagan and Bush 41 that resulted in a triple double (inflation, interest rates and unemployment) and the initial steps toward the deregulation that dumped today's economic crisis in our laps on top of everything else right now?

Does an attractive VP who says the right things on TV REALLY wash away her career that flies in the face of those TV promises? Wasn't her selection so blatant and obvious an attempt to inject gender and age (Hillary voters) to the ticket that even the most right-leaning Repub HAS to see through it? Even long-time Repubs are asking if there wasn't someone more qualified he could have picked... some congresswoman or governor. And how does family values now include pregnant, unwed teens? Isn't that what the family values folks always told us they'd do away with? Doesn't it strike anyone else as disingenuous at best that "at least she didn't abort" has become the standard to replace "just say no?!"

Are a few TV promises that are clearly contradictory to the pair's track record really all it takes to leave us in the complacency... now downward spiral where we don't even care about the issues as long as we get the party right? Are folks so bent on their party loyalty that the BS of the campaign is all it takes to make us forget our jobs, our homes, our health care, our children's futures, our common sense?

Look. If you don't like Obama or the Democratic Party that much, then vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, or just don't even vote. I never thought I'd say that, but how can you seriously consider McCain-Palin? Sure they're NOT the SAME as W, but they HAVE based their campaign on supporting his two favorite issues: the economy and the war. On those issues, they may not be the same, but they're certainly in the same camp and where has it gotten us? After choosing the candidate with whom you'd rather have a beer, can't we agree that being just like us isn't the best reason to choose the guy in the top post? Hell, if that's your criteria, then I want to be your president. I'm fun to have a beer with!

Yes, this is a challenge for someone to convince me that McCain is still the guy I thought he was as a senator who got the job done. It's the second time I've issued this challenge. If you bother to read more than the one little detail you came here to either agree with or rail against, you'd know that I'll consider just about any argument. I'll defend my position, but I'll also listen intently to and seriously weigh those of others. I've listened throughout the campaigns believing, at least at the beginning, that it would be the first in my lifetime that actually offered us two good choices as opposed to the lesser of two evils. I no longer believe that and given the lunacy of the McCain campaign, I can't believe anyone is still falling for it to the point that it's even remotely close.

Look, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent with a little "i" because it's not a party. I vote for the best candidate regardless of party and I've voted for more Repubs in the last 10 years than I have Dems. I'm liberal in that I expect others to consider new ideas and to bear some responsibility for the welfare of others when they can. I'm conservative when it comes to personal responsibility, including that responsibility to occasionally be my brother's keeper when I have the means and he has the need. And I really think that my fellow voters have a responsibility to give me something better than the party line to explain why this guy is still a viable presidential candidate. I really tried to find it on my own and I'm simply stunned that it just doesn't seem to be there when you strip away the party trappings and yet, the polls have it as just a few point difference. Somebody explain that to me.

Does anyone out there honestly believe McCain is backing out of the debate in order to save our economy after he worked so hard to do away with the kinds of regulation we're now considering imposing? C'mon. He's got no chance to come out of that debate with anything but lost support and he knows it. Like Obama or not, he's going to clean up... or maybe not. Maybe the debate is what I need to change my mind, but without McCain involved, I won't get the chance, so somebody's got to help me see what half of our polled voters see in this ticket. Broaden my perspective before the debate... or before McCain ducks it.

W is talking legacy still and it's time we all consider what that might actually be... first and foremost there's the war. No matter how you feel about that, the legacy of how it was sold to us and how it's gone thus far is not going to be pretty. Then there's the nationalizing of the banking industry - the closest move toward socialism we've had since the Depression all while telling us out the other side of the face that nationalized health care is a bad idea and government should keep its hands off industry. Then there's the growing divide between the top 1% of wage earners and the bottom 99% which was supposed to materialize into/trickle down by creating all kinds of economic growth but instead resulted in all kinds of foreign ownership and record unemployment. And finally there's what all of this luxury will cost us: yep the national debt! Now that's a legacy our great grandchildren can share!

Thus far, McCain has promised to shore up that legacy by augmenting it. He wants the war to continue to be the biggest drain on our economy indefinitely with no objectives to signal its success or failure or completion. He'll make up for that, apparently, by admitting that his laissez-fair economic policy for the last 26 years was wrong then borrowing even more taxpayer money to bail out the campaign contributors who benefited most from those policies and whose golden parachutes are apparently not enough to sustain them while the rest of us fall farther and farther into the hole supporting them by running their plants and building their products for paychecks that buy less and less and benefits that are all but extinct.

Does anyone out there still think that someone's stance on gay marriage or abortion means more than a rat's ass compared to the issues the next president must solve? Are those two issues and gun laws REALLY what we're voting on this year? Does a label like conservative or liberal or Dem or Repub REALLY factor into any of this anymore? Have we become that dependent on sound bites and empty rhetoric? I've read more articles on how the candidates are handling the press than I have on what the candidates actually intend to do.

I usually love the freedom to ignore the stupid "never talk politics or religion" rule during the campaign season. I enjoy little more than getting all fired up in a lively debate, but I'm getting nothing this year. No one seems interested in telling me why $700 billion to bail out spoiled bankers and insurers couldn't have been better spent on alternative fuel technology or why $2 billion a week in Iraq for the last five years couldn't have put electric or hydrogen cars on the road or at least bought a little health insurance for a few folks. Speaking of that, no one seems to want to apply the deregulation model (that did SO well with our mortgage institutions) to the insurance industry and predict when we'll have to bail them out as well once they finally price the rest of us out of their system and offer very little actual medical care in return.

I don't even bother explaining why I'll put up with some of Obama's bad ideas in exchange for a level-headed, intelligent, buck-stops-here type of leader with proven management ability anymore. It's so easy to support, it's not even fun. I mean, compare his opportunities and successes with the achievements W racked up before the White House... seriously. How does "failed baseball team" compare with "turned down top law firms after graduating at the top of my class at Harvard Law?" Or how about "failed Texas oil company bought out by the Saudis" against "successfully reclaimed dead neighborhoods" Or what about "awol from the Guard(and Vietnam) to pursue failed senate campaign" vs. "successful senate campaign" Or even "rehab, dui, sealed coke arrests" vs. "yeah, I smoked pot"

I know, I know, O's not running against W. How about the Repub convention rallying around their "service" signs one night, then picking on Obama's service to his community the next. (are slogans and chants really more important than actually doing something?) And if we must inject religion into the debate - though it should have even less relevance than the other non-issues I've mentioned, then O's definitely the man. We know what church he's attended consistently at least since his early Chicago days. We used his pastor against him! His opponent listed himself as one religion on his senate bio but didn't attend any church until he showed up at a "competing" venue one Sunday before the campaign began in earnest, but I guess his VP more than makes up for his lack of spiritual conviction.

And how about the family values as representatives of character and integrity? One guy's still married to his first wife. The other... well, I think it's all out of my system by now. I need to get to bed.

Thanks for listening.
Luth
Out

Two Thumbs Up for Obsession

2008-09-20T03:17:00.004-04:00

The sweetie and I were discussing what kind of movie we might watch Friday night when I noticed that both she and my mom got copies of a movie in the mail. At first I thought it was just some chick flick trailer, but the closer I looked, the more I realized it said it was the whole movie inside the very professionally printed envelope so I suggested we check it out.

The movie was called Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. It didn’t sound like anything we’d normally pick from the list available on cable or the local movie rental, but we like to mix it up a little every now and then so we decided to give it a shot. While sweetie finished up some to-do list items I read some more of the info on this weird envelope. I learned that the movie inside would teach me about a very serious threat that few Americans take seriously enough. I learned that the movie was paid for by the Clarion Fund and that it wasn’t rated by the MPAA.

That wasn’t much to go on so I Googled “Clarion Fund” and visited their web page. Turns out they’re “a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to educate Americans about issues of national security.” Says they're a 501c3. Wikipedia told me a 501c3 is an organization most recognized as a religious non-profit, but that non-religious organizations can claim the status as well as long as they don’t “conduct political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.” This still didn’t tell me anything about the movie, so I clicked a link on the home page that took me to RadicalIslam.org. The logo of their header uses the twin towers as the “l” at the end of “radical” and the “I” at the beginning of “Islam.” The page is copyrighted by The Clarion Fund. Buttons on this page led to “Shari a Law, Radical Islam Overview, Fueling Terror, and Vote 2008.” I clicked on the "Vote 2008" button, not 'cuz I thought it would tell me about the movie, but because I'm kind of a political junkie. (perhaps you've noticed)

Links there took me to either McCain’s pages of anti-terror policy or to Obama’s or I could watch a short video called “The Stakes” which just showed a bunch of pictures of Muslims in traditional garb with angry expressions and ended with a picture of McCain and lots of text floating in and out bearing ominous warnings. I clicked a few more links from the Google search results and learned that this movie we were going to watch had been included as “paid advertising” in newpapers delivered to 28 million U.S. homes this week, but only homes in swing states. The “advertising” was paid for by the Clarion Fund. Strangely, I couldn't find out much more about The Clarion Fund or about the movie.

I gave up on learning any more about the movie and sweetie had finally made it to the couch so we fired up the DVD. Two disclaimers came first. One warned of the graphic nature of the movie. The other noted that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people and that this movie was not about them. The movie then opened with video of the second plane hitting the twin towers followed by a series of other terrorist incidents and interviews with journalists, think-tank researchers, former terrorists and a few others interspersed with footage, often poorly shot, of radical Islamic fellows yelling hateful things (subtitled in English) to variously sized crowds, and scenes from terrorist strikes throughout the world.

15 minutes was about all we could stand, but we did skip to the beginning of each of the remaining chapters, sampling them to see if this pattern would change. We'd stop and read the chapter titles like "understanding the jihad culture" then watch for a while hoping we'd actually see some Arab culture, but instead it was just more video of some radical televangelist performing for a crowd of loyal followers.

Five minutes is all it took to convince us that instead of a free razor, pack of laundry detergent, or the other advertising items that often come in unsolicited mail or along with the Sunday paper, this particular delivery was pure propaganda. Then it occurred to me that it was clearly the propaganda out of the Carl Rove fear tactics playbook. That's when I went back and read the 501c3 restriction again about not campaigning for an elected official. Hmmm. Sounds like the IRS will be after someone soon!

As you might suspect, I couldn't wait to sign on to Poup where I would quickly tear Obsession a new one. I was going to talk about how un-subtle this endorsement of McCain really was... about how all this fear crap was clearly designed to retro-fit a legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq... about how the comparisons of unnamed terrorist groups to Hitler's Reich were cheap, emotional appeals, but then I thought, "That's awfully narrow-minded of me. I must step back for a moment and see the bigger picture. Perhaps I've missed some detail that would make this film actually live up to the non-partisan claim of its sponsor." After all, my writing has been good therapy and has really helped me deal with those previous episodes of reactionary off the handle flying I used to do so frequently. It's time to grow up.

I was shocked at the results of this stunning display of maturity. Suddenly the scenes of the movie began to gel into one of the most powerful, non-partisan, rational statements I've ever seen in a free mailing arriving unsolicited to my mom and my wife. (I wonder why I didn't get my own copy?)

I was so ready to believe this secretly funded, produced, and covertly delivered piece of propaganda was the work of the Red Right Radicals that I almost missed the true, totally obvious message of the film. You'd think I'd learned not to do that anymore.

So yeah, there I was replaying the Hitler scenes in my mind when I also thought, don't trust your mind... you know where that's gotten you before, watch the damned movie again. So I replayed the scenes where Neville Chamberlain returns triumphantly with the accord Hitler signed bringing peace to Europe. And the scenes where Hitler's followers in Africa and Palestine met with him and promised to deliver nations of people ready to help him exterminate the Jews. Hitler was a big fan of the Muslims I guess. And, you have to admit, it would be an easy mistake to simply associate all things Muslim with all things Nazi at that point.

Somewhere in the middle of these scenes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who makes quite a few contributions to the movie, notes that it takes more than just desperation and brainwashing to get people to act like this. Hitler may have been charismatic, but that alone doesn't move people to genocide. Shoebat says, "the secular fascism of the Nazis was far less dangerous than the Islamofascists of today because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it. It says God, the almighty ordered you to do this, not just the fuehrer."

And therein lies the real message of the film. I'm afraid; however, that it will be misinterpreted, so now I'll give a chapter by chapter translation of the film's main points:

Chapter 1: The Culture of Terror
Nonie Darwish, daughter of Palestinian suicide "martyr" explains that hers was a childhood of terrorism.

Translation: My father gave his life while taking the lives of others for his God. That was our (religious) culture.

Ch. 2: The Culture of Jihad
Several experts explain that the most accurate translation of Jihad is "struggle" or "personal struggle" or "inner struggle" proving that Muslims are not to be feared... followed by footage of radical Muslims doing frightening things.

Translation: Religion allows many irrational interpretations of its word leading to many frightening things.

Ch 3: The Culture of Hatred
A series of radical clerics tell stories on TV mostly based in one way or another on the blood libel that Jews (or any Westerners) use the blood of children or the elderly in various recipes. OR motivational films depicting all Western symbols as Demonic or Satanic.

Translation: Religious leaders use deceit to build and then manipulate their congregations. They create enemies with lies and proclaimed partnerships with the Devil. (your flock will only fight if they believe there is a threat)

Ch 4: The Media of Terrorism
This one's pretty funny actually. It starts with two kaftan-wearing folks in the Sunday political talk show format discussing the idea that Arab media pushes kids to terrorism, or at least violent fanaticism. They're subtitled in English. It sure looks like the interviewee is actually complaining, NOT bragging about this, especially when he goes on to say that starting suicide bomber training so young robs the youth of their childhood... that we "teach them how to die for Allah, but we don't teach them how to live for Allah." I'm not sure why this "evidence" that they are evil was included, but I'll still attempt a translation. (anyway, then the movie jumps to a series of bad MTV-like videos both humorous and frightening made my radical groups)

Translation: Any argument that stems from religion is, by definition, irrational. This particular argument is SO irrational that it fails to separate out that which does not make its case, but rather, seems to prove otherwise. By the way, it struck me as funny whenever the movie broke to its interviewees who then decried the Arabic media for doing exactly what they were doing. Let's face it, if I flipped the channels through the televangelist series, I could pick out some equally radical sounding footage of Christian "clerics" doing the same thing this chapter accuses ALL Muslim clerics of doing. Americans have heard a good 3 minutes of one Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermon and we've made up our minds about his 40 years as a preacher, right?

Ch 5: Jihad in the West
The "infiltration" of radical Islam in the West is described as the spreading of seeds. Hints of denial are included as foreshadowing for the next chapter, but the best scene is an interview wherein Dr. Ahmad Dwidar, Islamic Cleric (according to the footage) says he once heard a sermon that predicted that Muslims would march on the White House. When the interviewer asks what this means, Dr. Dwidar says, "through the domination and distribution of Islam, the White House will be changed. It will become a Muslim House." It's one of the most quiet, rational sounding pieces of footage featuring a "cleric" in the whole movie. It's such an obvious nod to the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein that I almost laughed out loud.

Translation: The religious right in this country will stop at nothing to get their boy into the big house... including subtly hinting that his opponent is a seed being spread by radical Islamists - a thought they KNOW the ignorant among us already believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, folks who claim to know more about what's right, largely due to some religious claim of a direct connection with God, as opposed to observing anything like evidence, are the same all over. They'll lie, they'll cheat, they'll steal in their own form of Jihad if that's what it takes to put their chosen people in power.

Ch 6: The Culture of Denial
Basically, the world is being taken over by radical Muslims and we're denying it.

Translation: The world is being taken over by religious fanatics of all types and we're denying it. The longer we hide behind "religious tolerance," denying the irrationality of religion and perpetuating the one remaining mythical god we've chosen to keep while recognizing all the others for the myths they are, the longer we subject ourselves to the violent actions of irrational people who believe they're doing the work of this god and will thus stop at nothing until all of that work is done.

Ch 7: The Common Denominators
The movie draws many comparisons among the Nazis and today's Radical Muslims (as though that were a fixed, definite group like the Nazis.

Translation: Dictators, especially those bent on destroying all those they don't like, are always justified by some higher power. (Just as Mien Kampf is similar in meaning to Jihad, so were the religious justifications of the Nazis to today's religious radicals) Christians destroying pagans in Rome, Muslims in Spain...

Ch 8: Hitler & the Mufti
Hitler quickly befriended radical Muslim leaders because they shared the goal of getting rid of the Jews.

Translation: Hitler quickly befriended radical religious leaders because he knew no reasonable people would buy his irrational bullshit.

Ch 9: What do Radical Muslims Want?
The same as Hitler wanted: to destroy the Jews, bring down the West.

Translation: What do all religious groups want: world domination... their brand of irrationality to be the entire world's brand of irrationality. Granted, some are happy to try to accomplish this by more peaceful means, but you can't deny that's what they want. Except maybe, for the Masons... cuz they don't come after you. (2B1Ask1) Though I've been subject to some coercion to "ask1" before just like all the others!

Ch 10: We've Been Here Before
History repeats itself.

Translation: No shit! (Ancient Rome, Christopher Columbus, The Crusades, St. Patrick, Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, Church of England, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, pretty much every major war ever fought, you name it, we've seen it all before and yet, here we are again, tolerating the same irrationality in spite of the growing body of evidence against it.)

By the way again, the movie lists 13 chapters, but I didn't figure I needed to translate the intro credits, title scene, and I've already mentioned the disclaimer.

One more thing worthy of note: the movie begins and ends with the Edmund Burke quote:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Isn't it strange that they should quote a guy from a land where Christians ran off, converted, or killed all the pagans several hundred years ago and yet the land is still racked by the memories and lingering violence and hatred resulting from that invasion. It reminds one of a time when Christians played the role of today's radical Muslims. Hmmm, I guess history really does repeat itself... only the names change. You'd think that by now, the good men would have had their fill of this so-called source of all life, knowledge and morality they refer to as religion. You'd think by now we'd stop doing nothing and start calling for people to put aside their irrational beliefs and step into this modern world where physics, chemistry and biology really can shed light on most of the important questions.

So the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise, but what's most surprising is that a work of the Right (and let's not pretend that it is otherwise) does such a great job of calling for the end of faith.

Bravo. Perhaps my loyalty really has been misplaced.

Luth,
Out.

It's been a while

2008-08-21T20:54:00.003-04:00

What's up kids? Miss me? Yeah, me neither. I just got back from a whirlwind tour: a week in DC, a weekend camping at Camp Perry Air National Guard Station, and a week in Memphis. I enjoyed all of it, but this has been my first week back, it's already Thursday, and it feels like three weeks of my life disappeared in a blink. At this time next spring, not having that Guard weekend in the middle of it will make all the difference!

I took the fam to DC with me - their first time there - and that was nice, although sharing a hotel room that is usually silent after 7 pm with 4 women (my niece joined us) presented a level of noise until all hours for which I wasn't completely prepared. (I was the only one who had to be to work by 7:30). It was an entirely enjoyable trip though.

We began our visit the Monday before my work started so we did the monuments/National Mall walking tour that day. We were lucky that the forecasted 95 degrees never materialized. It never topped 90 so it wasn't too bad, but we walked our butts off starting at the Smithsonian Metro stop, north to the Mall, then west down the Mall to the Washington Monument, north around the White House, only stopping for a brief break in the White House visitor center air conditioning, west again to the Vietnam and Declaration Signers memorials, the Lincoln Memorial, back east along the south war memorials (Korea, DC War, and JP Jones) and then we finished up that evening at the WWII Memorial before eating dinner back near the hotel in Alexandria.

We did another night at Arlington Cemetery watching two guard changes, a night walking up and down King St. in Old Town, and the ladies spent their days in the hotel pool, the Pentagon City Mall, and the Hirshorn Museum. Then we headed back home after I finished up my program on Friday. I headed off to Guard Saturday and Sunday, then caught a plane to Memphis Monday morning. I didn't make it to Graceland, but I ate a lot of barbecue, and spent my Thursday afternoon (after finishing up work) in the Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel.

I was there by about 1:00 and figured I'd breeze through and maybe even get to Graceland before I had to be at the airport by 6. Though I'd seen most of the video footage on display, the level of depth of the other displays was completely engrossing, and for a white guy who is rather fond of his homeland, more than a little embarrassing. One video I hadn't seen was of the treatment of black diners protesting by sitting in a whites only diner. How those folks remained as passive as they did amazes me. That's strength, courage, and a payment made that most of us never even think to repay. The big names have been immortalized, as they should, but the names of a lot of other courageous folks are long forgotten.

Another exhibit that caught my attention was a recording of the phone call between President Kennedy and Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett after Ole Miss refused to admit James Meredith. Not only did Barnett flat out lie to the President, he sounded like some spoiled teenager speaking disrespectfully to a parent.

I'll admit to all the Bush bashing I've done on this stupid old 'blog, but if he were to call my office on the phone, you bet your ass I'd be calling him "sir" and trying to find a way to do whatever he asked. Barnett didn't seem to grasp who he was talking to or what he was arguing about. I was in the main building for almost 3hours. Standing between the rooms MLK Jr. occupied that day was more than a little creepy, but nowhere near as creepy as what came next.

The self guided tour ends after you go across the street to the boarding house where James Earl Ray rented a room. The display there turns all CSI on you, which helps wash some of the embarrassment from your brain after being reminded of just how stupid we can be as a group. I'm not much of a conspiracy theory guy, but the collection of details, evidence, and information on display there aroused more than a little doubt about the idea of Ray as a deranged loner acting completely on his own.

If you claim to love this country, you have to spend some time there. Beale Street takes some of the sting off of wondering which side of the civil rights movement you'd have been caught up in if you had been alive back then. It's easy to see how stupid people were back then, but times have changed significantly and I'm afraid I'm not so sure how I would have acted without 40 years of hindsight between me/now and society back then. I'd like to think my sense of fairness and justice is inherent and would have prevailed had I been born a generation earlier, but I just don't know. It was a great lesson in the importance of history lest we repeat the same mistakes.

Anyhoo, it's past my bedtime. Type at ya later.

Luth

Toeing the Party Line*

2008-07-28T19:40:00.003-04:00

I'm truly curious about some of the new ideas John McCain has embraced now that he's the national party's presumptive nominee for president. I say "truly" because I really want to know how these changes came about. What new information has he become privy to that changed his mind. Perhaps mine will be changed too. It's happened. I've always argued that there's an important distinction between "flip-floppery" and growth. (an argument I often lost when using John Kerry as the example)

I also fully understand that when a politician makes his way from independent local maverick to national party nominee, he's got to take on some of the party's planks even if they conflict with his (or her) long-held or at least -espoused beliefs. So I'm really not being facetious here, but rather, seeking to understand better how someone like Senator McCain, for whom I've professed my love as an independent, non-partisan, roll up the sleeves and get to work, servant of the American public many times before, can do 180s on some issues I would have thought he'd hold onto regardless of party pressures.

Let's start with abortion. McCain's shifted position on this issue is dear to my heart precisely because it's the last thing that should ever come up in a presidential campaign featuring two male candidates. Yep, you've heard me say it before and I'll say it again, abortion is the last issue I'd ever ask about when vetting a presidential candidate. When I run for president, I'll refuse to comment on it. The immediate issues facing the world's most powerful leader render the abortion debate senseless, moot, irrelevant. Stupid to even bring it up. And since it's a non issue, I'd think McCain would just keep to himself about it. Or at least keep to what he used to say he believed about it. After all, these are usually very personal, private, deeply held beliefs, not something subject to change based solely on elect-ablility. So I'm curious as to what the National Republican Party placed before him to change his mind. Perhaps, contrary to what President Bush says about diplomacy, there's an argument I haven't heard. I'm nothing if not curious.

Likewise, his stance on gay marriage seems to be evolving. He voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage and he supported California's Prop 8 to allow gay marriage in that state, yet he's sounding more and more like the party line against it these days adding "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" whenever he talks about it and arguing in favor of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in spite of recognizing the need for more troops as well as being extremely proud, in his own words, of ALL of our troops. I'll buy his "it's an issue best left to the states" argument on the marriage part, but when it comes to everything concerning the rights of gay people, I not only need to know what changed McCain's mind, but where his mind might eventually settle. We'll leave that one out for now.

The last and most important issue now, but one that will be completely irrelevant in just a few more months, was McCain's position on running a positive, clean campaign. Let's argue our own merits and platforms and leave the other guy to argue for his own is what he used to profess and yet, the last two commercials McCain's campaign has aired, at least in my part of the country spend 25 of their 30 seconds talking about Obama. McCain has criticized something Obama has done on the campaign trail in every speech I've seen aired for the last two weeks. In fact, after concluding his own Middle Eastern and European tour, McCain now criticizes Obama for doing the same thing, making many of the same stops. Not only has he changed his mind about running a positive campaign, he seems to have changed his mind about where a candidate is allowed to visit as well. I expect such hypocrisy from the Party in general, but not from the maverick from Arizona! This guy didn't cave after 5 years of torture and enslavement, but he folds to his sometimes party like a well worn laundry?!

I'm suddenly changing my mind about this election being the first in my lifetime that offers something better than just the lesser of two evils. McCain's lack of focus, infamous temper, and sudden willingness to conform to his party's every whim in spite of his successful career based on just the opposite have all but convinced me the man is not fit for the White House. I can't tell you how disappointed I am to actually begin considering this after the hope with which I began watching this race unfold.

What kills me now is, how is McCain even remaining as close to Obama as he is? The conservatives don't like him. No one seems to like the Republican Party anymore. His campaign has suffered key personnel losses and a seeming lack of focus and yet he's trailing Mr. Charisma and the finest tuned campaign since Reagan's by only a few points. Do people still believe Obama's a Muslim contracted to infiltrate us? Or are we really that racist yet? Do folks not understand that he trailed Hillary's political experience by only one year? Does the fact that the most sought after Harvard Law graduate gave up offers from prestigious firms to go back and work to reclaim the neighborhoods where he grew up in Chicago not counter the specious cries of "elitist?" And even if it doesn't, haven't we learned that an elite president might just be a little more effective than "the one you'd rather have a beer with?"

Go Tribe!
(yeah, I've seen their record... this will very shortly be replaced with Go Browns!)

Luth,
Out

*look it up... although this is the original figure of speech, what McCain is doing these days is more closely described by the mistaken "towing the line." Ha, that's pretty funny!