Sex Scandals Different For Republicans

Politicians from the two parties have different consequences for their actions as it involves sex scandals or marital infidelity. Arguments have been made that this is because the every day members of the two parties view these issues differently. However, one man on the news today said this was because Republicans talk about family values while they have a man in the white house who is living them. Uh, OK. And when the had Clinton in the white house and the Dems didn't care that he was a total horndog the reason was what?



I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?



So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.



Republicans

- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign

So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.

Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns

Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.

Looking at this is does appear that there is a double standard when it comes to sex scandals. But what I found most interesting about this is how many of the badly behaved are in the senate.

So, is this really that Republicans talk family values while Democrats live them? Doesn't look so much like that to me.

California is Bankrupt - Again

Years and years of spending and spending on government programs has resulted in the State of California being bankrupt. Again. The Governator's inability to stand up to the liberal congress and fight for cuts has kept the California economy in turmoil.

So what is their answer to this crisis? Are they going to cut spending? Nope. Not a bit.

The old adage when it comes to debt reduction, which is an old adage because it is true, is that you have to spend less or make more. This works for most of us in that we have to spend less because making more isn't all that easy. But, when it comes to the government, their options are spend less or TAKE more.

The government does not make money. Neither the federal government nor that of the states. The government simply takes money that the citizens make. They're not working harder for that money, they simply pass a bill that increases taxes. The spend less or make more works for individuals because neither is really an easy option. I know, I had to face that decision once and my choice was to get a roommate (spend less) or a second job (make more). I opted for the second job because I really prefer to live alone. My past experiences with roommates haven't been great. That meant that I was working 65 - 70 hours a week, and sometimes 7 days a week. Making more was not as easy as a stroke of a pen for me. I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing again so I can have money for travel.

But does our government have to work harder in order to "make more"? Nope, it's the citizens the money is taken from who are impacted. It's an easy option for the government itself. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, much of which is probably wasteful, California is instead planning to increase sales taxes to take more money. If they do this, I fully expect California to, later in the year, be bankrupt yet again.

And if you're thinking, well this is California it doesn't impact me, remember another adage. Where goes California so goes the country. Think about all of the government spending that has happened in 2009 so far and what is yet to come. If they're spending more, they only have 2 options. Continue to borrow money, and our main lender is getting leery of buying any more of our debt, or take more. And they will take more.

Remember this, there is no such thing as government money. They are nothing more than a 3rd party vendor spending the money they've taken from you!

Meanwhile, Obama is using CA as the example of why cap and trade works. Talking about how they passed similar legislation earlier and did it without impacting their economy. Uh huh. Good idea, hold a broke state up as an example of how this won't financially impact us. Smart move.

Are We Now an Oligarchy?

Have we changed our basic political process from a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchy without bothering to amend the Constitution or even notifying the populace? It's starting to look that way.

If you're unfamiliar with what an Oligarchy is, think South Africa. An Oligarchy is where the country is run by the "elite" or by a specific class of people. These elite make the decisions that affect the rest of the nation. Is this sounding frighteningly familiar.

Our Congress, and many elitist political campaign contributors are making the decisions for the rest of us without regards to what we actually want. Cap and Trade is just the most recent example of this. So many calls were received on this issue that the switchboard actually crashed. Of the calls received 90% were against it. And yet the bill passed.

Illegal immigration is another example. The American public made it absolutely crystal clear that we do not want a path to citizenship for illegals and that we want the border secured and the current laws enforced before anything else is done. And yet this amnesty was supported by both of our Presidential candidates and is still being attempted to push through.

Next we have the health care debate. Although most Americans do support a plan that would cover the current uninsured, how to do it is still under debate. In a recent poll 77% of Americans said they are satisfied with their current coverage, and we are continually promised that we would be able to keep this coverage if the government created a program to "compete" with private insurers. But where is the competition when one player is making the rules and the other just has to follow them? And where is the competition when one player can operate at a loss while the other must make a profit. So even though those of us who are satisfied with our coverage would like to keep it, we won't have that option once the unfair, so called competition puts our insurer out of business. Support for this bill is losing support in the Congress as constituents speak up, so is the leadership re-looking at it? No, they are simply pushing harder to get through what THEY want to give us and not what we want to receive. Inflicting their will on the people instead of the having the will of the people inflicted on them.

The stimulus packages and bailouts were yet another example. The stimulus had less than 50% support with many concerns over how much money was being spent and on what. Yet this legislation was pushed through without being read against the wishes and the will of the people. Why? Because this is what the elite wanted so that's what we got. And when we voiced our objections, the elite mocked those who spoke out.

My final point is this, the current Congressional approval rating is at 29%. The last time it was above 50% was in October of 2001. The rating fluctuates going as low as 12% but usually hovering in the 20's and 30's. This means that, on average, 70% of the American public disapprove of what our leadership is doing. Our Congress sees themselves as above us, the average American. They have created an elite status for themselves, and in so doing, turned our once great system of government into an Oligarchy. No longer a government of the people, but now a government of a ruling class. They have made themselves an aristocracy and seek to bend us all to their will.

I have never been submissive. I have a very hard time bending my will even to compromise much less submit. This is probably the main reason that I am still single. And it is also the reason that I will continue to fight against having my voice, my vote and my say ignored by a bunch of elitist jackasses. I encourage you to do the same. Do not abdicate your role in the running of the country to this new ruling class. Reclaim our Democratic Republic from those who seek an Oligarchy.

Celebrities Drop Like Flies

June has been pretty hard on celebrities, and if they really do come in threes we still have one more to go.

The month started out with the loss of David Carradine through what first appeared to be suicide but has since been questioned. Carradine was found hanging in his apartment in Bancock but the fact that his hands were tied above his head has resulted in the question of foul play in his death. Carradine, of Kill Bill fame, was 62 years old.

Next was the loss of Ed McMahon at the age of 86. An American icon and a household name. McMahon had been hospitalized for multiple health issues and was in the hospital when he passed away. But were we even able to come to terms with that loss before the death of Farrah Fawcett was announced? Farrah, dead at 62, as was Carradine, was known to be dying and had even done a documentary on the progression of her illness and impending death. Though not a shock, it was still sad.

Since it is said that these deaths come in 3's, Farrah appeared to be the third. But no sooner could the idea be cemented that this was it, just hours after the announcement of Farrah's death, we learn that Michael Jackson has died as well. That's 2 in one day. And Michael was only 50 years old. Much has been covered on his death so I'm not going to go into this further.

Now, just a matter of days later, we have Billy Mays, product promoter extraordinaire, also dead at age 50. Mays was found in his home by his wife and his death appears to be of natural causes.

With all of this to deal with, the loss of 5 of our famous, is there still yet one more left to go? I certainly hope not.

Congress Taxes Air

Well they've finally done it. Congress has finally found a way to tax air. By taxing "carbon emissions" in the Waxman-Markey (cap and trade) bill they are taxing how much carbon dioxide is put into the air. Guess what you exhale when you breathe? Carbon dioxide.

Our leadership has made no secret that is just the first step in their plans to regulate everything we do it and call it climate change legislation. This is simply another example of Congress using punishment through taxation in order to modify the behavior of the American people. Where is our individual freedom when the government thinks they should have control over everything we do? Why don't they just come right out and make it illegal? After all, to most of them burning coal is on the same par with murder.

So why is the bill called cap and trade you ask? It's quite simple really. The government is going to put a cap on how much carbon can be emitted, and if you don't use all of your allotment you can trade it for something else. Well, actually you can sell it to somebody else. The Washington Post described it this way; "The government would set a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that could be emitted and would issue allowances to polluting sectors that could buy and sell those rights." So if you are in an industry that necessarily emits carbon, you're going to have to pay off the government in order to stay in business.

People have been duped into believing that this is a bill to create jobs, it's just the opposite. By levying huge taxes on companies who emit carbon, those companies will risk closing their doors because they can't bear the cost of the new taxes. Not only that, but the companies in other areas of the world, making the same product, will be able to sell it cheaper because they won't be subject to the same legislation. And those other companies are probably already emitting more carbon that the companies here. So what are we actually going to end up doing? Increasing a demand and therefore productivity for the companies that are less clean by punishing our cleaner companies here.

This is nothing more than one giant pay to play bill. A bill that so many people opposed initially that most of the 1,500 page legislation is a pay off to get votes. The Washington Post said this as well; "The result is a 1,201-page measure filled with political compromises, directives, subsidies and selections of winners and losers that most members won't be able to analyze before the vote and that leaves us wondering how effective it will be. " And this was before the last minute 300 page amendment. Winners and losers have already been selected by our Government. How does that work in a free market system? It doesn't. This will be giving the government control over every product produced, how it's produced, and what options we as consumers have. This is step one in the process of the government eliminating our right to choose and the consumer's control of the market. Their plan is to have the government control the market. Does that sound like the USA that you know?

I am all for being environmentally responsible. And if this bill were actually an attempt to find alternative fuel sources and /or to make those already discovered more cost effective and financially competitive, I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's a behavior modification tax. The government is going with their simple logic that if they don't want us to do something make it so expensive we can't afford to do it. According to them we use too much energy so they are slapping a huge energy tax on us. And this is a tax. A tax on ALL Americans. And weren't we promised that 95% of Americans would not have a tax increase? That only those making over $250K would be impacted by a tax increase? Well this is a tax that is expected to cause your energy bill to increase by at least 40%. So for those already struggling, already living paycheck to paycheck, one of your bills is going to increase dramatically. My senator, in a response to an e-mail I sent her, has already acknowledged that this is going to drive costs up and put our businesses at a disadvantage, so if you don't believe me, just ask your Congressmen.

This bill passed the house by a narrow margin because 8 Republicans voted for it. Had they stood by the principles of the Republican party this would not have happened. If you want to know who the "Republican 8" as we now refer to them are, you can find out about them by clicking on the link to the left for Left Coast Rebel. He has written a blog with a list of who they are and where they are from.

Please contact your Senator and urge them to vote no on this legislation. We cannot have this bill which taxes air and encourages corruption become law.

And all of this is to address an issue that scientists are still debating. The climate is changing, as it always has and always will, but man's impact on the climate is still contested by many scientists, and yet we're levying a huge tax under the guise of mitigating a problem we're not even sure exists.

Obama Says Bush Was Right

President Obama, realizing that you actually have to have a plan and not just a nebulous idea, has drafted legislation to allow himself to detain terror suspects indefinitely. Gee, imagine that.

Here we see the difference between the campaign and the actual problems of leadership. So after hammering away at President Bush throughout the entire campaign (even though Bush wasn't running) Obama now finds out that things ain't quite as easy as they seem.

Face it Mr President, you're not Dumbledore. You can't just wave your magic wand and have issues resolve themselves. And the truth is that Dumbledore would give you lines for even thinking that you could.

Here we see the main problem with President Obama. He is a great orator. He can charm a crowd and make you want to snuggle up under a warm blanket with your worst enemy. He has ideas that sound better than a hot toddy on a cold winter's night. Problem is that he has absolutely no idea how to implement them.

Isn't a key requirement for a President the ability to take something from theory into practical application. But our current President has no ideation process for figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Although I hear he has contacted J K Rowlings to find out what happened to Ollivander's wand shop.

An idea alone won't solve anything. There must be a way to put the idea into action and actually make it work. At a REASONABLE cost to the taxpayer. This is a recurring theme with our current leader. He can create those castles in the sky, but unfortunately he has to build them here on earth. And there are all those pesky zoning issues to contend with.

All I can say, and I can't believe I'm saying it, Kudos Obama for keeping them there instead of bringing them here.

Please leave comments. I live alone and work at home. I spend way too much time talking to myself already.

Claire McCaskill and Climate Change

As you may have guessed, I am against the cap and trade climate change legislation. In an effort to prevent this useless, excessive tax increase which benefits nobody but GE and Al Gore, I wrote to my Senator. I advised her that should she vote for the Waxman- Markey bill (cap and trade) I would work tirelessly to ensure her defeat in her next bid for re-election. This is the response I received from Ms McCaskill. I have translated Ms McCaskill's words into their actual meaning. The real meaning is listed in red.


Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change legislation and "green jobs" in the 111th Congress. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond. (But don't think I actually give a shit what you think)

I believe global climate change threatens our health, environment, and national security. Congress needs to implement meaningful reform that addresses this issue as soon as possible. (We're just arrogant enough to believe we can control the weather). Drafting a responsible (responsible, from our congress? Now there's a laugh)measure that makes both significant reductions in carbon emissions and maintains a strong U.S. economy will be difficult, but it is a task my colleagues and I are committed to. (Regardless of your piss ant little opinion on the matter)

Regarding carbon emissions and potential “cap-and-trade” legislation, I agree that something must be done to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. However, as an elected representative for all Missourians, I will always seek to protect my constituents from undue hardship and ensure that the federal government will spend their hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. (of course that's wisely according to Congress and not wisely according to our constituency. We know better than you do.) That is why, as we continue the debate on climate change legislation, I will be working hard to include safeguards that minimize costs, keep government accountable and prevent harm to the U.S. economy. (But don't think for a minute that I won't be pushing this damaging bill through)

Working families will be significantly affected by climate change legislation, (as your electric bills goes through the roof and you risk freezing to death in your homes) so any bill addressing this issue should provide financial protection to avoid passing all costs on to consumers. (Forgetting for a moment that we're the ones slapping that cost on you.) There must be a cushion to offset rising energy costs and provisions that protect American jobs from international competitors that do not face the same environmental constraints. (We acknowledge that we are putting our own companies at a global disadvantage in the middle of an economic crisis by slapping this huge tax on them. So we'll work to mitigate the damage we insist on inflicting.) Strong climate change legislation must also spread the burden of rising energy costs evenly throughout the country, rather than disproportionately affecting one region over another. (But don't think for a minute that the costs won't rise for you) Additionally, the green jobs created by such legislation must be ones that are available to the already skilled workers of Missouri. (So as long as Missouri benefits then screw the rest of the country)

My colleagues and I have already taken a good first step on the way to curbing carbon emissions by passing comprehensive energy legislation into law in December 2007. This bill is expected to remove 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air through improved energy efficiency standards. (though it's been in effect for over a year and we're still talking about what's expected because it hasn't actually changed anything) However, we need to do more. (Because we aren't satisfied until we've meddled enough to completely destroy that which we set out to save.)Further investment in clean energy sources along with responsible climate change legislation will drastically reduce carbon emissions and start our country down a cleaner, economically stronger(and I'm so pleased I can say that with a straight face) path, including the path to green jobs for Missouri residents. (We'll just ignore the fact that in Spain, where this has already been tried, we lose 2.1 regular jobs for every green job created. I don't like that stat so I'll just ignore it. After all, just because it's already failed everywhere else it's been tried doesn't mean that I can't make it work)

My colleagues and I will continue to pursue legislation that will achieve real emissions reductions and still protect our nation's economy and Missouri jobs. Thank you again for contacting me about this very important issue and please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issues that might be important to you. (And I will continue to totally disregard your opinions and concerns as I have every other time you have contacted me.)

All best,Senator Claire McCaskill

Racism in America

Here we are, nearly 150 years from the abolition of slavery, 40 years from the civil rights movement, and is racism gone? No. In fact there are those doing there level best to keep it alive. No matter how many people in the country are striving to set the issue behind us, there are still those who define themselves by the color of their skin and do their best to force the rest of us to see it too.

I know many people will object to what I'm writing. And you are absolutely free to do so and I welcome your comments. But this is how I see it. These are the socially accepted organizations and ideals that I believe are contributing to the problem.

The ACLU - The IDEA of the ACLU is a great one. Uphold the civil liberties of all Americans. And if the ACLU was living up to that ideal they would not be on this list. It is absolutely right to stand up for anybody whose civil liberties are being violated no matter the color of their skin. However, the ACLU is quick to assume that any man or woman of any race other than white is being violated based on the color of their skin. Whether or not this is actually the case is totally irrelevant. I ask you this, in the case of the firefighters denied their promotion because not enough members of other ethnic groups qualified, where was the ACLU? Wouldn't this have been a perfect civil liberties case for them? But they weren't in the least bit interested. The ACLU will take up a case which includes all Americans against the government, but if it is a single white man, or a small group of them, whose rights are violated then it's not worth their time. This begs the question of whether the ACLU believes that the white man, because he's white, can't be discriminated against based on the color of his skin. If so, then the ACLU has a racist stance. One, unfortunately, shared by many.

The NAACP - Again, the idea and original ideals of the NAACP was excellent and desperately needed at the time. And they still do some really good work such as the fight to save Troy Davis from execution as the evidence that convicted him falls apart. However, the NAACP is also prone to cry racism where it doesn't actually exist. They tend to assume racism based on the color of the person's skin. Here is a clip from an NAACP blog - "But we must go beyond the civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution and advocate for the human rights that will assure that America’s promise is realized for all. While our Constitution mandates equality, for example, there is no constitutional guarantee for an education, let alone a good education. The fight for good schools is a struggle for our human rights." I'm not sure where they're going with this one. I know that the state of the schools in poor, and especially inner city areas is deplorable. But it affects every student, of every race and ethnic background that attends those schools. Is that really a "black" issue? And are they saying that the black students attending good schools in affluent areas don't have the same educational opportunities at the other kids in those schools? Before you start screaming at me I'll ask you to please read the whole blog because I will explain how this pertains.

Awards Shows - Included in these are the NAACP Image awards, The Ebony awards and the Miss Black America pageant. These awards shows promote a separation between the races. Any person eligible in these contests and awards are also eligible in their non-race based counterpart. As long as we have awards and contests limited to people of a specific race or ethnic background the differences between the races are at the forefront. The same goes for the television channels dedicated to specific races.

African American Colleges - This is segregation. Period. I understand that students of other races can attend, but identifying a college as "traditionally black" is a segregationalist stance. How, for example, would the ACLU and the NAACP react if Harvard listed itself as "traditionally white"? It wouldn't look pretty.

Hyphenation - This is one of the worst possible things for race relations. An insistence that somebody describes you as a hyphenated American again only results in a focus of our differences. We are not African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American, Indian-American or European-American. We are American. I understand that there was an objection to being referred to as "black" but the problem is that the African-American description does not work for all black people. Not all are American so how can they be African-AMERICAN then? They can't. Making people focus on how to describe you, and therefore fear offending you, makes them treat you differently based on your race. As long as it's not a racial slur, should it really matter how our basic physical appearance is described?

Hyper-sensitivity - We appear to have become a people seeking offense where none is intended. We project discrimination where it doesn't exist and appear to actively seek it. It appears we can no longer be disliked by somebody based on our personality or our behavior. Instead it must be attributed to our race, gender or sexual orientation. This is an effort to avoid personal responsibility. It's so easy for me to say "It's not that I'm a big old bitch and all around asshole, they just don't like me because I'm a woman and I'm white." This lifts all personal responsibility from my shoulders for my own bad behavior. We have to stop looking for trouble.

Do I believe that racism no longer exists in this country. I absolutely do not. I know there are still many cases of it. My point in writing this (I know it took me forever to get to it) is that rushing to claim racism where it doesn't exist, diminishes the importance of the cases where it really does. After listening to claims from Reverend Wright that the AIDS virus was created by the government to wipe out the black community, is it any wonder that people roll their eyes a bit when racism or discrimination is claimed. How can we ever focus on the real issue and the real problem when the manufactured issue gets way more press?

Racism is a horrible and disgusting issue and we must all work together to eliminate it forever. In order to do this we must stop focusing on how we are different and focus instead on how we are alike. We must stop making decisions about issues based on race. We must stop assuming that if a member of one race attacks a member of another that race was the issue. Could it be, yes. Should we assume it is without any supporting evidence other than the race of the attacker vs the race of the attacked, no. The case that comes to mind for me on this one is the Duke Rape case. There were blogs and cries against "elitism and white skin privilege" because the accuser was black and the accused were white. It was generally accepted and expounded by some that those white boys thought they had a right to rape her because she was black. And let's not forget that the accused ended up being the victims in this case. So was that a case of racism as well? Did she accuse them because they were white? I don't think so.

We have varying degrees of real racism in this country and that's where we need to focus. On everything from the tragic and appalling murder of James Byrd, Jr by members of a white supremacist organization, down to my friend, Tony, who is pulled over by the police for "routine checks" at a severely disproportionate rate simply because he is a black man in a $40,000 car. So I guess in all of my rambling, what I am really trying to say is that when it comes to racism we've been crying wolf. The cry is given when no wolf is there which has resulted in us ignoring the wolf that is here lurking. How can we ever solve the real issues when we are constantly distracted by those that are invented?

Is Health Care More Important Than Education?

I don't think so. I believe that the education of our youth is absolutely critical to the continued success of our nation. If our children are not educated, and educated well, we lose our ability to compete in the world. We rely on immigrants to do the research, design and engineering for our nation. How can we possibly succeed if we aren't teaching our children?

And yet what are we focusing on? Universal Health Care and taxation on our energy usage. Oh yes, by the way, they're sneaking that cap and trade thing in on a vote tomorrow so you might want to contact your congressmen about it.

They tell us that 47 million Americans don't have health care coverage. But 34 million ADULTS in America can't read. That 47 million uninsured included children, but the 34 million illiterate is just our adults. And what's a bigger emergency to our government? If somebody cannot read how are they ever going to reach any level of self-sufficiency? Maybe if they could read they'd have a job that offered them health insurance. Ever think of that Obama?

For their science scores, our youth are currently ranked 17th out of only 30 countries tested. We're in the BOTTOM 50%. In math it's even worse. We're 24th out of 30. That means we're in the BOTTOM 20%. How ugly is that. We are flat out not giving our children the tools they need in order to be competitive in the world. And what are we doing about it? Not a dad gum thing! The dumbing down of our youth is a far bigger emergency that health care but it's not even on the radar. What has the Obama administration done about education so far? They cancelled the voucher programs in DC. A program that sent kids to a school that was actually teaching them something.

So what is wrong with our educational system? Here are some of my theories. We're focused more on the teachers than the students. We teach our kids what to think instead of how to think. We throw money at it without ever analyzing the problem and identifying the causes. We spend more time and effort on the disabled than the gifted. (Now before you start screaming at me, I'm not saying we shouldn't put time and effort into the disabled, just that we should put as much if not more into the gifted). Bad teachers can't be fired because of tenure. There is no "pay per performance" in the teacher's union. We can't get rid of the disruptive and downright dangerous students in our schools. We write our curriculum for the lowest common denominator instead of trying to bring those kids up to a high standard. And finally, too many parents aren't involved in their child's education.

But what are we doing to fix this issue and ensure that our children can compete with the rest of the world? Nada, zip, zero. In all of the social programs we have out there to help the poor, giving them the education they need so that they WON'T be poor isn't even on the radar.

Obama talks a lot about how much health care is costing us and why it's yet another emergency, but how about what a bad educational system is costing us. How much more would we be collecting in taxes if our children were so well educated that we led the world in engineering, inventions, economics, etc?

We are currently not only saddling our children with a mountain of debt, we're denying them the education they'll need to actually make enough money to cover it.

If we continue with this trend, I wouldn't be at all surprised to have our current youth attempt to slap the wrinkles off our faces as they reach middle age.

Irrational Debate

I'm fairly Conservative, if you hadn't already guessed, and in an attempt to find out what the other sides's views are on issues, I logged in to a Facebook forum for Democrats. I was hoping I could engage in some reasoned debates, have some discussions and learn a few things about how the liberals view issues. That is not at all what happened. To be completely honest, after 2 hours in that board I felt the need to shower with steel wool in order to get myself clean.

There was no reasoned debate. Not even the opportunity for it. I was immediately attacked in some of the most vial ways. Profanity was interspersed on every thread, and anything I did say was twisted until it had no resemblance at all to what I actually said. There were 2 men (I won't give them courtesy of calling them gentlemen) on the board who were the most guilty, and unfortunately covered the board with their hatred.

If you think I am exaggerating, when I realized that I had to leave the board for the good of my soul, this is what I said, I admit I wasn't very nice at this point either. "Honestly, I probably won't come back any more so you can admire yourselves for that. But the reason is because I feel dirty after being in this board. I feel like I am seeing the lowest level of society in the form of a few posters and I'm disgusted and sickened by the behavior here. You have served no purpose except to prove me right in my belief that Liberals are irrational, angry, hate filled bullies who's only plan to win an argument is to be the one shouting the loudest. Way to represent your party."

The response I received from Alex Mitchell on that board is the perfect illustration of why I feel dirty. Alex replied with "yea go back to your party, the party of love.....go back to where the pictures of Obama in a nuise, as Mao, or stalin.....go back to your racist party, you fit in well." No matter what I said, Alex Mitchell called me a racist. Or a moron. Or a MFing idiot.

Jacob Shiflett was nearly as bad. Although his accusations that I'm a racist were relatively rare, his nearly every response was that I was a troll. He would respond with a single word post that would simply say Troll. No matter the discussion, that was his response. He dominated the message boards with his flat out refusal to listen to a differing opinion. I'm sure he now prides himself on driving me off of what he consistently referred to as "his board".

Again, if you don't believe me or think I'm exaggerating, then I encourage read the board for yourself, but prepare to douse yourself with bleach afterwards. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=9874&post=41857&uid=2204332151#/board.php?uid=2204332151

In order for the country to be the best that it can be we need the good ideas of each side. Ideas made great by the addition of another perspective. And yet the nation has become so divided that a Democrat and a Republican, or more likely a Liberal and a Conservative, cannot have a discussion on politics without it degenerating into a name calling shouting match. I have friends that are Democrats and we do manage to see each others side of an issue. We may not agree, but we can still acknowledge the other person's side. So why can't we do that as strangers? The flat refusal to acknowledge anything the other side comes up with as worthy of consideration is doing the entire country a disservice. We NEED both sides.

I'm beginning to believe that we will see peace in the middle east before we see reasoned political debate in the US.

Congress Could Benefit From Some Risk Management Classes

I was watching the news (I don't know why I do that) and the Universal Health Care issue was raised. People from both sides presented and it was stressed that employees happy with their current coverage could keep it. The reporter asked what would keep a company from deciding not to offer benefits to their employees anymore, as there would be another option for them, and thereby eliminating the coverage that the person liked. A reasonable question as far as I was concerned and one that would need to be addressed. What was the response? That's a Republican talking point and not our intent.

Not our intent. How many times do we hear that from Congress. That is just a talking point from the other side and not the intent of our legislation. They even sometimes get hostile over the suggestion that their legislation could have unintended consequences. But risk management is a necessity for the design of any product. And that's what Congress is doing. Designing a product. And yet they do no risk management at all. They make no effort to determine how their legislation could go wrong, how often it would happen, and the impact if it did happen. These are necessary pieces of information to have so that you know what loopholes need to be closed and can figure out how to close them. This is a basic FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) a great tool for risk identification and mitigation. So why won't Congress use it?

Instead of using a simple tool to identify risks, they write legislation that is so long and convoluted that they can't even take the time to read it before voting on it. The stimulus bill for example. An important piece of legislation according to them. Had to be passed quickly. But they paid more attention to doing it fast than doing it right. So what has happened? The money is being misused because they didn't try to figure out how that might happen and how to stop it. And a lot of the money isn't being spent. It had to be passed so quickly so the money could get into the economy but that hasn't happened. That bill was 1,200 pages long. One giant opportunity for unmitigated risk.

To give you some perspective on the absurdity of the length of that bill, and it's just an example of many like it, I have a copy of the Constitution that is pamphlet sized. Pretty small cover and pretty small pages. And yet, that little book is still only 48 pages long. That is our Constitution and all of it's amendments. That's 48 pages to set the rules of our government, but it took 1,200 pages to spend money. And spend it badly.

Is it really so much to ask that our legislatures make an attempt to identify gaps in their legislation before they pass it? Oh, but I guess they'd have to actually read it in order to be able to do that.

If We're Already Paying For The Uninsured Then Where's The Crisis?

The new plan for covering the cost of health care for the uninsured is to tax our employer paid benefits. Unless, that is, you work for a union. So even though our insurance premium rates are rising at a higher level than our salaries, we should pay more to cover those uninsured people. But the Congressional justification for this is that we're already paying for the uninsured in the high prices of care and, therefore, the high cost of our premiums.

So here's my question; if we're already paying for the uninsured why is this a crisis? Why do we have to pass something immediately if the American people are already paying the health care costs of those uninsured? If those 47 million uninsured, which includes illegal aliens, people who are offered insurance but decline it, and those uninsured for a matter of days through the year, are already getting their costs covered then what's the big deal?

Congress is now trying to tell us it will be a wash. OK. So as soon as they start taxing my employer paid benefits then my premiums will go down, right? Don't think so. It will take years for the premium amounts to change to reflect a lowering in health care costs, if it ever happens at all. Which I doubt. What will actually happen is that the health insurance premiums will continue to rise for years, but we'll just be paying taxes on those higher rates as well. Many of us have already forgone raises or taken pay cuts in order to keep our jobs and the jobs of others within our companies, but now our take home pay will decrease again due to yet another tax.

And what happened to the promise that 95% of the population would not have a tax increase under this administration? This will definitely be a tax increase on people of all levels of pay as long as they are responsible enough to take the coverage offered by their employer. And what will the new tax rate on our coverage be? Too dang high is my guess.

So maybe we just all just opt out of our employer offered coverage so we not only don't get a tax increase, but we get more take home pay and somebody else to pay for our health care. Sounds like a plan to me.

But When A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations ...

...Evince a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provider new guards to their future security. Isn't this all that the Iranians are trying to do?

That statement from the Declaration of Independence reflects the belief that led our own revolution. Something we hold to be unquestionably true. And yet, is our government supporting the Iranian people as they try to do the same? The people are, the government appears to be doing a pretty piss poor job of it.

Obama doesn't want to "meddle". What a fabulous foreign policy. We'll meddle in the affairs of our allies (Israel anyone?) but not meddle in the affairs of those we really need to influence. I'm not calling for a military overthrow of Iran's government. Far from that. But I would have really liked for us to lead the outcry against the violence perpetrated against the protesters. Instead, we came in at least fourth on that cry. Not much of a world leader are we?

I'm sure you've heard about Neda by now. The woman who was killed during the protest. Killed because she dared to voice a dissenting opinion. Killed by her government for her disagreement. There is a video of Neda being killed but I do not include that. Instead, I have included a video of a tribute to her. Although people are being killed, Neda being the face of it, Obama is still pretty timid in his condemnation. He started out saying, you should be nicer to your protesters. He advanced to saying, you probably shouldn't kill them like that. And he has finally reached the point of saying, you really need to stop it. Wow. Such strong words. Way to go Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMJ48Oe3nRw

But after a long train of abuses and usurpations, the Iranian people are trying to exercise their right to throw off the government, and I hope they get what the want and what they need. They are certainly paying a price for it. I saw an expert on the news today, I didn't catch his name but I did notice he was good looking, and he said that the protest, which started with the youth, is bringing the elders from their homes. These elders are now acting as human shields to protect the protesting youth from the violence. He also said that he expects an economic protest that may effectively shut the country down. If the people, and especially the unions, stop working in protest there will be no choice but to listen. As the gentleman put it, you can't fire bullets at an empty economy.

The stance taken against the protest is standard operating procedure for any tyrannical government. And yet, their attempts to violently suppress a peaceful protest does not make the protest go away. It does not frighten the people more than it motivates them. To display the very behavior that the protesters are out there to change, is not going to work.

I will be praying for the people of Iran. Their safety and realization of the dreams of Democracy. May God be with them all.

What Do Liberal Economics and Diet Pills Have In Common?

What do Liberal economic policies and miracle diet pills have in common? They both promise the world and deliver nothing.

The similarities between the 2 products is amazing. Each promise you success with little to no effort on your part. Just take advantage of their offer, then sit back and wait for the results. And keep waiting. The poor have been waiting for the results of the product they repeatedly purchase for over 50 years, and still nothing. And yet the American people keep buying that product.

Millions of dollars are spent each year on the dream of achieving weight loss without effort. It is a major industry within the US, and it is a scam. Yet many hopeful people keep trying the new pills, praying that the rip off they experienced last time won't happen again. Just the idea that I could lose weight without exercise or dieting as made me fall for a scam or 2. But the bottom line is that they don't work. We have these pills and these promises even though the formula for losing weight is really quite simple. Eat less and move more. There are some who are disabled for whom the "moving more" is problematic, but even then it could be done. If they choose to do it. My big problem is that knowing what I need to do and actually WANTING to do it are two entirely different things. But I really have only 2 choices. I can stay fat, or I can exercise. Period. My choice changes periodically, but I know those are the only 2 choices I really have.

The same can be said for those in poverty. It's not that they CAN'T succeed, but that they're waiting for that miracle pill. Buying in to the recurring and empty promises of the government that the poor can be made wealthy with no effort on their part. Just take advantage of our offer and we'll make sure you're set for life. The difference here is that the American people keep buying the same product that has been proven to not work instead of, as with the diet pills, trying new products promising the same thing. The message of the liberal economic policy has not changed. It still promises results without effort. A promise that cannot possibly be kept. There are only 2 choices when it comes to your personal economics. You either stay poor, or you work hard and advance. That's it. There are no results without effort. There are those who can make millions with a small effort, but an effort is still being made. If you sit back and wait for the results of that particular product, the only thing that will happen is that the poor will stay poor.

Advertising for the 2 products is becoming laughably similar as well. Infomercials have been a tried and true method of selling bogus diet pills for years. A method that the current administration has decided to emulate. During the campaign, Obama held an infomercial to sell his product, and it worked. He has continued that into his administration. Although now he is using news organizations as free advertising instead of paying for his product advertisement like everybody else. And the people fall for the scam.

So what is different about the two products? With all of the similarities they have, there is only one glaring difference. If you fall for the miracle diet pill and purchase that product you are wasting only your own money. If you fall for the miracle wealth pill you are wasting other people's money, and more importantly, your entire life.

There is no miracle cure for poverty just as there is no miracle cure for obesity. Both require effort on the part of the individual to be overcome. Both require hard work and anybody promising you anything else is attempting to scam you for their own financial benefit. Have no illusions about that. The makers of the diet pill just want your money, but the makers of the liberal financial policy want your vote so they can take everybody's money and ensure their own power.

Don't fall for the liberal economic scam.

Whatever Happened to the Little Engine That Could

We all know the story of the Little Engine That Could. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can. I knew I could, I knew I could, I knew I could. There's also the story of the 2 frogs in the hole trying to jump out with other frogs shouting down at them. One frog heard them all shouting that he couldn't do it, but the other frog was deaf and thought they were encouraging him. And which frog made it out of the hole? The one being encouraged of course.

Do we encourage people and tell them they can succeed? Do we tell them to believe they can, and to be that little engine? Nope. Our government and our society have become those frogs around the hole telling others they can't do it. Very unproductive. By telling our citizens they need the government we are telling them that they can't, not that they can. All I really want is a movement from somebody in power, anybody in power, to start encouraging our citizenry.

Why do abused women stay with their abusers? Because they have been convinced that they deserve it and they can't do anything or be anything on their own. Our leadership has begun to take on the role of an abusive husband. But we need to break free. But even though our leadership seems determined to keep us in the hole and keep us from trying, we are still free to encourage each other. And we should do so.

I saw both sides of this issue as I was growing up. I had one grandfather who thought I was worthless because I was a girl and because I was my mother's daughter. According to him I could never do anything, and he even went so far as to ask me in my adulthood when one of my cousins and I were going to make something of ourselves. We were both in management positions making a good living, self-sufficient, happy, and the only 2 in our generation that were still unmarried. The implication being of course that the only way to make something of ourselves was to marry. On the other side of the coin was my other Grandfather who never told me I couldn't do something. He never even hesitated. His belief in me encouraged my belief in myself. If he thought I could do it then I could. I'm sure there were some things my mother would have preferred I not do, like sitting at the peak of the roof on the house my grandparents were building and snapping a chalk line. Especially since the other side of the roof was still bare beams. But Grandpa thought I could do it, and by God I did. It's amazing the levels we can achieve when we know we must, so why can't we achieve those levels just when we know we can? This, I believe, is that too many people are taught that they can't.

I have a nephew who is just 5 years old. His mother is disabled and unable to work so they don't have much money. He is in the environment where so many turn to crime as they grow up because they believe they have no other option. But that little boy has decided he wants to be a chef. He watches all of the cooking shows and follows their instructions. And what does his mother do? She cooks with him. She encourages him to believe that he can be a chef when he grows up. At the same time she's trying to get out of the area she's in and to a better environment for her child. She's planning to move where she has more family, more support for both herself and her child. People who will also encourage him to believe that whatever he wants to do, he can.

Our government is so obsessed with controlling our behavior, through taxation and legislation, but the one behavior they don't concern themselves with is our beliefs in our own abilities. It is in their best interest to have us believe we can't succeed without them. Just listen to what they say. All of these government programs that are handouts. Every time they talk about economic unfairness, John Edwards infamous 2 Americas, all that said was that you can't do it on your own. the message is simple "You can't".

When will a leader emerge who truly believes in the American spirit which I fear will be lost? When will a leader emerge who will encourage the people to be the very best that they can be? When will a leader emerge who changes the message from - you know you can't - to - I know you can? I only pray he comes soon.

Redistribution of Wealth - A New Government Subsidy?

We hear a lot about redistribution of wealth, but what does it really mean? Is it anything more than a new government subsidy? I don't think so. I believe a subsidy is exactly what it is, but for all of the wrong reasons. The government seems to believe that there is a finite amount of money to be made (even though they keep printing more willy nilly) and that if Tom is making tons then Dick and Harry can't make any. They couldn't be more wrong. Big surprise there. There is infinite opportunity for wealth. Even though Tom is making tons of money, Dick and Harry can make even more. Even Jane, Sally and Mary can make money while Tom is.

Wherever we are in life, whether rich, poor or firmly middle class, it is where we have chosen to be. It may not be a conscious choice. We may not have desired that choice. We may not have known we were making that choice, but make it we did. The circumstances we were born into plays a part, but mostly we are where we are because of the decisions we've made. Our choices. Our choices led us to our current situation and, therefore, we've chosen where we are. Some people have made great decisions, others have made bad ones. Some choose to work hard with a goal in mind, some choose to do enough to get by. Some choose to not work at all. Some choose a job they love that doesn't make much money, others choose the money, while some choose Nintendo and a couch. Some choose to save and invest, some choose to live off their credit cards. And some make a combination of all of the above decisions plus more.

So what does the redistribution of wealth really mean? It means that we're subsidizing the bad decisions of some with the proceeds of the good decisions of others. And this is referred to as "fairness". And yet, if people are prone to making bad decisions, if they are given the money earned by another, won't they make the same bad decisions?

I believe that people should have the same opportunities. Education is a big thing for me. I find it appalling that we have to have police officers in our schools, but it's the decisions of the students that lead to that need. Unfortunately, in this situation those decisions impact so many others as well. But if a child chooses to get a good education, even in the worst circumstances, they can. It's a choice they have to make. Having said that, it is what we do with our opportunities that determine where we will go. Shouldn't we be equally distributing opportunity and not the proceeds of opportunities utilized to their best advantage by others?

By redistributing the results of the work of another, where is the encouragement of others to exceed that? Why aren't we telling people, "You don't need HIS money, you can make more on your own." If we really want to "spread the wealth" why aren't we teaching our poor youth how to become entrepreneurs? We seem to be telling them they'll never succeed so they must be supported instead of encouraging them to be the rich of the next generation. We have gone from teaching that with hard work and perseverance anything is possible, to teaching that you'll never make it so there's no point in trying.

The core of the redistribution of wealth is that you can't succeed on your own so the government must subsidize you. How sad is that. This is truly what keeps the poor in poverty. Where is the message of hope. The worst possible thing that we can do to the poor is to tell them they need the government to save them. A crime that the Democrats have been committing on our poor for decades. Instead of being given a handout, they should be encouraged and informed that they can do a far better job of improving their lives than the government could ever do for them. Yet where is this message? Who is saying it? Nobody as far as I can tell. And somebody definitely should. There will always be the rich and the poor because some will still make bad decisions. Some will make horrible mistakes. But why should those decisions and mistakes be subsidized? Oh, I know, the poor are too big to fail.

A Universal Belief in Free Speech?

I've been out of the country for a few weeks so am late in posting my response to President Obama stating that there is a Universal Belief in free speech as he responded to the protests in Iran over their elections.

Free speech may be a truth we hold to be self-evident, but it is not a universal belief. It is what separates us from so many other countries. Iran doesn't believe in the freedom of the people. Pretty much everybody except Obama is aware of this. Iran will deal with these protests very differently than we would, mainly because they don't believe in freedom of speech or the right of the people to protests. This is, I'm convinced, exactly why they are now forbidding foreign press from covering the protests.

The freedom of the people to worship as they choose, speak out against their government, and peaceably assemble in protest is a right of people in a free nation where the government is run by the people. It is not a right in a Theocracy and it is not a right in a Dictatorship. Just ask anybody speaking out against Hugo Chavez what kind of rights of free speech they have.

Stating the freedom of speech and the ability to protest is a universal belief was naive at best and downright stupid at worst. Does Obama really believe that? Does he really believe that all countries agree that the people have a right to speak out? Did he believe that Saddam Hussein felt that way? If so, I guess it would explain why he thinks we're so arrogant for trying to intervene. We do believe that everybody has the right to speak, but not everybody is allowed that right. Some are imprisoned. Some are executed. Some are bankrupted. The whole tragedy of so many countries is that it is not a universal belief.

With legislation regarding hate speech, and the increasing prominence of political correctness, we don't even have the full rights of free speech here anymore. And who is a great component of limiting what we can say and to whom? Obama. Not offending somebody has become more important than our right to say what we like. It's kind of strange because though our Constitution does say we have the right to free speech, it does not say anywhere that I can find that we have a right to not be offended. If what I say offends you, well then, you have the right to say something that offends me but you do not have the right to silence me because you are offended. And you may have the right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. Basically, nobody has to listen. And Congress and the White House prove that quite well by not listening to a word we say. So how then, can Obama say that the right of the people to speak is a Universal Belief? Is it because he sees the world as he thinks it should be instead of how it actually is? Possibly.

And I won't even get started on how Achmadinijad was polling behind and ended up winning 2 to 1.

Congress To Legislate TP Usage

In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.

"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."

New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."

The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.