Thoughts from a loyal GOP dissenter.

Update...

2011-02-07T10:05:00.000-08:00

Well, i'm about four months into my new job. I just finished field training, and have finally gone solo. I'm loving the new job, although it is definitely a harder profession to become good at than being a banker.

Missing everyone here for sure, but 12 hour days in a patrol car don't give me much time to blog. Hope everyone is doing well!

New Job.

2010-10-01T14:05:00.000-07:00

So I just got hired today by a local police department. After a year of applying and testing and being in the background process, a little town about two hours from where I live picked me up. I'm pretty excited, but will most likely not have a lot of time for blogging...

Church to endanger Troops with Islamic Insult

2010-09-07T11:03:00.000-07:00

This idiot was enough to bring me out of my summer blogging hibernation.

The Dove World Outreach Church, in Gainsville, Florida, is planning on burning Korans on September 11th as a protest against Islam.

From CNN:

The pastor of a Florida church planning to burn Qurans told CNN Tuesday while the congregation plans to go through with the action to protest the September
11, 2001 attack on the United States by al Qaeda, the church is "weighing" its
intentions.

The Church's founder, Terry Jones, said of the planned burning:

"We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the
Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the
Bible. But we feel that the message that we are tyring to send is much more
important than people being offended."
Jones said Muslims are welcomed in the United States, if they observe the
Constitution and don't try to impose Sharia law, or Muslim law. The message, he
said, is directed toward the "radical element of Islam.
"Our message is very clear," he said. "It is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about," he said.

While Jones, and his church, have the Constitutional Right to do so as a part of the freedom of speech, that does not mean they should. Especially in light of what the US Military has to say about it:

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Afghanistan, said the burning of Islam's holy books "could cause significant problems" for American troops
overseas.
"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort
in Afghanistan," Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday.
With about 120,000 U.S. and NATO-led troops still battling al Qaeda and its allies in the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban movement, Petraeus warned that burning Qurans "is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant
problems -- not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the
Islamic community."
Petraeus said he was concerned by the political repercussions of the church's plan.
"Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday," he said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."
He said extremists would use images of burning Qurans to inflame public opinion and incite violence.

That should be enough to stop this. Again, while they have the right to do this, that does not mean that they should. Especially since it will further endanger US Troops...We all the have the right to say and do certain things. I once heard it put this way: "We have the right [to do stupid things], just like people have the right to make out in public. But doing so still makes you a social retard."

Jones, in response to the Military's warning, said the congregation is taking seriously the warning from the U.S. military that the act could cause problems for American troops.

"We have firmly made up our mind, but at the same time, we are definitely praying about it," said Jones.

Praying about it? I'm sure Jesus would approve of this. Actually, wait, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't.

I like what Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House has to say about this:

As bad as Obama has been, there is nothing more destructive of the
Constitution’s spirit and letter than burning the Koran - or any book for that
matter. What this Reverend Jones is planning on doing is so antithetical to
Americanism that any red-blooded tea party patriot should be steaming at the
very thought that this glory-seeking preacher wants to besmirch our most sacred
values by imitating Nazi brownshirts at their worst who piled high books by
Jewish authors at Nuremberg and set fire to them.

There is no difference - none - between the 50 or so members of the
Dove World Outreach Center and mindless Nazi drones if they carry through with
this plan.

My sole concern is with protecting the legacy of free expression in the
United States - a legacy that would be damaged if we burn any book for any
reason. Why stop at burning the Koran. Why not move on to 1001 Arabian Nights?
Or the diaries of T.E. Laurence? There are dozens of books that deal with the
Koran and the Muslim faith, both fiction and non-fiction. If you want to make a
symbolic gesture about Islam, why not torch those volumes too?

Moran has a great point. Book burning? Really? That does bring to mind fascist regimes of the past...

While I agree with the idea of sending a message to Radical Islam on 9/11/10, book burning is not the way to do this. Book burning is neither right, Christian, or American.

People from all walks of life in the US should protest this. Republicans, Democrats, independents, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc...

We need to let it be known that is not representative of the whole.

Vacation.

2010-09-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

So I've been on vacation most of the summer from blogging...got tired of the pettiness. I'll be back once the weather isn't nice anymore...got my motorcycle endorsement early August and got myself a 1985 VT500C (Honda Shadow)...all my time I would be blogging has been spent on this thing. Over 50 miles per gallon city, more on the highway...love it. Already planning my next bike...

"Do Your Job!"

2010-07-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

CNN:

The same day President Obama is delivering a high profile speech on immigration, a web video is making the rounds featuring a frustrated Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer imploring the president to "do your job" when it comes to securing the borders.
In the web video posted earlier this week, Brewer stands in front of recently erected signs 80 miles from Arizona's Mexican border that warn travelers "smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area."
"Two weeks ago I met with President Obama, he promised that we
would get word from his administration on what they were going to do to secure
the border. Well, we finally got the message, these signs," Brewer says. "I'm 80
miles away from the border and only 30 miles away from Arizona's capital. This
is an outrage."
"Washington says our border is as safe as it's ever been…Does this look safe to you? Washington is broken, Mr. President," a visibly angry Brewer continues. "Do your job. Secure our borders."
The newly-erected signs are the product of the Bureau of Land Management, according to local TV station KPHO, amid urging from local residents who have witnessed a wave of drug-related crimes.
Brewer's comments come more than a week after a senior Obama administration official confirmed justice department lawyers are planning to file a legal challenge to the controversial Arizona immigration law championed by Brewer.
Federal government lawyers who have been working on the expected challenge for several weeks will most likely file their arguments in federal court in Phoenix in the days leading up to July 28, when the statute is scheduled to take effect, the official said.
Administration officials have indicated the question of Arizona usurping federal authority to control the border and enforce immigration law is the most likely federal point of attack against the state law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year.
In his immigration speech Thursday, Obama again took aim at the controversial Arizona measure, calling it "ill conceived."
"It is not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive, though it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate, laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets," Obama said.
The president also defended his efforts to secure the border both with Mexico and Canada.
"We doubled the personnel assigned to border enforcement security task forces," he
said. "We tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border. For the first time we have begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments. And as a result, we're seizing more illegal guns, cash, and drugs than in years past."
"The bottom line is this, the southern border is more secure today than at anytime in the past 20 years," Obama added.

I can certainly understand Govenor Brewer's frustration. I can also understand Obama's frustration with Arizona. Govenor Brewer, and many other people for that matter, are blaming Obama for an immigration and insecure border issue that should have been taken care of many administrations ago. The fault doesn't lay at Obama's feet-unless he does nothing during his presidency. The fault lies more with Bush II(who should have secured the borders after 9/11), Clinton, Bush I, and all previous administrations. The southern border is entirely unsecure-drugs, money, guns, and of course people, are constantly flowing into and out of our country through the southern border. It's time it stops.

While disagreeing with SB 1070 and other actions that Arizona has taken, I certainly have to give respect to the state for trying something. For trying to get Federal attention. Let's hope it worked. Let's hope thaat Obama listens and does much more than any of his predecessors did. Let's hope he begins to solve the problem.

Cops and the Right to Self Defense

2010-06-23T10:07:00.001-07:00

This is an article I wrote for the Oregonian, and they published it. You can read the whole article here

Police and the mentally ill: Cops have a right to self-defense
By James Wolfer

Portland Chief Mike Reese announced last week his desire to transform police training, saying that he wants to transform it from a " 'fear-based model' -- where officers are taught to think a motorist reaching toward a floorboard is going for a gun -- to one founded on 'competency and confidence' -- where a mentally ill man isn't treated like a bank robber."

First, I'd like to say how much respect I have for the new police chief. He sure has his work cut out for him in that revolving door that is the chief's position in the Portland Police Bureau. And while there is definitely room for improvement in police training with regard to the mentally ill, removing the "fear-based training" model altogether would be disastrous.

The police need to assume, for their own survival, that someone reaching might be reaching for a gun. Police deaths are up nationally. According to statistics available from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, officer deaths in 2009 were 42 percent higher than in 2008 across the board in the U.S., with 80 percent of those deaths resulting from gunfire. Statistics are not yet available for 2010, but it seems that almost every week an officer is killed somewhere in the country. Some of those shootings have happened here in the Northwest. How quickly we've forgotten the four officers assassinated in Lakewood, Wash., just last December. Even here in Portland, people, some of them mentally ill, have attempted to fight police with deadly weapons. While some are protesting the police "profiling" and killing of Otis Keane, many in the public fail to address the fact that Keane shot first. He shot an officer in the legs, twice, before being fatally shot by the other officers involved. Thankfully, the officer survived, but what would have happened if he had not? Would the public have been appeased? I doubt it. Most likely, there would still be protests against the police for killing their attacker.

The Portland Police Bureau could use more training in dealing with the mentally ill. But the Portland-area public also is in dire need of education on what happens when someone, mentally ill or not, tries to use deadly force against the police: the officers will defend themselves with deadly force. The police have a lawful right to self-defense, to survive an attack and go home to their family at the end of the day, regardless of the attacker's mental state.

James Wolfer lives in Southwest Portland.

Arizona at it again; targets "anchor babies"

2010-06-21T09:42:00.000-07:00

This has to be my favorite part:

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said [John] Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Read the rest of the article here.

In summary:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in
the United States to illegal immigrant parents...
John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically
granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status...

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.
"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of
the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country
support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal
government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does
nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

The founding fathers were illegal aliens. In fact, the first few presidents weren't born here. James Madison was the first president born in the nation known as the United States. We are a nation made of immigrants (unless you are Native American Indian). If children born here, even to illegals, are not citizens, then what exactly would qualify as citizenship? Do infants now need to apply for citizenship?

I don't agree with illegal immigration. It's illegal. And we have to do something about it. But not this. Children born here have always been, and always should be, United States citizens. Arizona is seeking to directly punish children for the crimes of their parents. And that just isn't right.

What further angers me is that this bill is being pushed by Republicans. Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln. Republicans, the party that pushed for the end of Slavery. The party that has expoused patriotism so fiercly, is now pushing yet another unpatriotic law, built upon unpatriotic ideas.

If this passes, can the Union recover? Probably. But we'll definitely be a little further away from the Constitution than we were yesterday.

Crossposted to Republicans United

An argument for more guns

2010-06-16T13:12:00.001-07:00

This was an interesting and well written essay, by Major L. Caudill USMC (Retired).

"The Gun Is Civilization"
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...as well as a profound quote from Thomas Jefferson.
The Gun is Civilizationby Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal andeasily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armedand can only be persuaded, never forced.
By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)
________________________________
And now a word from Thomas Jefferson: "False is the idea of utility ... that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction of liberty. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States writing in his 'Commonplace Book', 1775
---------------

I read this in the opinion section of my local newspaper, the Oregonian. I found it extremely well thought out, and logical. It doesn't attack any side, just merely proposes its thesis and defends it well.

I don't carry a gun. I don't even own one. But I probably will someday, and I believe that having a gun and being well trained in it's use is a huge deterrent for property crimes, and an equalizer in person crimes.

No Cops Allowed

2010-06-07T11:50:00.001-07:00

First, let me say how nice it was to just take a break from blogging. I started school in April, taking online classes for a Masters degree, and working full time at my 9-5 M-F job, and a weekend job. I've been busy! Needed a break from the bloggin'...just didn't have the energy to write.

This article caught my eye:

In mid-May, Portland police Officer James Crooker went to Southeast
Portland on a patrol call. With a few minutes to spare, he decided to get a
coffee. So, he popped into the Red & Black cafe on Southeast 12th Avenue near Oak
Street, bought a coffee and was heading out when a customer approached him,
saying she appreciates the hard job that police officers do every day in
Portland. One of the co-owners of the cafe, John Langley, has another
point of view. While the officer and customer were chatting, he walked up and
asked Crooker to leave, saying he felt uncomfortable having a uniformed officer
in the vegan cafe. The incident, which was brief, speaks volumes about the
tensions between Portland police and some members of the community who are more worried about police shootings than protection. Crooker said he was surprised to be shown the door but left immediately. He said this marked a first during his nine-year in law enforcement, two in Portland and seven in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. "The places that I've been kicked out of before have been places like the methadone clinic," he said. "I've never been kicked out of a regular cafe." But the 36-year-old
officer, who was born and raised in Portland, said it's all part of working this
city's streets in a uniform. "We have a unique relationship with the community,"
he said. "You're there to protect them but on the other hand they don't know
what that involves. Being gracious is part of it." A former Marine who served in
Iraq, Crooker didn't take the incident to heart. "It was not personal," he said.
"He was being hostile to my uniform," he said. Langley, who did not raise his
voice during the encounter, agreed. "It's not about the police," Langley said.
"It's about what the police represent to many people who frequent the cafe. The
cafe draws vegans -- of course -- along with homeless people and animal-rights
and environmental activists who Langley said have been targets of police abuse
and harassment. But the cafe also draws customers like Cornelia Seigneur,
who blogged about the incident on her website. Seigneur, a freelancer for The Oregonian who
was enjoying lunch with her daughter on May 18 when Crooker came in, was the one
who approached him. "There have been some unfortunate situations recently,"
Seigneur said. "But overall the police are out there day in and day out
protecting us." She said she struck up a conversation with Crooker to show her
support for police, who she said saved the life of a friend after he was shot by
gang members. When Langley asked Crooker to leave, she was startled. "It was
shocking," Seigneur said. "Everyone deserves to have a coffee, and he was served
a coffee. It was humiliating." She said there were only about three other people
in the cafe and that no else seemed to notice the officer. But the incident has
fired a reaction, with dozens of comments pouring into Seigneur's website. It's
been so overwhelming that she took the blog post down but put it back up
Thursday afternoon. The cafe, too, has received a deluge of calls, with about
half supporting the cafe and the rest expressing anger. "We've received
threats," Langley said. "People have threatened to attack us and break our
windows." Still, he has no regrets. "I never expected a police officer to come
into the space," he said. "If it happened again, I wouldn't serve him."

The customer that was thanking the Police Officer has a blog, and has started a movement not to boycott the place that didn't serve the officer, but to highlight places that do.
Her original blog post
&
Her facebook campaign

Police Officers put their lives on the line every day to protect their communities. We hear about the mistakes and the bad apples first and foremost. The more common stories of police officers helping people-stopping to help you change a flat, educating children on drug abuse, etc. are left out of the news. And that is sad, and only perpetuates the negative, false thinking that this cafe owner exhibited.

Law Enforcement Split on Arizona Immigration Bill

2010-05-04T13:28:00.000-07:00

From Time magazine. To read the entire article, click here.

The law's main champions certainly include some law-enforcement figures, like
Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and the bill's state senate sponsor, Russell
Pearce, a former cop whose son (also a policeman) was once shot by an illegal
immigrant. But the official opposition of the Chiefs of Police Association — on
the grounds that the law amounts to an unfunded mandate, that it could hurt
community relationships and that it distracts attention and resources from more
serious criminality — shows that in Arizona, cops are just as divided about the
law as everyone else.

Brian Livingston, president of the Arizona Police
Association, which represents 9,000 rank-and-file officers and agents in the
state, supports SB1070 without reserve. "What we've seen is inaction, a lot of
discussion," he said. "We have officers getting killed, getting severely injured
by illegal aliens." He told the story of officer Marc Atkinson, a young Phoenix
cop whom Livingston had personally recruited to the force. Atkinson was killed
by an illegal alien during a drug bust, said Livingston.

David Aguilar,
acting deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, followed that
speech with his own prescription for immigration and border issues. He didn't
explicitly take sides on SB1070, but he argued for a "holistic" approach that
includes a lot of help for America's neighbor to the south. "Speaking cop to
cop," he told the audience, the real question should be "How do we help [Mexico]
reduce the violence?"

The controversy alone made some law-enforcement
officials uncomfortable. Walking on the floor of the exhibition hall, police
chief Jerald Monahan of Apache Junction didn't want to comment about the law,
except to take issue with the rising calls to boycott Arizona: "To boycott all
of us when they're mad at a few people is not right," he said. "We're doing good
work."

Chief John Harris of Sahuarita, the current president of the
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said he opposed the law before Governor
Jan Brewer signed it and still does today. He listed his objections: Immigration
has traditionally been a federal issue, and the police already have "manpower
and budget issues" that will only get worse under the law. "If we then arrest
[illegals] on state charges, who will pay?" he asked. He's also concerned that
victims may not report crimes to his officers. And finally, the threat of
lawsuits — any citizen may sue a police officer or department for impeding the
enforcement of immigration laws — makes him leery.
When told of the Arizona
Police Association's support for the law, Harris nodded. "It gives police
officers, in their mind, another tool," he said. "But if they get hit with a
civil rights lawsuit, well, that's a problem for the chief of police."

Ultimately Harris and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police will
continue to oppose the law until it takes effect in mid- to late-summer. After
that, however, they will uphold its provisions while being as fair as possible.
"We are sworn," he said, "to enforce the laws of Arizona."

----------------------------------------

I find this really interesting, that Law Enforcement doesn't even agree on this issue. I've been following a lot of debate back and forth on this, and I'm not sure where I stand on it, really. I do think parts of the bill are unconsitutional and will ultimately hurt law enforcement, while other parts have long been needed.

I would welcome some other points of view on this. If you support it, why and what parts?

If you don't, the same: why and what parts? What would you do differently?

US will begin disarming. Is this a good idea?

2010-04-06T15:57:00.000-07:00

From CNN:
The United States will swear off the development of new generations of
nuclear weapons and will not use its existing arsenal to attack nonnuclear
states that are in compliance with nonproliferation agreements, the Obama
administration said Tuesday.
Among other things, the new American stance is meant to provide an
incentive for countries to stay within the rules of the 1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, a senior administration official said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Adm. Mike Mullen, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, announced the change two days before President
Obama is to sign a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia that reduces both
countries' missile stockpiles.
The new policy "recognizes that the greatest
threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between
nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation
to an increasing number of states," Obama said later in a
statement.
"Moreover, it recognizes that our national security and that of
our allies and partners can be increasingly defended by America's unsurpassed
conventional military capabilities and strong missile defenses."
Obama stressed that "preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism
is now at the top of America's nuclear agenda."
The position "provides a road map" to help achieve Obama's "long-term goal
of a nuclear-free world," Gates added. It removes a "calculated ambiguity" in
past U.S. nuclear policy while making clear that "this is a weapon of last
resort," he said.
Gates also noted, however, the new policy sends a "strong
message" to states such as Iran and North Korea.
"If you're going to play by
the rules [of the nonproliferation treaty], we will undertake certain
obligations to you," he said. "But if you're not going to play by the rules ...
all options are on the table."

Read the rest of the article at CNN

Normally, I'm not very much for the neo-conservative attitudes of war mongering and spreading Diplomacy through force.

But disarming the one remaining superpower? I'm not sure this is such a good idea.

Here's a real world example: My brother in law is a police officer on the east coast. His mid-size city's population was afraid of the police officers having shotguns in their cars, even in their trunks. So the chief took the shotguns away, and then took their tasers away, and if it weren't against federal law, I'm sure the chief would take away their pistols as well. All because people were scared of the weapons. Isn't that the point?

His department only carries their sidearms now. Their only option for any situation regarding use of force, from the baseball bat wielding teen to the automatic weapon toting terrorist. This is what happened during the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, where the responding officer only had his sidearm and could not stop the killer. The shooter killed 22 people before SWAT put him down. This is the reason officers are heavily armed, so that when the situation calls for it, an officer can stop a shooting spree.

Same with nukes and the US. If we stop producing them, but another county keeps doing so in secret, how do we stop them from using them? Invade them? They'll just start shooting off their nukes, at us, at their own people--much like the shooting spree killer. Often, and I hate to say it, but the threat of existing nukes will oftentimes do what diplomacy cannot: scare the living hell out of dictators trying to produce nukes.

To disarm the US would be like taking guns away from the police. All you'll have left is a bunch of meter maids.

Crossposted to Republicans United

Michael Chandler feels left out of recession.

2010-04-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

Michael Chandler looks out the windows of his sun room, past the swimming pool and guest cottage, to the wide backyard where his two children are playing with their pet dalmatian, Scotty. At a time when Americans everywhere are sharing the struggle of a once-in-a-generation recession, Chandler can't help but wonder how he and his family fell through the cracks.

"It's just not fair," said the 49-year-old real estate developer and grandson of oil baron Duncan Chandler. "Everyone is worrying about an uncertain future and coming together to express their outrage, and I don't get to be a part of it."

Staring out at the ornate garden where workers were installing a large marble fountain, Chandler sighed and added, "It's like I don't even exist."

According to the multimillionaire, the past 18 months have been incredibly difficult to endure, as he is often left feeling excluded from an American populace that includes millions who struggle every day to make ends meet. Chandler, who watched helplessly as his enormous fortune easily withstood the market freefall, has been "completely left out" of one of this nation's most significant cultural moments.

"Everybody's suffering," Chandler said. "And here I am, not scrimping and saving at all, with no demoralizing periods of financial hardship, or frantic weeks living paycheck to paycheck. What about me, you know? Where's my struggle?"

"Everyone's supposed to get a fair shake at this misery," Chandler added. "Even incredibly wealthy people of privilege like me."

Throughout the economic downturn, Chandler has tried to tap into the recession and experience some of the sorrow and widespread desperation he has so cruelly been denied. Sadly, all of his attempts have been thwarted by his seemingly insurmountable stack of riches.

According to longtime financial adviser Ben Schultz, Chandler "constantly" inquires as to whether any of his diversely invested mutual funds are losing money, but is always let down.
"Michael's portfolio is better than ever, to be honest," Schultz told reporters. "In fact, his only real connection to the recession is that he helped to cause it by artificially inflating home prices and making millions off unstable derivatives trading."

Chandler has been so devastated by his inability to feel the same anguish and hopelessness the rest of the country is enduring that he took the extraordinary step last week of speaking openly with a chauffeur about how hard the recession has been on everyone. He even went so far as to tip the driver 50 percent less than usual in an attempt to show the man that he, too, was hurting financially.

"I kept waiting for him to say, 'Well, times are tough on all of us,' or 'Who isn't feeling the pinch these days, eh?'" Chandler said. "But he just seemed really angry."

Despite his best efforts, Chandler told reporters he knows that someday the crisis uniting so many of his fellow Americans will pass, and that the far-reaching anger will give way to the worship of money that preceded it.

But until then, he admitted, it will hurt to be excluded.

"Every month they announce tens of thousands of layoffs," Chandler said, "and every time, I'm not one of them. No matter what I say or do, it'll never be me. My only memory of this historic point in time will be the prosperity I have always known."
Added Chandler, "Dear God, when's this recession going to end?".

Source: The Onion

Well, Mr. Chandler, you have Republicans to blame. We just can't help but give you tax breaks. We just can't allow you to have 60% of your income be part of the Federal Reserve. Suck it up and be rich, dude. Just keep voting for Obama and you too can be part of the recession.

Right-wing militia plotted to kill Police Officers

2010-03-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — Nine
members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group have been indicted on
sedition and weapons charges in connection with an alleged plot to murder law
enforcement officers in hopes of setting off an anti-government uprising.

In court filings unsealed Monday, the Justice Department accused the
nine people of planning to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer, then
plant improvised explosive devices of a type used by insurgents in Iraq to
attack the funeral procession.
Eight of the defendants were arrested over
the weekend in raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. A ninth remained at large,
the Justice Department said. The indictments against them were returned last
Tuesday. The defendants were identified as members of Hutaree, described by
federal prosecutors as an anti-government extremist organization based in
Lenawee County, Michigan, and which advocates violence against local, state and
federal law enforcement. The group saw local and state police as “foot soldiers”
for the federal government, which it viewed as its enemy, along with
participants in what they deemed to be a “New World Order,” according to the
indictment.

“This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be
found throughout our society,” Andrew Arena, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Special Agent in Charge in Detroit, said in a statement. “The F.B.I. takes such
extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens
and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States.”
...
A Web site for the Hutaree group talks about a coming battle against
the putative forces of the Antichrist but does not appear to focus explicitly on
recent political events.
The Web site, which describes the group as
“preparing for the end times,” featured video clips of people running through
woods in camouflage gear and firing assault rifles, along with links to gun
stores and far-right media. It also features an elaborate system of military
ranks for its members. The site says it coined the term Hutaree, intended to
mean Christian warrior.
“Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves
using the sword and stay alive using equipment,” the Web site says, adding, “The
Hutaree will one day see its enemy and meet him on the battlefield if so God
wills it.”

The indictment charged that between August 2008 and the present, the
defendants — led by David Brian Stone, 45, who also used the name “Captain
Hutaree” — developed a conspiracy that they hoped would result in a war
against the United States government. They allegedly decided they would
kill a local law enforcement officer, and then bomb the funeral caravan. The
killings “would intimidate and demoralize law enforcement diminishing their
ranks and rendering them ineffective,” it said.

Afterward, the indictment said, Hutaree members would retreat to
several “rally points” and wage war against the government, using prepared
fighting positions as well as “trip-wired and command-detonated” bombs.

“It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as
a catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government,” the
indictment said.
Mr. Stone used the Internet to obtain diagrams of
“explosively formed projectiles,” a particularly lethal form of roadside bombs
responsible for many deaths of United States soldiers in Iraq, the indictment
says.
...
All nine people face the charges of seditious conspiracy, attempted
use of a weapon of mass destruction, and carrying a firearm during a crime of
violence. In addition, Mr. Stone and one of his sons, David Brian Stone Jr., has
been charged with teaching the use of explosive materials.

Read the entire article here.
Try them all for sedition. They were trying to use Iraqi style IEDs to kill police officers. Call in for help, and kill the responder? Terrorists. Plain and simple. Try them as such.

As has been said before, we need to denounce those that would seek to define the whole with extremism. This is wrong. And these people should be charged to the full extent of the law.

Mississippi still one of the most disriminatory states.

2010-03-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

CNN-Walking into school Wednesday morning was not easy for Constance
McMillen. The last time she'd been there was March 11, the day after her Fulton,
Mississippi, high school canceled prom rather than allow her to wear a tuxedo
and attend with her girlfriend.
...
"I've been very nervous about all of
this," the 18-year-old Itawamba Agricultural High School senior said. "I don't
like being somewhere where everyone hates me."

McMillen's name made national headlines when she, with the help of the
American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit against her school and the Itawamba
County School District, asking them to reinstate prom for everyone, without
discrimination. A federal judge in Mississippi ruled Tuesday that while
he wouldn't force the school to have a prom, which had originally been scheduled
for April 2, he agreed that McMillen's First Amendment rights had been
violated.

That was good news, said her attorney, Christine Sun, senior counsel
with the ACLU's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender project. It set a
precedent and helped broadcast an important statement, which was made stronger
by virtue of where it came from, she said.

"We're in a conservative area of the country, where people tend to
think we can do what we like," said Sun, who lives in New York but has traveled
multiple times to Mississippi for this legal push. "This case sends a strong
message that that's not going to fly anymore."

The only pending issue, Sun said, is the question of damages and the
ACLU's request for attorneys' fees. An amended complaint to seek a quick
resolution on this should be filed in the next 30 days, she said.

Meantime, McMillen is trying to find her new normal.

In many ways, she stands in an awkward balance. Though there are some
people who support her in Fulton (population about 4,000), the overarching
tension and what she described as "hostility" that she feels at school and in
her community is in deep contrast to the reception and groundswell of support
that's overwhelmed her nationally.

As a poster child for the rights of LGBT students, she's been asked to
jump on airplanes to appear on news programs and talk shows. The Facebook fan
page "Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom!" had attracted more than
414,000 fans as of Friday morning. Wealthy individuals, including Ellen
DeGeneres, have offered to pay for a prom for her school. She's received a
$30,000 college scholarship from an anonymous donor and Tonic.com, a digital media company
in New York that's also offered her a summer internship. She's even been invited
to high school proms in cities she's never visited.

"It means a lot to me," she said of the outreach from others. "The
amount of support helps me to continue with the fight."

But all McMillen, who came out as a lesbian in eighth grade, ever
wanted was to go to her school prom with her class, and with her girlfriend.
Going to another school's prom, while a nice offer, doesn't make any sense to
her.
...
She never meant to be a spoiler for others when she sought approval
to bring her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo, she said. She thought she was doing
the right thing by asking in advance, since the school had stipulated in a
February memo that dates must be of the opposite sex. Rather than give
her permission, the school canceled the prom...

Read the rest of the article here.

I have to say a few things. First, what the school did was, and still is, reprehensible. But further, I have to say I disagree with the judge. He said he wouldn't force the school to have a prom.

He should.

Public schools are part of the US government, and are publicly owned. Discrimination has no place in the government, much less in the United States of America.

The judge should force the school to have the prom anyway, and pass his judgement that anyone caught doing this in the future will be fired.

This isn't allowed anywhere else, except for the military, and even that will be over soon enough.

Discrimination has no place in the United States. None whatsoever. This wasn't a private school. This is a publicly, tax funded school, and therefore an extension of the public. Therefore, this behavior is not to be tolerated. Not even in backwater places like Mississippi. Being behind the times should not be an excuse.

Pentagon begins easing Don't Ask Don't Tell

2010-03-24T13:28:00.000-07:00

Washington (CNN)

-- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to announce changes Thursday
easing the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting
homosexuals from serving openly in the military, a senior Defense Department
official has confirmed to CNN.

The official said one of the changes will be that outings by third parties
may no longer be automatic grounds for initiating separation proceedings,
especially if it is proven that the person making the allegation has a grudge
against the military member.

Gates' announcement will focus on regulatory changes that can be made
at the Pentagon without the approval of Congress, which has been debating
whether to change the policy.

President Obama has asked for a repeal of the measure.

I'm glad to finally see us moving forward on this. I'm not sure why Congress is debating this; it's a pretty cut and dried issue. This policy is discriminatory, and therefore should be repealed. This is America-land of the free and home of the brave. But DADT makes the brave not free. Let's change this, let's change it now.

Tell Glenn Beck: I’m a Social Justice Christian

2010-03-11T11:10:00.000-08:00

Reposted from Sojourners Blog:

Tell Glenn Beck: I’m a Social Justice Christian
by Jim Wallis 03-10-2010

Glenn Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word “social justice.” He says social justice is a code word for communism and Nazism.

But since the Catholic Church, the Black Churches, the Mainline Protestant churches, more and more Evangelical and Pentecostal churches including Hispanic and Asian-American congregations all consider social justice central to biblical faith, Glenn Beck is telling all those Christians to leave their churches. Of course, Christians may disagree about what social justice means in our current political context — and that conversation is an important one — but the Bible is clear: from the Mosaic law of Jubilee, to the Hebrew prophets, to Jesus Christ, social justice is an integral part of God’s plan for humanity.

Beck says Christians should leave their social justice churches, so I say Christians should leave Glenn Beck. I don’t know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show. His show should now be in the same category as Howard Stern. Stern practices pornography and Beck denies the central teachings of Jesus and the Bible. So Christians should stop watching the Glenn Beck show and pray for him and Howard Stern.

Beck also said that if his church was about “social justice” he would report his church to the church authorities. What authorities? Church bodies as diverse in their theology as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals have explicitly endorsed social justice as a biblical imperative.

So here’s an idea: how about reporting ourselves to Glenn Beck as church members and pastors who practice and preach social justice.

Since Sojourners’ mission is “to articulate the biblical call to social justice,” I’ll be the first to turn myself in. And I invite you to join me in turning yourself in to Glenn Beck as a Christian who believes in social justice. Let’s send him thousands of names.

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at http://www.godspolitics.com/.
------------------------------------------

For more on this, please visit Dave Miller's blog.

I'll be one of those names. As I mentioned in previous posts, we must repudiate those in our midst that are threatening to ruin the whole. So let me be among those that say: I am a Christian. And Glenn Beck is wrong. Very, very wrong. And he does not represent Christianity whatsoever.

**UPDATE**
Bread for the World, a Christian group dedicated to eradicating hunger, has joined Sojourners in rebuking Beck.

"What the Lord requires of us, said the prophet Micah, is to act justly, show mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8)."

Former Obama advisor says efforts aren't enough

2010-03-11T10:53:00.000-08:00

Former Obama advisor Steve Hildebrand, who played a huge role in getting Obama elected, has a few harsh warnings for fellow Democrats in Washington.

"I think that there is a real shot we [Democrats] are going to get
slaughtered in elections this fall if we aren't leading the efforts to reform
Washington," Hildebrand said. "We campaigned in '06 and '08, and if voters don't
see that change, we haven't lived up to that promise."
...
He came to the White House on Wednesday for a quiet meeting with the
president's senior adviser, David Axelrod, to express a fear that Republicans
are seizing the high ground on cleaning up Washington, on issues such as the
ethics probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York.

Hildebrand is pushing for a strong outside body to oversee congressional
ethics so that lawmakers are no longer policing themselves, and he is lobbying
on behalf of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would limit federal campaign
contributions to $100 to try and cut the influence of big money donations.

"Voters want solutions, but voters know that it starts with getting
money out of politics first," Hildebrand said before his meeting with Axelrod.
"And I'm going to push that with David, I'm going to push that with anyone that
will listen."

Pressed on whether the president is doing enough on lobbying and
campaign finance reform, Hildebrand said, "I don't think anyone in Washington is
doing enough on this."
...
"Point is, things [are] happening today in Washington under Democratic
leadership that were happening under Republican leadership that we went after pretty hard as a party," Hildebrand said. "We went after that culture of corruption, and I don't believe there is a culture of corruption, but I do
believe there is an image problem that Washington in general has to deal with.
And Democrats are in trouble now and if they don't do anything."

Read the rest of the article here.

I liked some of his ideas, as well as his criticism of the Democrats in Washington. They campaigned on some big promises, and so far, most of them just haven't materialized, if not flat out broken. Sure, little promises have been kept. But big ones, like transparency, closing GTMO, executive priviledge, DADT, and ending croneyism? Those I am still waiting for, and I'm sure many others are as well.

It's nice to hear this from a Democrat, though.

Tea Party Series: Stray from the GOP and everyone will lose

2010-03-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

Washington (CNN):

Mitt Romney has a message to Tea Party candidates nationwide: If you lose your
Republican primary bids, stay on the sidelines.
The former Massachusetts
governor on Monday warned the grassroots movement not to mount third party
efforts in general elections, which he said would siphon votes from Republican
nominees.

"If there is a conservative candidate that runs in the general
election, then obviously, divide and fail is the result," Romney said in an
interview with the conservative Web site Newsmax. "Hopefully Tea Party
candidates will run in respective primaries and they will either win or lose.
And if they win, they will go into the general. If they lose, they won't, and
they will get behind the more conservative of the two finalists."

Romney explained that "dividing our conservative effort in the general elections" would "basically hand the country to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and that would be very sad indeed."
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made similar remarks last month in a speech sponsored by the Arkansas Republican Party. "Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party," she said, adding that the GOP would be the most natural fit for such activists.
Romney had kind words for the Tea Party movement. "I'm really pleased that the silent majority is silent no longer," he said, predicting that the movement "will have have an impact on this election."
"Not all the Tea Partiers are Republicans, not all of them vote for Republicans, but I think most of them will," he said.

Continuing with the Tea Party series, I thought what Romney said was quite appropriate. Earlier, I said that the GOP could use the Tea Party, and in fact needs the Tea Party, because the Tea Party has engaged the "silent majority" to be silent no longer. Then, in the second part of the series, I showed that while the GOP needs the Tea Party, it also needs to make sure to silence and repudiate the "crazy parts" and the fringe of the tea party in order to make sure that the whole is not defined by the rotten few.

Here, I think what Romney says is that while the GOP needs the Tea Party, the Tea Party also needs the GOP. It may be the more conservative part of the Republican Party, but it is undeniably part of the Republican Party. A limb cannot survive without the body, but the body can survive without a limb.

If the Tea Party were to put more conservative candidates in the primaries, that would be great. Let the voters decide. But if the Republican voters choose a more progressive or moderate candidate, like Brown, then the Tea Party needs to honor that choice and try elsewhere. To try and then push someone as a third, more conservative party, would only mean that both the conservative and the republican candidate would split votes, and what would happen? I think Romney said it best: It would "...hand the country to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and that would be very sad indeed."

Crossposted at Republicans United

Tea Party Series: To Protest Everything is to Protest Nothing

2010-03-03T12:47:00.001-08:00

I read an interesting op-ed piece today, by Leonard Pitts Jr., entitled Crazy and Incoherent. It was printed in the Oregonian, and you can read the entire article here.

Pitts talks about the Tea Parties and many of the extremists found within its ranks. He gives a surprising quote, by Editor in Chief Erick Erickson of RedState, a big name conservative blog:

"At some point, you have to use the word 'crazy.'"
...
Erickson was recently quoted on Politico in a report about how he and other
conservatives are attempting to distance their ideology and the Republican Party
from the paranoid theorizing and loud, incoherent screaming that have recently
passed for discourse on the political right. And of course, the darkly comic
thing about it is that, less than a year ago, some conservatives were exulting
over the tea parties, believing they brought needed energy to a movement
demoralized by its 2008 shellacking at the polls. "The Republican comeback has
begun," declared GOP chief Michael Steele.

What a difference a year makes. Or not.

Some of us after all, have argued all along that the tea parties were about
as "conservative" -- insofar as that term has traditionally been understood --
as ladies night in a Castro Street bar. Indeed, some of us made the same point
about George W. Bush, the putatively conservative president who nevertheless
presided over an expansion of the federal government and of a federal
entitlement program (Medicare), a costly war of choice in Iraq founded on a
shifting rationale, and financial mismanagement that turned surplus into deficit
seemingly overnight. For at least the last decade, then, conservatism has not seemed particularly conservative -- a
disconnect many of the ideology's adherents managed to ignore so long as it was
useful to do so, i.e., so long as it played well at the ballot box. "Just win,
baby" was their mantra; intellectual honesty, their casualty...

This, I believe, is completely on the nose. The reason Republicans lost so badly in 2008 wasn't because the Democrats and liberals are great---far from the truth, as we can clearly see with our current administration and Democrat majority. Washington is still broken. No, Republicans didn't lose due to their competition; Republicans lost because of themselves. One thing Americans hate, hate, is hypocrisy. And when Republicans talk about conservativism, less government, fiscal responsibility, and then use their majority to do the opposite, America reacts. And that is why we currently have a Democratically controlled, well, everything.

Pitts continues on why the Tea Parties really haven't accomplished a lot in the last year:

...the tea party movement [was found] to be amorphous and largely without
an organizing principle other than its anger toward government and fear of a
supposedly imminent dictatorship. Beyond that, partiers are an unwieldy amalgam
of tax haters, global warming holdouts, illegal-immigration protesters,
secessionists, gun rights advocates, white supremacists, militia types and
conspiracy theorists, all banging their gongs at the same time. Like the liberal
noisemakers who follow the World Trade Organization around, their lack of
message discipline renders them -- that word, yet again -- incoherent. Like
them, they have yet to figure out that to protest everything is to
protest nothing.

Make no mistake: every movement or marginalized people has its fringe
extremists who threaten to define the whole. Thus, moderate American Muslims are
periodically required to rebuke Islamic terrorists, environmentalists are
obligated to rebuff eco-terrorists, and moderate African-Americans are expected
to reprove Louis Farrakhan.

But conservatives, outside of a few integrity-driven souls over the years,
have not rushed to repudiate the crazies among them, even as the crazies have
grown crazier and threatened to engulf the whole.

And here he is right. We need to continue to repudiate, as Erick Erickson has done, the crazier parts. Otherwise, the fringe of the tea party will take over the tea party, and the tea party will, in turn, define the Republican Party. And that would be disastrous for the party, and the for the country.

Crossposted at Republican United

Tea Party Series: How the GOP can use the tea parties and why

2010-02-11T09:40:00.001-08:00

For the last six to eight months, the Democrats have been placing their hopes in the tea parties. Yes, I said the Democrats. They have placed their hope that the tea partiers, or "tea-baggers," as they've derisively labelled them, will redeem everything wrong with them, that the Nazi-sign wielding right-wing extremists would make the GOP look so bad that all the mistakes of the current administration would be dwarfed by the ineptitude of the opposition. And at first, they were right.

But the tea party crowd, and the Republican Party itself, may just be beginning to learn from its mistakes. The oft-predicted bloody GOP civil war hasn't materialized. In fact, there are many groups working to unify the GOP's progressive, centrist, and right-wing conservative factions, such as Republicans United and David Frum's Frum Forum. There seems to be less in-fighting than last year, as if the GOP is actually starting to listen to the Big Tent speak. Look no further for evidence than the recent Scott Brown victory; a Progressive Republican by all accounts-he even describes himself as fiscally conservative yet is a social moderate. And not only did he get GOP backing, he won in a traditionally all dem state. And the tea partiers did not get upset that a moderate won-quite the opposite in fact. In Sarah Palin's keynote address at the tea party convention, she said that "...in many ways Scott Brown represents what this beautiful movement is all about..."

In a syndicated op-ed piece, The Potent Tea Party, Rich Lowry writes:

If the tea partiers were to split from the GOP, or be spurned by it, that
would indeed spell disaster for Republicans. It's an unlikely prospect, though.
In a survey for the National Review Institute, pollster John McLaughlin found
that tea-party activists and their sympathizers self-identify as Republicans,
and 68 percent of them voted for John McCain. They are pro-life, pro-tax cuts
and pro-defense -- in other words, mainstream conservatives who are particularly
engaged by the debt-fueled growth of government.

Palin's rapturously received speech in Nashville could have been delivered
almost line for line at a Republican Convention. She skipped the social issues,
but otherwise rehearsed unalloyed conservative orthodoxy on national-security
and fiscal issues. This is not the stuff of ideological fissure or
self-immolation.

Any activist-driven movement will inevitably have rough edges. The
Nashville convention itself was beset by feuding among tea-party groups and
allegations of profiteering for its extravagant $550 admission price. It gave a
platform to ranters Tom Tancredo, a former Republican congressman, and Joe
Farah, editor of a right-wing Web site, both of whom predictably delivered
cringe-inducing screeds.

But such embarrassments are a trifle compared with the enthusiasm of the
tea partiers, and their populist-tinged purifying impulse. They want to
reconnect the GOP to the people, to its principles and to an ideal of public
service that got obscured in the decadent latter days of its congressional
majority.

Tom Tancredo gave a terrible speech, and was rightfully called out by Meghan McCain when she said "...I'm sorry [but] revolutions start with young people. Not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word 'vote' in English. It's ridiculous..."

And she is right. Speeches like Tancredo's, and in fact speakers like Tancredo, should be scorned by the tea party and the GOP itself. The way to really start winning again is to continue to embrace the "big-tent" ideal that Reagan spoke of in the '80's; by embracing our brothers and sisters that are more progressive than us, and also those that are more conservative than us, so that we can, together, reconnect the GOP to the people.

Crossposted at Republicans United

Pentagon begins process to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

2010-02-02T13:16:00.000-08:00

It's about time. The United States of America has no business whatsoever in the discrimination arena. But for some reason, we've allowed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be active since 1993. When will we learn that discrimination is not right, that it is looked upon by future generations as narrowminded bigotry? And since 1993, we've been open about our close-mindedness, and allowed it to affect National Security (as we did when we allowed two Arabic translators to be fired when it came out that they had come out).

But finally, some sense has come. Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, called on the Pentagon to begin the process to end DADT.

This week, the Pentagon began that long and arduous process:

The Pentagon has taken the first steps toward repealing the military's
controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay and lesbian service
members, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.
Laying the groundwork
for a repeal of the policy will take more than a year, Gates said...

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also endorsed a repeal
Tuesday, telling the committee it is his "personal belief" that "allowing gays
and lesbians to serve openly [in the military] would be the right thing to do."
"For me, personally, it comes down to integrity," he said.
"The question
before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we
best prepare for it," Gates told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out
accordingly."

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also
endorsed a repeal Tuesday, telling the committee it is his "personal belief"
that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly [in the military] would be the
right thing to do."
"For me, personally, it comes down to integrity," he
said.

"The question before us is not whether the military prepares to
make this change, but how we best prepare for it," Gates told members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. "We have received our orders from the commander
in chief and we are moving out accordingly."

Read the rest of the article at CNN

This should be something both sides of the aisle can agree on, Republican and Democrat. Progressive and Moderate Republicans should really be at the forefront of this, much like the log cabin Republicans are doing. We need to show the world that our party can change and be at the forefront of civil rights again, as when Lincoln issued the Emanipation Proclamation. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has no place in the US, and therefore, no place for support within the Republican party.

Crossposted to Republicans United

Military Contractor puts Bible Verses on Gunsights

2010-01-21T14:35:00.000-08:00

Who Would Jesus Shoot?
by Justin Fung
Sojourners

In case you haven’t already seen this, it’s been discovered that gunsights on weapons used by British and American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with coded biblical references, including:
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)
It’s absolutely mind-boggling to me that carved onto weapons of war are words of truth and peace — words from a man who embodied and heralded a kingdom characterized by peace, and from a man who announced an alternative to empire and spoke of faith, hope, joy, gentleness, goodness, and peace. How in the heck do these things go together?!
The website of Trijicon, the U.S.-based manufacturer, states: “We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.” Which of course is clearly congruent with SHOOTING people.
Clearly.
No wonder Christians have a bad name. You’d think we’d learned our lessons from the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. But apparently not.
---------------------------------------------

I think Justin has a great point here. I do personally believe there is a such thing as just violence. I just don't believe it's something the US is involved in. Police Officers who shoot a criminal who is trying to kill someone-that's just violence.

But Iraq? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. We are fooling ourselves if we think Jesus would approve of these wars. And I'm sure he loves it that we put his name and words on weapons of death and destruction.

Oh wait. Wouldn't that be taking the Lord's name in vain? Oh yeah. I forgot about that one. No biggie, it's just one of the ten commandments.

Newt thinks he is top 2012 material.

2010-01-15T16:35:00.000-08:00

Former House Speaker Gingrich considers himself among top 2012 presidential prospects for GOP
Associated Press

CARY, N.C. (AP) — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he considers
himself among the top Republican prospects for the 2012 presidential election,
adding that he believes there will be plenty of GOP options for voters to
consider."I think I'm probably on a list of seven or eight possible candidates
at this stage," Gingrich said. "We have a lot of people around the country who
would like to have somebody who represents a commitment to replace the current
failed programs and to develop a set of solutions that are practical and
workable."

Read the rest of the article here
------------------------------------------
This is not what the GOP needs right now. We need someone fresh and not full of empty air and emptier rhetoric. We also need someone controversy-free, or at least has minimal skeletons in their closet. Newt is not a winner in either category, as the paragraph above says absolutely nothing, and Newt has way too many skeletons in his closet. I don't want to vote for a man who had ethics sanctions voted against him overwhemingly by the US House of Representatives, as Newt did in 1997.

Another problem I have, and I believe most other moderates and centrist would as well, and rightly should have, is the fact that Gingrich is constantly trying to bring the US "back to its Christian Heritage." I don't want my President trying to bring this nation to some period in time when the State bordered on State Religion (McArthyism anyone?).

Not to mention his leading of the charge against Clinton for his affairs and cover-up while having his own extramarital affairs.

All in all, Newt just isn't a great leader. Maybe he once was, but he isn't someone that I, as a moderate/progressive Republican, could see myself following. And I just don't foresee others following him, from either side (or the middle) of the aisle. To win, we need a charismatic leader without more empty rhetoric.

Crossposted at Republicans United

Donate to Haiti

2010-01-15T13:57:00.000-08:00

There is an estimated 100,000+ dead, more displaced, and the country is in chaos.

If you would like to donate, go to MercyCorps.org and click on the Haiti link.

Robertson and Limbaugh hate Haiti

2010-01-14T09:03:00.000-08:00

This is further proof that they are both, and I don't use this term lightly, jackasses.

First, Pat Robertson:
Read it here or here

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about. [Haitians] were under the heel of the French...and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French.’ True story. And the Devil said, ‘OK it’s a deal.’ Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another.”

Blaming 100,000 deaths on sin and voodoo. This is the same guy who said Katrina and 9/11 were God's wrath on the US for abortion and gay marriage.

Pat Robertson worships an imaginary God. Pat Roberson is no Christian.

And then there's Rush Limbaugh being his normal pompous self:
""This will play right into Obama's hands...they'll use this to burnish their, uh, shall we say, credibility with the black community, both the light-skinned and black community in the country. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there; could not wait to get out there...Besides, we've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax."

What does that even mean, Rush?

Go back to rehab, Jackass.

Google may pull out of China: will this increase or decrease censorship?

2010-01-13T09:10:00.000-08:00

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com):
Google said Tuesday that it may leave China and shut down its strictly monitored site there, Google.cn, citing censorship rules and a targeted cyber attack on its network infrastructure.
In a blog post, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer David Drummond said the search giant first detected the attack last month and thought it posed a security threat, adding that the company frequently faces cyber attacks of varying degrees.
But an investigation of the attack exposed evidence that showed the attackers' primary goal was to access Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, Drummond said. While two accounts were hacked, the accessed information was limited to the date the account was created and subject lines, not the content of any emails.
"We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech," wrote Drummond in the post.
(read the rest of the article here)
----------------------------------------------------

I know there are probably "big business" reasons that Google is looking at pulling out of China, such as the market there not working out for them like it does here, but really, it's all about the free market, and freedom in general. There isn't one in China. At all. So money-wise, Google is getting worked over trying to operate over there. Not to mention that ethically, they were having to adhere to censorship, which Google, at its core, does not believe in. Last year, the Chinese government blocked all sites with "Tiananmen Square", including the google.cn website, for 8 days surrounding the anniversary on June 8th.

And now Google's servers are being targeted, by the Chinese government and its silencers, to get information on dissonants within the Chinese people...not okay.

On the surface, I support Google pulling out of China, as well as other companies doing the same. But, one has to look at history. If all of the free world begins pulling out of China due to their censorship and human rights violations, pulling companies, resources, and essentially boycotting China, what will happen? Darkness. The country will fall behind. Look what happened to North Korea. Look what happened to the USSR during the Cold War.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Pulling out may help, but it also may make things worse. We need to figure out how to not abandon those we disagree with. We need to help Google, and other companies like it, figure out how to help develop free markets, and freedom itself, in China. This should be something that we can all agree on, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, Progressive, neo-con, and old-school far-right Republicans.

Crossposted at Republicans United

Ron Paul tells Cheney to STFU

2010-01-05T11:54:00.000-08:00

CNN:
(CNN) – Dick Cheney is taking criticism from at least one member of his own party over the former vice president's recent and persistent criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of national security issues.
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and upstart 2008 presidential candidate, told CNN's Larry King Monday night Cheney is in no place to criticize Obama's handling of the war on terrorism.
"I think he had his eight years, and he's caused a lot of trouble for our country and perpetuated a war in Iraq unnecessary and wrong-headed," said Paul. "I would say it would be best he not be so critical right now."
Paul was a constant critic of the Iraq war during his unsuccessful presidential run. While he is currently not seeking a higher office, his son, Rand, is seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky.
Paul's comments come several days after Cheney released a tough-worded statement criticizing the president's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day.
"He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war," Cheney said in the statement. "He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."'
White House Communications Director Dan Pffeifer later responded the president "is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action."
----------------------------
I knew I liked Ron Paul. Haven't I been saying this since January of 2009? Hmmm...Cheney needs to shut his mouth unless he's ready to offer real alternatives to Obama's strategies. So far, all he seems to do is naysay and tell Obama to go back to his and Bush's [failed] strategies. If you want to be a real leader, admit your administration screwed up and stop trying to tell Obama to continue to do what you did, what we voted against in November '08...maybe come up with something new for once.

Happy New Year.

2009-12-31T16:47:00.001-08:00

See you all next year!

Music Post

2009-12-29T13:10:00.000-08:00

Still sick and not feeling like entering the foray of politics during this holiday season, so, even though it is after Christmas, I thought I'd share a Christmas song I recorded in my home studio a few weeks ago, and since my blog is musical musings, I thought I'd post on music. If you want to listen to my cover of "Mary Did You Know" go to my company's myspace page. I have a few different artists on there, but mine is the third track listed...

www.myspace.com/embryonicproductions and listen to "Mary Did You Know"...just for fun.

Have a happy new year.

Merry Christmas

2009-12-23T16:53:00.001-08:00

I'll post again after the holidays. I need a vacation.

Merry Christmas!

Too bad Guiliani won't run again; we could use a real leader

2009-12-22T15:52:00.000-08:00

Not to relive last year's primaries and elections, but McCain/Palin was a terrible idea. Romney or Guiliani, I would've voted for.

Hell, I would've voted for McCain had he not let the GOP trample him after he won the nomination and push him to pick the [disastrous] Palin. He said "Country First" yet he put the party's leadership first. Not something I want in the leader. And then, to make it worse, after he picked Palin, he shoved her under the bus during his campaign. I couldn't have confidence in a man who would pick someone he didn't believe in, and I couldn't have confidence in a vice president who doesn't even have the respect of the guy she's running with.

Guiliani: I would've voted for him. I'm willing to bet a lot of other centrists and moderate/progressive Republicans, not to mention even independents, would've too. He held New York together after 9/11. While Bush was off starting two wars and blaming them both on 9/11, Guiliani was rebuilding New York. He was a true leader.

Too bad he dropped out of the primaries.

And too bad he won't be running for Senator, or Govenor, and will instead remain on the sidelines.

Too bad. He's a real player, and a real leader. I could definitely have confidence in him.

Source

DC Mayor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Law

2009-12-18T10:24:00.000-08:00

Washington (CNN) -- The nation's capital city took a major step Friday toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a measure recognizing such marriages as legal. The district council overwhelming passed the bill Tuesday, following a similar vote December 1.
Fenty signed the measure at All Souls Church, a Unitarian Universalist house of worship in the northwest part of the district that is known for its diversity and for the welcoming of same-sex couples.

The measure now goes to Congress for a 30-day review period, but it's considered unlikely that the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would block the bill. By law, Congress has the right to review and overturn laws created by the District of Columbia's council.

If the measure becomes law, the district will join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriages. A law legalizing such marriages in New Hampshire takes effect January 1.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Maine approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriages, but voters in the state last month passed a referendum to overturn the new law. Last week, New York's state Senate defeated a bill that would legalize such marriages. A similar bill stalled last week in New Jersey's state senate.

Tuesday's vote in the nation's capital prompted approval from gay rights groups. The Human Rights Campaign called passage of the legislation "a victory for all D.C. residents."

"The legislation the council passed today reinforces the legal equality and religious freedoms to which all D.C. residents are entitled," the organization's president, Joe Solmonese, said in a written statement.

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said "the fight is not over."

"Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it," said Brian Brown, the organization's executive director.

"We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people's right to vote," he said.

Opposition to the legislation also came from the Catholic Church's Archdiocese of Washington, which has said that the measure could restrict the church's ability to provide charity services, apparently because the church might cut back on services rather than comply with the measure's requirements.
------------------------------------------

It is inevitable. One day all of the US will have equality in this arena. The US does seem to gravitate towards equality, albeit sometimes after quite awhile.

Christmas and the cultural war

2009-12-17T13:28:00.001-08:00

I was reading over at Dave's blog his experience at a Chinese Restaurant. In his post Maybe Some Chow Mein and an Egg Roll, Dave talks about his meal at the "Gourmet" Restaurant Panda express. It does say "Gourmet" on the logo...

So we ordered, ate our wonderfully bland mediocre gourmet food and headed
out.

And there she was. Sitting on the concrete right by the doorway. Maybe 40
years old, dirty, disheveled, and not looking good.

...Living in a somewhat urban setting, you get used to this type of attack.
The homeless/lazy/down on their luck/lookin’ for a buck person. But this
was different. Because she looked right at me and asked me for some
food. Maybe some chow mein and an egg roll. And she apologized. She said she was
sorry.

I quickly went inside and ordered her food. A big plate of noodles and her
egg roll, with chicken. And since the guy told me an additional item wouldn’t
cost any more, I decided to treat her to a plate of orange chicken as
well.

As soon as I gave her the food she apologized again and dove into it as if
she hadn’t eaten in a week. Which was quite possibly true.

I really like where he goes next.

Christians are pretty quick to defend “our” season. We are almost
cataclysmic if stores say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. And heaven
help the person who suggests that maybe for their own religious reasons, they
would rather not participate in the office gift exchange or Christmas
party.

But is it possible that God, just as He was with Israel, is pretty upset
with us? Maybe our version of Christmas has just become another empty burnt
offering.

Maybe in the face of our hungry fellow man, whether he is in Darfur,
Indonesia, an abandoned inner city, or down the street from where we live, our
trees, twinkling lights, and rush to get the latest iphone or Wii Fit
gadget are the things that the ancient prophet Amos says God
despises.

Last night God broke my heart again. I hate when he does that. And believe
me, it happens over and over. Because I can be a stubborn guy.

I cannot get that woman out of my mind, and yet I am pretty sure God is
okay with that.

Sometimes Christmas can be such a struggle.

I totally agree with Dave here. Even on my own blogroll, I see many that are so concerned with the "cultural war" as Focus on the Family puts it, or the so-called "war on Christmas" that O'Reilly is bemoaning. But I think we lost those battles two generations ago, during the prosperity of the '50s, and it's only gotten worse. We lost the "cultural war" to ourselves.

We shouldn't be worrying about stores saying "happy holidays" vs. Merry Christmas. I don't think Christ would really care, honestly. I think where his heart gets broken is just as Dave mentions: when we are so worried about buying gifts and preserving the tradition of Christmas that we forget that Christ came to SAVE the world. Not to make a really cool excuse to buy each other stuff and make wishlists.

Further reading:
Advent Conspiracy
Heifer International

Supply side won't save us this time

2009-12-15T14:28:00.000-08:00

David Frum has an interesting review on the Frum Forum on Bruce Bartlett's book The New American Economy.

Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders. He shows that in the 1970's and 80's, three US Presidents (Nixon, Ford, and Carter) had all tried, and failed, to effectively fight the sluggish economy and high inflation of the time.

At the time, most economists were saying that a recession and inflation cancelled each other out and couldn't exist at the same time, even if the reality was disproving the theory.

A small, "dissident" group of economists came up a way to fight non-inflationary growth: supply-side economics. And it worked. "Carter's Recession" as Reagan called it, ended, thanks largely to supply side economics.

But Bartlett argues further that supply-side is not a cure all. It was a cure for the '70s and '80s stagflation. Supply side economics were "...elegantly designed to counter stagflation. Other problems required other solutions. And boy, do America and the world now face other problems: deflation, debt, and the failure of economic growth to translate into rising incomes for most Americans."

I like the way Frum ends his review:

"A free-market economic policy for our time would stress reflation to combat deflation and a payroll tax holiday to spur job creation. It would propose health reforms to control costs and thus boost middle class incomes and slow the rise in government spending. It would, as Bartlett has done, call for consumption taxes to balance the budget and avert the payroll and income tax increases that will otherwise befall.

Such a policy would depart from present conservative orthodoxy. But the supplysiders departed from the conservative orthodoxy of their day, and we admire them for it! We do not honor them by refusing to emulate them."

Boys will be boys, and men will be women.

2009-12-10T14:50:00.000-08:00

My friends Kyle, Tristan, and I discuss the subject of men and masculinity quite frequently. I believe that the quote goes from Fight Club, "we are a generation of men raised by women" really describes my generation. We are told to act gentler, kinder, and more reserved. To settle down, be quiet, and be sensitive. Not since the days of the Dandy have men been told more often to act more like, well, women.

A comedian, Mark Gungor, said something along the lines of "Really, if you ask most women to describe their ideal man, listen to them, they'll describe another woman!" saying things like, "You need to be more emotional. You need to be in touch with your feelings. You've got to go shopping!"

I don't think we need to go back to the days where women were second class citizens. Far from it. But I think somewhere along the road to gender equality and suffrage, it was thought that in order to achieve equality for the woman, the man needed to be brought down and made inferior. Masculinity has been made out to be something wrong, something that men need to rise above, or grow out of.

A friend of mine is going through a rough time right now. His girlfriend cannot accept that he likes masculine things, like guns, motorcycles, and such. She thinks of these things as juvenile and sophomoric, without realizing that he is just being who he is supposed to be, who he wants to be; he is being who and what he was made to be: a man.

As much as I don't like product plugs, over at Docker's, their ad campaign sums up so much. I'll repost the text here:

ONCE UPON A TIME, MEN WORE THE PANTS, AND WORE THEM WELL. WOMEN RARELY HAD TO OPEN DOORS
AND LITTLE OLD LADIES NEVER CROSSED THE STREET ALONE.
MEN TOOK CHARGE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, THE WORLD DECIDED IT NO LONGER NEEDED MEN.
DISCO BY DISCO, LATTE BY FOAMY NON-FAT LATTE, MEN WERE STRIPPED OF THEIR KHAKIS AND
LEFT STRANDED ON THE ROAD BETWEEN BOYHOOD AND ANDROGYNY.
BUT TODAY, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OUR GENDERLESS SOCIETY HAS TO ANSWER FOR.
THE WORLD SITS IDLY BY AS CITIES CRUMBLE, CHILDREN MISBEHAVE AND THOSE LITTLE OLD LADIES REMAIN ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.
FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE BAD GUYS, WE NEED HEROES. WE NEED GROWN-UPS. WE NEED MEN TO PUT DOWN THE PLASTIC FORK, STEP AWAY FROM THE SALAD BAR AND UNTIE THE WORLD FROM THE TRACKS OF COMPLACENCY.
IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR HANDS DIRTY.
IT'S TIME TO ANSWER THE CALL OF MANHOOD.
IT'S TIME TO WEAR THE PANTS."

Susannah, over at Get the Big Idea, also posted on this.

GOP Litmus Test Resolution

2009-12-07T12:31:00.000-08:00

The Republican National Convention (RNC) has obtained the necessary co-sponsors to bypass the RNC's resolution's committee and eventually vote on the "litmus" test for a candidate to be considered "pure" enough to get the GOP's backing, according to David Frum's forum . Not only is this political suicide for the GOP, it's just plain stupid.

This is the Litmus Test:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

In order to be considered for political backing by the GOP, a candidate must sign off on 8 out of 10 of this list. The rationale for this? They are invoking the spirit of Reagan, albeit misguidedly, by saying that since he said that “that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent,” the resolution will embody that spirit of Reagan and cut off all Republicans who don't fit at least 8 out of 10 items from the resolution.

I don't know about that. Reagan constantly talked about the "big-tent party." This doesn't seem like a big tent. This seems like an eight out of ten pup tent to me.

Oops, looks like I only score 7 of 10 (I'll leave it to you to guess which 7). I guess I can't be a Republican anymore. But wait...I'm a moderate, with pretty common views for my generation. Oh well. Guess the GOP doesn't need Generation X and Y.

This just doesn't make sense at all. Before, I've blogged about building a moderate part (here, here, here, here, and here) of the GOP, much like the Democrats have their blue dogs and their DLC (Democratic Leadership Committee) to balance the far-left. We need a Red-Dog or RLC (Republican Leadership Committee) type organization to balance the Republican National Convention, especially if they pass this suicidal GOP litmus test.

If there is a candidate that Progressive Republicans could support, that we believe could bring embody the GOP's spirit and win again, but doesn't meet the RNC's 8 of 10 lunacy, the Progressive Republican organization should be able to rally behind said candidate and provide backing and support. Why should we let the far-right drive the party into obscurity?

Let's not only defeat the resolution, but let's make sure similar resolutions are not only circumvented, but defeated as well. There are more of us, and we want a winning GOP again. Not some pure minority that just spouts off items from a ten item list.

Tea Party Movement beginning to fracture

2009-12-07T10:48:00.000-08:00

CNN-It emerged in anger and it threatens to split in anger.
One major group in the Tea Party movement -- named after the famous Boston Tea Party -- is set to host its first convention in February, with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.

But there are fractures in the movement that threaten its future. And if history's any guide, such movements tend to flame out.

The Tea Party movement erupted on April 15 -- tax day -- over criticism of President Obama's economic policies and what organizers called big government out of control. The movement, made up of local, state and national groups, continues to protest what it considers fiscally unsound policies.

And the movement is well funded. Action groups like FreedomWorks -- chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- helped organize and fund its April 15 rally in Washington.
Other groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots, are also vying for the helm of the movement, and it's creating what some are calling "competitive chaos."

Some Tea Partiers have voiced anger and concern over whether the powerful groups are "astroturfing'' what is supposed to be a grass-roots coalition -- the idea that the movement is being organized by old-fashioned GOP bigwigs to promote their agenda.

Donna Klink, of the Golden Triangle Tea Party-Texas, said in a post on the Tea Party Patriots Web site that the chaos needs to be addressed.
"We must craft a simple coalition message that we can all agree on. ... We should all remember the simple principles of 'Strength in Numbers' and 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall,' " she wrote.

Klink added that individual Tea Party groups can keep their own identity and beliefs while "still reaching out to and working with other groups that share common goals."
"We MUST stop this battle within and fight together," she insists.
The factions, however, have said they are only trying to engage citizens in fiscal conservatism -- and disagreements are inevitable...

...While anger over economic issues sparked the movement, it has come to represent anger in general -- from anger over health care reform to just anger against politicians, like Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

At rallies over the summer and fall, crowds carried signs portraying Obama as Hitler and likening his policies to those of Nazi Germany. In one case, heavy criticism forced a Tea Party group in Danville, Virginia, to cancel a bonfire in which an effigy of Pelosi was to be burned.
And there's the threat that fringe members will taint the public's perception of the movement.

"The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringe extremism," said GOP strategist and CNN contributor John Feehery in a CNN.com commentary. "While most Tea Party activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country, some others see conspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure with the president."

Steinhauser noted that the fringe elements only make up a small part of the movement and should not come to represent the cause....

...That issue is similar to what other populist movements in the U.S. have faced over time.
Jon Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," has said that history shows that Tea Party-esque movements and "demagogues rise when the economy turns south."

"They specialize in blaming others for the troubles with wild accusations. It's a time-honored formulation, a powerful narcotic for the nervous and dispossessed, with violent side effects," he wrote in a CNN.com commentary.

The populist movement started in the 19th century. The Populist Party later emerged, made up largely of farmers, and coalesced around opposition to the gold standard as currency.
Its ties to the free-silver movement, among other things, failed to resonate with a broader base of Americans -- especially urbanites in populous states.

Later in the 20th century, populist anger rose up during the Great Depression, focused on big business's role in the 1929 stock market crash and its subsequent effect on American society. And in the late 1960s, populist anger was geared against big government.
"But now we've got both -- anger at big business and big government," said Avlon, a columnist for The DailyBeast.com. "It's a perfect political storm, primed for a return to pitchfork politics. ... The fringe is blurring with the base, creating leverage on the party leadership."

Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report said that in order for Tea Party activism to blossom into a lasting movement, it "has to exhibit some real influence that goes beyond a set of rallies."
He said that while there's the risk of fading away -- based on the divisions within the movement -- it has growth potential.

"There's certainly a risk of dying out [like many populist movements] but there's the potential for having some staying power as well," he said. "If they become larger or more organized there's a potential to have more influence. It depends on how they're able to harness the energy that's there now and translate that into future success."

And part of that organization could come from having a face to associate with the Tea Party name.
Palin, Fox News' Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, have emerged as Tea Party darlings.
Gonzalez said the Tea Partiers need to have a one person to identify with their message -- much in the way Obama became identified with "change" in the 2008 presidential election.

If the Tea Party movement wants to develop into a political party or force, Gonzalez added, it should take the lessons of the populists and other third-party movements to heart.
"I think if a third party wants to take off, there has to be a face with it. And Ross Perot was a good example of that in 1992 and 1996. It's become more difficult [with this movement]."
----------------------------------------

Watching the tea-party movement, I've seen some things that are worth protesting. But I've also seen the fringe there; those that call Obama a Hitler/Socialist/Fascist etc...I liked that they were protesting fiscal irresponsibility. But I really wish those same people would hold accountable those they hold up as heroes. For example, both Bush and Palin were extremely fiscally irresponsible while they were in charge of their respective states. Bush caused the worst deficit ever (Obama's hasn't hit yet, so it doesn't really count as the worst-yet), and Palin's bridge to nowhere was a disaster (yes, she started the bridge to nowhere, she was for it before she was against it, it was in fact her baby).

What I hope to see if this movement takes hold and becomes a third party, as the commentary above postulates, is true fiscal responsibility [read: fiscal conservatism]. Until then, it's just another populist movement destined to fizzle out.

Conservative Bible

2009-12-03T10:23:00.000-08:00

Really people? C'mon! New politically conservative version of the bible being written...

I seriously cannot understand the utter idiocy of some people. Not only does the religious right try to read conservative politics into texts that are 2,000 years old and older, but they are now trying to actually write these biases into the text...this is just as bad as when liberal scholars have tried to rewrite the bible in gender-neutral terms (i.e. God as the "Father-Mother" in places where "father" appeared before).

"Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it's professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible," said Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, the project's online home.
Experts who have devoted their careers to unraveling the ancient texts of the Scriptures, many in long-extinct languages, are predictably skeptical about a project by amateur translators.
"This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda," said Timothy Paul Jones, a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., who calls himself a theological conservative.

Religious publishers already provide an alphabet soup of Bible translations for a range of theological outlooks, from the King James Version (KJV) to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and beyond. The most widely used traditional translations were overseen by scholars who are considered the best minds in conservative Christianity.
"The phrase 'theological conservative' does not mean that someone is politically conservative," said Schlafly, who lives in Far Hills, N.J.

This liberal slanting, Schlafly argues, ranges from changing gendered language — Jesus calling his disciples to be "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men" — to more subtle choices, like the 2001 English Standard Version of the Bible, which uses "comrade" and "laborer" more often than the conservative-friendly "volunteer."

Ridiculous.

Obama to send 30,000 troops

2009-12-01T09:16:00.000-08:00

Washington (CNN) - President Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and is ordering military officials to get the reinforcements there within six months, White House officials told CNN Tuesday.

The president, whom Republicans had accused of "dithering" over the decision, came to the conclusion that the deployment needs to be accelerated to knock back the Taliban, the officials said.

The push for a speedy deployment surprised some observers, because White House officials who defended Obama's slow pace of coming to a decision had said the Pentagon wouldn't be able to get new troops to Afghanistan that quickly anyway.

Asked to explain that seeming contradiction, a White House official told CNN: "The president is saying this has to happen, so the military will make it happen."

------------------------------------------

I'm glad the president finally made a decision on Afghanistan. I mind that he took time to make the decision, that way he makes a sound one. What I do mind is that Obama was voted into office to change things, to be something different. And mostly what I've seen this last [almost] year has been a lot of political pandering. Decisions based more on polls and opinion than on actually doing what needs to be done. I'd rather have a President who makes decisions I don't agree with, but whom I trust is making those decisions because he believes they are the right ones, not because a poll told him to.

Obama needs to step up his game. I believe he is, and I hope the next three years are years of decisions from the man. He needs to do what he promised and make it happen. Once this healthcare debate is over, he needs to make those policies and decisions that will define his presidency. I just hope we don't look back at Obama as the president of polls.

God help us: Group tries to convince Cheney to run in 2012

2009-11-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

As if our party wasn't screwed up enough as it is, jokers like this try to destroy what is left after Bush trampled the GOP legacy.

CNN
Washington (CNN) – A new group wants former Vice President Dick Cheney back in the White House.

The organization - "Draft Dick Cheney 2012" - launched on Friday, and unveiled their new Web site. Their aim: To convince the former vice president to seek the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. But there may be a major roadblock to the group's pitch - Cheney himself.

"The 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President will be about much more then who will be the party's standard bearer against Barack Obama, the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP," said Christopher Barron, one of the organizers of the Draft Cheney movement. "There is only one person in our party with the experience, political courage and unwavering commitment to the values that made our party strong – and that person is Dick Cheney."
The former vice president has been a frequent outspoken critic of the Obama administration's security policy. He recently suggested that Obama was "dithering" over deciding on adding more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. National polls suggest that the former vice president remains popular among conservatives and Republicans.

Does Cheney want to run for the White House? He was quite blunt earlier this month about whether he had any desire make a bid for the presidency in the next election. At an event in Houston for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who's running for Texas governor, Hutchison was joined by Cheney, who endorsed her bid against fellow Republican incumbent Rick Perry. During the rally, Hutchison yelled out to the crowd "Cheney 2012!" and some one in the audience quickly responded "We need you, Dick!"

Cheney's response: "Not a chance."

Barron says the group hopes to follow up Friday’s Web launch with a more formal structure, which will include building a database and reaching out through social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Barron adds that there is no budget set yet, and that the effort is grassroots at this point. He says the group plans on targeting tea party events and plans on building grassroots chapters in key early presidential caucus and primary states including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
------------------------------------

I have a great idea! Let's run a Cheney/Palin ticket in 2012. That way we are guaranteed that we'll either lose, or if we win, this country will lose.

Census Worker ('FED") not murdered

2009-11-24T14:21:00.001-08:00

From CNN:

(CNN) -- A Kentucky census worker who was found dead in September committed suicide and staged the scene to look like a homicide, authorities said Tuesday.
The body of William E. Sparkman Jr., 51, was found September 12 near a cemetery in southeastern Kentucky's Clay County. He was wearing only socks.
"A thorough examination of evidence from the scene, to include DNA testing, as well as examination of his vehicle and his residence, resulted in the determination that Mr. Sparkman, alone, handled the key pieces of evidence with no indications of any other persons involved," Kentucky State Police said.
Sparkman's wrists were bound with duct tape, and a rope around his neck was tied to a tree, but his body was touching the ground, authorities said. He had "Fed" written on his chest in black ink.
However, Sparkman's wrists were loosely bound in front of his body at shoulder width apart, allowing for "considerable mobility," said Kentucky State Police Capt. Lisa Rudzinski.
He was also in contact with the ground, "almost on his knees," she said.
"To survive, all Mr. Sparkman had to do was stand up."
Lividity on the body -- marks made as blood stops pumping and settles in areas of the body -- showed that Sparkman died in the same position, Rudzinski said.
His glasses were taped to his head, and that tape was underneath tape that held a rag in his mouth, she said.
"Mr. Sparkman had extremely poor eyesight" and so would have needed his glasses secured, Rudzinski said.
But the most compelling evidence came from the fact that Sparkman had obtained $600,000 in accidental-death insurance, which would not have paid in the event of a suicide, as late as May, she said.
In addition, he told a "credible witness" of his plans to commit suicide and stage the scene to make it look like he was slain because he worked for the federal government. The details were consistent with how Sparkman died and was found, Rudzinski said.
The witness did not take action after Sparkman shared his plans out of a belief that he would not follow through, authorities said.
"It was learned that Mr. Sparkman had discussed recent federal investigations and the perceived negative attitudes toward federal entities by some residents of Clay County," Kentucky state police said in a statement.
Police believe that Sparkman's primary motive in staging the scene was to ensure that the insurance would be paid, Rudzinski said. His motive for committing suicide or any secondary motives might never be known, she said, as Sparkman left no note.
"We don't know what Mr. Sparkman was thinking or why he ultimately committed this act," she said.
Autopsy results showed no evidence of any cancer or terminal illness, officials said, although it was reported that Sparkman had previously had lymphoma. Police would not say who the beneficiary of the insurance was.
Forensic analysis of the writing on Sparkman's chest showed that he had written it himself, Rudzinski said. Analysts found ink dots, made by writers on completing a letter, at the top of the letters, rather than at the bottom -- as would be expected if someone had made the writing on Sparkman. Despite a search by authorities, the black felt pen used for the writing has not been found.
Police do not believe that anyone assisted Sparkman, she said.
Sparkman had told the witness, whom police declined to name, that he intended to dispose of some of his personal effects, including his laptop computer and other items. Police have not found those items, Rudzinski said.
Toxicology tests showed that Sparkman was not drugged or under the influence of any substance, she said. The red rag removed from his mouth was similar to those found in his pocket and at the scene.
DNA testing of the rags and the rope used in creating a ligature on Sparkman's neck, as well as 7 feet of discarded rope discarded near his body, found only Sparkman's DNA, she said.
The police investigation is still open, and additional test results are expected in the next two to three weeks, authorities said.
Authorities met with Sparkman's son and told him of their findings before publicly releasing them.
"Our hearts go out to him," Rudzinski said. "He still lost his father at the end of the day."
She would not say whether his son accepted the findings, saying she did not want to speak for the family.
----------------------------------------

Looks like Mr. Sparkman was not the victim of hysteria after all.

Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

2009-11-23T09:02:00.000-08:00

This is taken from the Onion, a satirical online newspaper. I thought it really described most of the far right's [misguided, mistaken] beliefs about the Obama Administration and it also includes a small bit about the far left's [misguided, mistaken] beliefs about the Obama Administration.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head."Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."
According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."
"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.
"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."
"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

Bush/Obama Derangement Sydrome

2009-11-18T10:32:00.000-08:00

I've been running into a lot of Obama Derangement Syndrome recently. In fact, it's why I started blogging. The right, who coined the term Bush Derangement Sydrome in response to the Left's irrational paranoia that George W. Bush was going to turn the country into a Nazi State, has had an equally ridiculous reaction to Barack H. Obama, which has been consequently similarily named Obama Derangement Syndrome. Read my last post's comments and you'll see exactly what I mean.

But let's look at Bush Derangement syndrome first. According to Wikipedia's entry on it, Bush Derangement Syndrome was coined by the conservative political columnist and pyschiatrist Charles Krausthhammer in 2003. He defined it as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush". The entry further says that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic, which is exactly what I'm seeing in many of those that find fault no matter what Obama does. That is irrational and paranoid.

Just as Bush didn't turn this State into a Republican paradise with the government's cameras in everybody's bedrooms, neither will Obama turn us into some socialistic State where the rich aren't anymore and the poor are now the middle class.

People, calm down.

9/11 GTMO Suspects to be tried in NY

2009-11-13T09:01:00.001-08:00

Death Penalty to be Sought

Washington (CNN) -- Five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, including accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be transferred to New York to go on trial in civilian court, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday.
Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi will all be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York -- a short distance from the World Trade Center towers that were destroyed in the September 11 attacks.
"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice," Holder said.
He said he expected prosecutors to seek the death penalty.
Holder also announced that five other detainees held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be sent to military commissions for trial. They were identified as Omar Khadr, Mohammed Kamin, Ibrahim al Qosi, Noor Uthman Muhammed and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Al-Nashiri is an accused mastermind of the deadly 2000 bombing of the USS Cole; Khadr is a Canadian charged with the 2002 murder of a U.S. military officer in Afghanistan. Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured in July 2002.

Mohammed "will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice," President Obama said Friday in Japan.

"The American people insist on it, and my administration will insist on it," Obama told reporters at a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.
Mohammed is the confessed organizer of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. But his confession could be called into question during trial. A 2005 Justice Department memo -- released by the Obama administration -- revealed he had been waterboarded 183 times in March 2003.
Obama has called the technique, which simulates drowning, torture.
The alleged 9/11 conspirators are among 215 men held by the U.S. military at the Guantanamo prison camp. The Obama administration has vowed to close the detention facility but acknowledges it is unlikely to happen by its self-imposed January 22, 2010, deadline.
Bringing some of the world's top terror suspects to be tried in New York has already sparked outrage, as well as security concerns.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the most wanted terrorist in the world. Everyone in the world is going to know precisely where he is at precisely one time," CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said. "The Foley courthouse could become the focus of a great deal of interest from terrorists. That's going to take a tremendous security effort."

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, issued a statement Friday denouncing the decision to try the 9/11 suspects as "common criminals."
"The attacks of September 11th were an act of war," Cornyn said. "Reverting to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism and bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans. Putting political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise is irresponsible."
But Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband was killed on 9/11, said she welcomed the trial.
"Some would say New York would now be a target by allowing his [Mohammed's] trial to take place in New York, but I disagree," she told CNN. Breitweiser still lives in the New York area. "It would give many of us access to attend the hearings."
She also said that for some who lost loved ones on 9/11, "this will be our opportunity to see justice served and have our day in court.
"Our ability to prosecute terrorists successfully in open courtrooms has less to do with the our judicial process and more to do with Bush's policy on torture that will make these prosecutions more difficult," she said.

---------------------------------------

I do intensely hope that Bush's [torture] policies don't interfere with these terrorists getting their just due. I doubt it, however. Having the trial in New York, with juries made up of New Yorkers, will most likely end with a "guilty" verdict, and hopefully with an execution recommendation.

Obama's Fort Hood Speech

2009-11-11T16:16:00.000-08:00

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.

Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.
Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.

After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service - diffuse bombs - so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.

That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers - Mark Todd and Kim Munley - saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic - Francisco de la Serna - treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute - for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success - no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great - in a world of threats that no know borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

Happy Veteran's Day.

2009-11-11T08:55:00.000-08:00

Thank you to all our Veterans. Thank you for your service.

DC Sniper Exectuted Tonight

2009-11-10T11:48:00.000-08:00

The DC Sniper is set to be executed tonight at 9pm in Virginia (6pm PST).

I'm not completely okay with capital punishment. But one exception I'm okay with is terrorists, mass murderers, and serial killers.

John Allen Mohammed meets all three categories.

Washington (CNN) -- John Allen Muhammad, the mastermind of the 2002 sniper attacks that terrorized the suburbs of the nation's capital, is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday evening at a state prison near Jarratt, Virginia.
Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine denied a clemency request from Muhammad's lawyers, closing off what is likely to be his last avenue of appeal.
"Having carefully reviewed the petition for clemency and judicial opinions regarding this case, I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was recommended by the jury and then imposed and affirmed by the courts," Kaine said in a statement.
The Supreme Court denied Muhammad's appeal on Monday. He is all but certain to be executed at Greensville Correctional Center at 9 p.m. ET.
Muhammad, 48, has chosen his final meal but has requested that it not be made public, said Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections.
Muhammad continued to profess his innocence during two lengthy trials -- including one featuring testimony from young accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo -- and in several years of legal appeals.
He repeated his assertion that he was an innocent victim of racial bias in a letter to the federal court released last week by his attorneys. Muhammad charged that police and prosecutors "lied to the American people" about his case and withheld evidence that could clear him.
Read Muhammad's letter to the judge
If Muhammad enters the death chamber without acknowledging his crimes, he will be known as the leader of one of the most enigmatic mass murder teams in history: Muhammad -- a Gulf War veteran who was described as a "gentle man" by acquaintances; and Malvo, a young Jamaican and "A" student on a desperate search for a father figure.
Prosecutors say Muhammad, fueled by grudges against the Army and his ex-wife, plotted the cross-country shooting rampage, culminating in a killing spree in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs surrounding Washington, D.C..
During three weeks in October 2002, Muhammad and Malvo killed 10 people and wounded three, while taunting police with written messages and phoned-in threats and demands.
It could have been much worse. During Muhammad's second trial in Maryland, Malvo testified that Muhammad originally planned to kill up to six people each day for 30 days.

Shootings
Indeed, after killing five people during the first 24 hours, the sniper team began the second day scouting for locations for another barrage of shootings. But, concerned about possible witnesses and the lack of escape routes, they slowed their deadly pace.
Prosecutors say Muhammad intended the killings to provide a smokescreen to cover up his real goal; he hoped to kill his wife Mildred and gain custody of his three children.
Defense attorneys and some supporters say Muhammad is mentally ill, and suffered post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his service in the first Gulf War.
Defense attorneys released a scan of Muhammad's brain which they say shows signs of brain damage to both the front and rear of his brain, consistent with schizophrenia and other brain dysfunction.
Though Muhammad worked with explosives in the Army, his weapon of choice for the killing spree was a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle and .223 ammunition, usually fired from close range from the trunk of an old Chevy Caprice. Muhammad cut a hole in the back of the car, and removed a wall between the trunk and the back seat, turning the car into a sniper's nest.
But several of the shots were fired outside the vehicle, including the shot that wounded 13-year-old student Iran Brown, the youngest of the victims, and bus driver Conrad Johnson, 35, the last victim.
The investigation was marked by a high-level of involvement from local, state and federal law enforcement. But it was also marked by missed opportunities.
An early focus on white box trucks -- one was seen speeding near the scene of one shooting -- meant reports of a Chevy Caprice were ignored or discounted.
Another missed opportunity came when investigators found a note in a baggie tacked to the tree of a shooting site. The note instructed police to answer a nearby phone at a certain time. But by the time police processed the baggie for fingerprints and DNA, the appointed time had passed.
In notes left at shooting scenes, the snipers demanded $10 million to stop the shootings.
The big break in the investigation came when an Army friend of Muhammad's called authorities to voice his suspicions.
Muhammad and Malvo were captured at a Maryland rest stop, but were transferred to Virginia because of the state's aggressive use of the death penalty.
Ultimately, Muhammad was convicted of capital murder and terrorism charges for killing Dean Harold Meyers, a Vietnam veteran cut down by a single bullet that hit him in the head October 9, 2002, as he filled his tank at a Manassas, Virginia, service station.
Muhammad also stood trial in Maryland, and was convicted of six murders there.
Malvo was tried in Virginia for the October 14, 2002 murder of FBI analyst Linda Franklin, 47, outside a Home Depot in Fairfax County, Virginia. A jury sentenced Malvo to life in prison after defense attorneys said Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the murders, was brainwashed by Muhammad.
Malvo testified against Muhammad at Muhammad's Maryland trial, calling him a "coward."
"You took me in your house and you made me a monster," Malvo testified. Malvo, now 24, is serving time in a Virginia prison.
Malvo said the Washington killings were "phase one" of a three-phase plan. In subsequent phases, Malvo said, Muhammad planned to use $10 million to create a utopian community for homeless people in Canada, at which young people would be trained to go launch additional attacks in the United States.
But whether that was Muhammad's real intent is still a matter of conjecture.
Some acquaintances believe that after Muhammad recovered his children, he planned on killing the one witness who could provide the most threatening testimony against him -- Lee Boyd Malvo.

A Sad Historical Parallel

2009-11-05T17:11:00.000-08:00

This is my 100th post, which is a milestone. I have been blogging on politics for a year now, more or less. So I thought that this post ought to be important.

On May 6th, 2009, Maine was the first state in the Union to Legalize same-sex marriage through legislation instead of judicially. The rest of New England followed suit soon thereafter.

But on November 3rd, 2009, it was repealed legislatially.

In 1780, the Massuchusetts Constitution outlawed slavery. The rest of New England followed suit soon thereafter.

The Southern States kept slavery legal until the 13th Amendment was passed, and many of them worked around it through Jim Crow Laws and then later, the "Separate but Equal" nonsense.

In 2009, many people who campaign against same-sex marriage salve their consciences by saying they are not depriving anyone of a civil right, but they are letting homosexuals have "civil ceremonies" which are "equal" but separate by their very nature.

In 1845, the Northern Religious Entities fought for freedom for the slaves, declaring it a sin to own slaves. The same year, the Southern Religious group denied slaves their freedom, using the Bible to justify their sin.

In 2009, conservative Christians use the Bible to deprive those of the constitutional and amended rights to equality for all citizens. Other groups use their religious background to fight for freedoms.

In 2009, we regard those who defended slavery at best silly, and at worst monstrous.
In the future, future generations will regard those who defended denying marriage rights to gays as silly at best, and at worst monstrous.

GOP: A Pure Minority is Still a Minority

2009-11-04T10:44:00.000-08:00

Read this over at Republicans United, formerly The Progressive Republican, and thought it hit the nail on the head. I have had, here and at other blogs, many right-wing Republicans tell me that as a RINO, I need to "get out" (often in more colorful terms) and that the GOP doesn't need anymore RINOs or moderates or Progressives in the party. Got news for all of you: You're wrong.

A Pure Minority Is Still A Minority

by Pat Edaburn

Ever since the election last fall we have seen an ongoing debate in the Republican party over which direction it should take in the future. Hard liners in the party have stated that they need to swing hard to the right to become as ideologically pure as possible. Web sites like Redstate.com and Polipundit.com regularly rail against so called RINO’s for being insufficiently pure.
In recent weeks however another voice has emerged as leading Republicans call for the party to be more of a big tent organization. Calls for the party to tone down social issues like gay marriage and abortion have been met with contempt by the web sites above.
Well I’ve got a message for those hard liners, being ideologically pure may be a nice idea but if you are in the minority it doesn’t do you very much good since you lose almost every vote. I certainly understand the desire to have people in office who you agree with on all of the issues, but the fact is that absent a situation where I become King of the World this isn’t going to happen very often.
If the GOP is going to succeed in the future they need to consider the impact of the hard line attitudes being pushed by the evangelical right.
Let us first consider the advantages of having a party that is ideologically pure, only allowing those who follow the party line 90-100% of the time to be members. On the bright side you are, as a hard liner, going to be happy with the way your party caucus votes most of the time. You can count on a 90-100% satisfaction rate.
But there is a problem when it comes to actually winning elections and getting policies implemented. I think it is fair to say that right now about 40% of voters will tend to support Republican/conservative views, about 40% will tend to support liberal/Democratic ones and about 20% will shift from one side to the other.
We can debate demographic trends but I’m not sure that it will change too much from this in the future. Even in our most one sided party periods there was a pretty solid middle set of voters that held the balance of power. I’m someome who likes to play with numbers so I ran up the following calculations.
So if you restrict your party to only the hard liners that are GOP/Conservative oriented voters, you’re gonna win about 40% of the votes, which means you are not going to control much more than 40% of the seats. This means you might be able to pull off wins about 10%-20% of the time at most.
So taking 90-100% satisfaction and factoring in 10-20% success on legislation and you end up with a ‘victory quotent’ of about 10%-20% of the time, and that isn’t very good.
On the other hand if you work to a broader coalition in your party, reaching out to those 20% of swing voters and maybe even some of those on the other side you will probably lower your satisfaction figures from 90-100% down to 70% or 80%. But you raise your success rate to 80-90% because you are winning elections.
This gives you a victory quotent which could approach 75% which is a whole lot better than the 15% or so that you had before. You might not get success on all of the social issues or the harder line domestic and foreign policy debates but you do win most of the time.
To put it another way, while I understand that subjects like abortion, gay rights, etc might be important to you and you might not like the inability to get your agenda passed. But the fact is you are not going to get that agenda passed no matter what.
Either you’re going to be in the minority and fail or you’re going to be in the majority and have to give ground.
When it comes to these kind of polarizing topics majority or minority status isn’t going to matter, whether you are on the right or on the left. But when it comes to the other 90% of the agenda, being in the majority is quite important.
In addition the future is only going to exacerbate these conditions.
Younger voters are far more libertarian in their attitudes towards social issues. This is unlikely to change as they get older. But when it comes to domestic and foreign policy issues there is much more room for movement, and in there the GOP has an opportunity.
I’m not saying you should give up your core beliefs. There is nothing wrong with the Republicans having a strong pro life element, but there is also nothing wrong with including voters who agree on most other issues, but happen to be pro choice. There is nothing wrong with having a strong evangelical contingent in the party but it should not be able to dominate.
During the 60’s and 70’s the Democratic party forgot the rule of broad inclusion and the result was a serious of major defeats. So far the Republicans have suffered two losses in a row and if they do not change things they are likely to see many more.

Police Officer Reinstated after ticketing mayor's son

2009-11-03T08:26:00.000-08:00

An Update:

From Deserete News:

STOCKTON — Calling for Mayor Dan Rydalch's resignation, dozens of residents crammed into the Stockton fire station Thursday night, cheering the town council's unanimous vote to reinstate police Cpl. Josh Rowell.

"We need a mayor that can work with the town board, that the town board can trust, that has open communication. We need a mayor that the public can support," said Councilman Kendall Thomas at the council-called town meeting.

Rydalch is running for a second term as mayor this election season against Councilman Mark Whitney.

Rowell was fired last Tuesday by Rydalch after Rowell pulled over Rydalch's son and issued him a citation for driving without a license. Rowell was later told that he was being suspended instead.

One of five officers in the small town of 600 south of Tooele, Rowell had stopped 29-year-old Jared Rydalch outside a DUI checkpoint. Jared Rydalch was allegedly avoiding the roadblock and drove away from it; Rowell had been assigned to chase such cars.

Rydalch met with the town council before the meeting to address the incident with the four-member board for the first time, but did not come to the town meeting. He refuses to speak to the media at the advice of his attorney.

In a statement read at the meeting, Rydalch said he received numerous notices from residents — his son included — that officers were stopping drivers outside the planned checkpoint. Rydalch himself was pulled overthat evening.

"I was angry that the officers were exceeding the scope of the traffic checkpoint," his statement read. "This incident is not about my son, this is about an officer exceeding the proper scope of traffic checkpoints, subjecting the town to complaints for unconstitutional stops, and refusing

to cooperate with his supervisor."

If there was a Rydalch supporter at Thursday night's meeting, they did not speak up.

Tyler Rydlach, another son of the mayor, did not defend his father at the meeting, but did ask people to stop calling and harassing his parents.

Rowell's firing has garnered national attention and generated a media firestorm.

Residents at the meeting described Mayor Rydalch as a bully, butting heads with staff and running employees out of town.

"He tries to keep everyone in the dark. He doesn't want people to know that he's trying to run it this way," said Nando Meli, chair of the planning commission. "The thing is, the mayor has fired other people for instances and he's tried to run them out of town."

Residents complained that the mayor was conducting his own private investigation into Rowell's suspension; Meli said the mayor should be investigated.

"This is the kind of attitude and the things the mayor is known for," said Mark Woolley, a former town councilman. "He reacts, he doesn't think and he's supposed to represent our town and our community. And it seems to me more often then not he is representing himself and his interests."

Former town and court clerk Ellen Montague told the Deseret News Wednesday that Rydalch took away her duties, put her on paid leave and eventually asked her to resign. She sued Rydalch in 2006 for violating her civil rights.

Stockton Police Chief Heinz Kopp said Rowell, who has been in his current post less than 10 months, has issued 122 citations in that time and never had a formal complaint.

"The way the mayor handled the situation was uncalled for and unprofessional," he said.

The council voted to put Rowell back in his position, pay him back wages and remove the incident from his personnel record.

Rowell, a Tooele native whose wife is pregnant with the couple's first child, said he was grateful to be back in uniform. He refused to comment on the mayor.

The council, wanting to make sure their action is entirely legal, have asked the town's attorney to determine whether a third-party investigation is needed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The Council has reinstated the Officer, given him back wages, and is investigating the Mayor.

This is what I saying in the last post. Everyone but the Mayor himself thinks the Mayor overstepped immensely. The officer did what he was supposed to; look for people avoiding traffic stops. The Mayor got all bent out of shape that the ticketed individual happened to be his son, and fired the officer himself. A mayor should NEVER be able to fire a a police officer and bypass the chief, unless he intends on firing the chief. This would be like the President firing a random FBI agent. Doesn't, and shouldn't, happen.

And again, the fact that the mayor was conducting his own investigation said volumes. I agree with the City Council and the people of the town: This Mayor should be fired immediately.

Police Officer Suspended for Ticketing Mayor's Son

2009-10-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

From KSL.com:

STOCKTON -- A traffic stop involving a young officer and the son of a small-town mayor has the whole town talking. The mayor of Stockton tried to fire the officer for issuing his son a ticket.
Cpl. Joshua Rowell told KSL News he was just doing his job. He said he acted professionally when he wrote the driver a ticket and was shocked when he was suddenly asked to hand over his badge.
Rowell is a new member of the five-man Stockton police force. So, last Tuesday he didn't think twice about pulling over a driver in a small white car for avoiding a DUI stop.

"He didn't have a driver's license, so I issued him a citation for that," Rowell explained.
He didn't think twice, that is, until he handed the ticket to the court clerk.
"She looked at it and said, ‘Hey, you know you just gave the mayor's son a ticket?' And I said, ‘Oh, crap,'" Rowell said.
He said he had never met the driver, 29-year-old Jared Rydalch, before. He said Rydalch told him he was out looking for his dog, and asked him to tell the other officers to not pull him over again.
"I told him, ‘No. If I see you driving around again, I'm going to pull you over again,'" Rowell said.
Rowell said he knew there was trouble when, about 20 minutes later, he found the chief of police in the mayor's truck in a heated discussion. Then he said the mayor, Dan Rydalch, rolled down the window and demanded he get in his truck. When he refused, Rydalch abruptly fired him on the spot.
"He told me, ‘All right, I want your badge in the morning,'" Rowell said. "I tried to defend myself and say, ‘First of all, look, he was breaking the law. Second of all, I didn't know he was your son.'"
Shortly after the incident, Rowell was told he was suspended without pay, indefinitely.
"The mayor, I think, was wrong," said Stockton City Council member David Durtschi.
According to Durtschi, not only was Mayor Rydalch out of line, the council stands behind Cpl. Rowell. In fact, the town is so upset about the mayor's actions, many of the citizens are trying to change their write-in ballots for the upcoming election.
"I think the mayor did make a mistake," one Stockton resident told KSL News.
Another said, "I was very shocked, very shocked, because I thought it was a little extreme."
As for Rowell, he just wants the job he loves back.
"There's no more respectable position than a police officer, in my mind," Rowell said.
We tried repeatedly to get ahold of the mayor.
Another Stockton city council member, Kendall Thomas, told KSL News the mayor is conducting the investigation into any wrongdoing in the incident and has not consulted any of the council members. A special council meeting is scheduled for Thursday night to discuss the incident.

------------------------------------------

This is ridiculous. This mayor needs to be fired immediately. Notice above where it says that "The mayor is conducting the investigation into any wrongdoing in the incident and has not consulted any of the council members..."

WTF?! The mayor is conducting it? Can anyone say "conflict of interest"?

The mayor should be fired for, and charged with, Official Misconduct. Ridiculous. I grew up in a small town, and I thought the politics there were bad. But seriously.

Bailouts DID help...but at what cost?

2009-10-21T11:06:00.000-07:00

Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General in Charge of oversight for the bailouts, essentially a government watchdog, is releasing a report today in which he gives a blunt assessment for the TARP bailouts started under Bush and expanded by Obama: The Bailouts saved our economy, but cost us more in the long term.

TIME:

[Barofsky] said the $700 billion bailout for the financial industry played a major role in rescuing the economy over the last year but also engendered anger and distrust among Americans because of secrecy and confusion about the way the program was handled...

"Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success," he wrote, "Treasury's actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP."

Barofsky said public suspicion was fed by Treasury's decision not to require banks to report how they used their rescue money and its "less-than-accurate" statements describing the financial condition of nine large banks that benefited from large infusions of aid...

Overall, Barofsky said the cost of preventing a financial collapse fell into three categories:

•Taxpayers: The government has spent more than $454 billion through TARP programs. Forty-seven TARP recipients have paid back nearly $73 billion. That means more than $317 billion remains available. The program is set to end Dec. 31, but the administration could seek an extension until next October. Despite the repayments several of the program are not expected to yield returns to the taxpayer, including a $50 billion mortgage modification plan and some of the money injected into auto companies.

•The integrity of the industry: Many firms considered "too big to fail" last year, and thus in need of government assistance, are even bigger now. "Absent meaningful regulatory reform, TARP runs the risk of merely reanimating markets that had collapsed under the weight of reckless behavior," the report sates.

•The credibility of the government: Barofsky wrote that public antipathy for the bailout is fueled by "the lack of transparency in the program." Over the course of the year, Barofsky has called on the Treasury Department to seek more information from banks on how they use their taxpayer assistance.
---------------------------------------------

Basically, the bailouts worked in the short term. But because of government ineptitude and all the secrecy, distrust has been seeded instead of consumer confidence, which is what was really needed for the market to correct itself. A full disclosure and better oversight in the bailouts would've helped, but both Bush and Obama almost gave the money away without really looking at the causes of the collapse; in essence both Presidents merely put a bandaid on an infected shotgun wound, when what we really needed was to fix the root of the problem and cover the wound. We should've given the bailouts and broken up the "too big to fail" companies to make sure it never happened again.

Mexico City puts Police on Diet

2009-10-16T11:21:00.000-07:00

From the Associated Press:

Mexico City Puts 1,300 Overweight Officers on Diet

MEXICO CITY --
Some Mexico City cops are taking a bite out of more than crime. The Mexican capital is putting its 1,300 of its heaviest police officers on a diet, concerned about rapidly expanding waistlines in the force.

At least 70 percent of the 70,000-member force is overweight, said Nora Frias, the city's Public Safety deputy secretary for citizen participation. The diet program will start with the officers with the most serious weight-related health problems.

"We can't tell them, 'Don't eat sandwiches and tacos,'" Frias said. "What we can tell them is if you eat one sandwich today, if you eat three tacos today, then balance it with some vegetables."
She said officers will be given blood and cholesterol tests to determine a personalized diet plan for each.

Mexico is quickly catching up with the United States as one of the world's fattest countries, according to the Mexican government. Nearly half of Mexico's 110 million people are overweight, and the number of fat children has climbed 8 percent a year over the last decade.
---------------------------------------------

I just thought this was funny. That's all.

Obama's Gay Dodge

2009-10-13T12:14:00.000-07:00

I saw this on Republicans United today. Here's the whole article if you want to read the entirety (I'd recommend it).

Obama's Gay Dodge
by Meghan McCain

...On Saturday night, President Obama addressed the largest gay-rights group and promised to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military, emphasizing that his commitment to achieving equal rights was “unwavering.” The support he received from the crowd was overwhelming.

But my response to this speech and my message to the gay community is this: Stop rewarding the president’s speeches. Because for me, that’s all it is—pretty words delivered by a beautiful orator.

Obama offered no timeline for phasing out this policy and, as usual, no real specifics. But the president verbalized his commitment to ending it—which is not insignificant. Unfortunately, I am a bottom line type of girl and I see no bottom line here. During the election, Obama pledged that the very first thing he would do as president would be to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although I thought it was an ambitious promise, I believed him. It's now almost a year into his presidency and other than making speeches, nothing has happened.

Let me tell you a little something about what I know about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: I have two brothers serving in the military and as far as I’m concerned, when an Arabic translator is kicked out of the military for being gay, it quite literally makes my brothers and our troops less safe. For me, Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't just an equality issue. It is also a national-security issue...

Now, I cannot speak for my brothers, but I know many men and women who serve in the military. Let’s give them more credit. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either. I find it hard to imagine that when a soldier is in a Humvee fighting terrorist insurgents, that the thing on his mind is who his fellow soldier chooses to sleep with when he’s off duty.

What’s more, the gay community can no longer place all the blame of marriage equality and Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Republicans. Yes, the Republican Party has a long way to go. But right now, we have a Democratic president and a Congress with a Democratic majority. The Republican Party can no longer be the only scapegoat for the arrested development of gay rights in this country. This is a president who made promises to the gay community—hold him responsible.

Of all the things I worry about in my life, my country's national security is by far at the forefront. I am a daughter of a famous military hero and the sister of two soldiers. Mr. President, Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes my family and this country less safe. Put a timeline on repealing it, stop making speeches, and show me the bottom line.

--------------------

I think this says it all. Republicans are generally pretty tough on gays, but Democrats squarely shoulder the blame right now. And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is ridiculous and does harm our national security.

W.T.F. Obama wins Nobel Peace prize?

2009-10-09T10:21:00.000-07:00

What the...?! Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is alright, whatever, but the Nobel peace prize? C'mon! For what?!?!

Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, yeah, I'm proud that our President got it, that the USA got it, but seriously? Obama has done nothing to deserve it. In fact, he would have had to have been nominated by February 1st, 11 days into his presidency! (thanks Tao)

He was awarded the prize for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Really. What efforts?

For ending the war in Iraq? Oh wait, we're still on Bush's timetable for withdrawal. For ending the war in Afganistan? No, we're putting more troops there. Oh, that's right. For beating the taliban out of Afganistan. Wait again, they control more now than before! And we're sending drones into Pakistan now to fight them! So yeah, Obama sure ended war, the antithesis of peace.

Maybe he got it for closing Guantanamo. Oh, nevermind. He hasn't done that, either. Maybe for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Nope.

I've got it! His speeches have brokered peace in Israel between Israel and Palestine! Oops, they are still killing each other!

Damn. Obama sure hasn't done much of anything after all. He sure deserves the peace award.

Democrats vow to ban domestic violence as ‘pre-existing condition’

2009-10-06T12:12:00.000-07:00

From CNN wire:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Top House Democrats on Tuesday slammed insurers who claim that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition that can be used to deny coverage to battered women.
They pledged to incorporate a ban on the practice in the health care reform legislation currently winding its way through Congress.
Forty-two states have already passed such a prohibition, according to a recent report from the National Women’s Law Center. Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have not, however.
“Think of this,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “You’ve survived domestic violence, and now you are discriminated (against) in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition. Well, that will all be gone.”
A spokesman for an association representing health insurance companies backed the proposed change.
“No one should be denied coverage because they are a victim of domestic abuse,” said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans.
-------------------------------------

I for one am glad about this. This makes perfect sense. I've said it before, just a few posts down, that our current system is broken and needs to be fixed. We may have the best healthcare in the world, but our system for paying it is sub-standard, and as examples show above, sub-human. We need to fix our health insurance system with more regulations and enforcing the ones we have on the books. No denying coverage for that "pre-existing" nonsense. If you pay your health insurance, you are covered. End of story. That is healthcare reform I could vote for.

Distrust of the Federal Government

2009-09-25T12:49:00.000-07:00

The Distrust of the Federal Government, a cause currently being championed by the right, has begun reaching critical mass. With the tea parties, 9/12 marches, and bloggers blaming all the worlds' ills on the Federal Government in general, and Obama specifically, something was bound to happen.

And happen it did, with the murder of Bill Sparkman, a Federal Census Bureau field worker, who was found strung up in a remote section of the National Forest in Kentucky, with the word "Fed" written on his chest.

Currently, people like Glen Beck are trying to fan the revolutionary flames, with his quoting of obscure provisions of the US Constitution, mis-interpreting what the founding fathers intended in States vs. Federal power, taking portions of our history and lamenting a golden age and laws that were in actuality not about States rights, but about continuing slavery indefinately. The founding fathers disagreed amongst themselves whether power should be centralized in the Federal Government or in the States, and they never specified which. We decided to mix them when we went to war with the South, prohibiting them from secession in order to keep the Union strong, which is why we won World Wars I and II, not to mention the Cold War. We wouldn't have been able to win any of them had we been a fractured nation of State-Countries with nothing more than a Federal Mail service for the president to preside over.

I only forsee more of this in the current political climate. While the anti-government sentiment is currently being sown by the Republican Right, it wasn't too long ago it was the Democratic Left when Bush was in office. Both sides are guilty, and both sides forget their own atrocities when the other is in office. The PATRIOT act, Gtmo, wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition are quickly forgotten by the right, while the left forgets it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, and it is them that currently is printing trillions of dollars to stop a recession and reinflate the bubble that burst last year.

This has got to stop. The Federal Government, for the most part, does what it is supposed to do. Looks out for the common good. It overreaches at times, and that's why we have checks and balances. But labelling someone as treasonous because they support one party or another is ridiculous, and it needs to stop. Otherwise, more people are going to get strung up on trees.

Dept. of Justice tightening "State Secrets"

2009-09-23T11:02:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department will continue Bush administration attempts to block certain lawsuits by claiming they threaten state secrets, but the agency announced Wednesday it will try to curb the use of such claims in the future.
Attorney General Eric Holder said he and a group of Justice Department lawyers will personally review such claims.
During the Bush administration, the so-called state secrets privilege was invoked to quash lawsuits filed by people claiming they had been tortured or illegally wiretapped.
The Bush administration argued in those cases -- and the Obama administration still argues in a few cases alive in the courts -- that the lawsuits must be dismissed because evidence in the case would harm national security.
In a statement, Holder said the new policy ''sets out clear procedures that will provide greater accountability and ensure the state secrets privilege is invoked only when necessary and in the narrowest way possible.''
The administration's move could quell efforts in Congress to pass a law curbing the use of state secrets claims.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Wednesday's announcement, but added he remains ''especially concerned'' that the government should be required to show significant evidence to a judge when seeking to assert the privilege, and said he hoped the Obama administration would work with Congress to establish such a requirement.
Under the new approach spelled out by Holder, an agency trying to hide such information would have to convince the attorney general and a panel of Justice Department lawyers that its release would compromise national security.
In the past, such government claims of state secrecy required a lower standard of proof that the information was dangerous, as well as the approval of fewer officials.
The Justice Department press release said the government will also submit evidence to a judge to buttress its claims of state secrets, but Holder's actual legal memo to department lawyers makes no mention of sharing information with judges.
That has been a highly contentious issue in previous state secrets cases.
Asked why Holder's memo does not instruct government lawyers to share evidence with judges, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the new policy will be conveyed internally.
The Bush administration was criticized for invoking state secrets claims in lawsuits challenging post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism programs, and the incoming Obama administration had promised a thorough review of such claims.
Yet in conducting its review, the Obama administration has continued to assert the privilege in all the current cases.
In one lawsuit brought by a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, government lawyers changed their reasoning for invoking the state secrets privilege, but are still asserting it.
The judge in that case ridiculed the effort as two-faced.
''The government's new refrain is heads you lose, tails we win,'' U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in a recent decision, which was overturned on appeal.

Source

Two things I put emphasis on. First: Obama is a hypocrite. As Tao says, Obama really isn't much different from Bush on most major issues. Iraq withdrawal timetable? Bush's. The Afghanistan war? Bush's. The Bailouts? A continuation of Bush's. Guantanamo Bay? Kept it open, just like Bush did. States Secrets? Just like Bush.

Really, Obama is the democrat version of G.W.B.

Second: In our Federal Government, we have always had checks and balances. States Secrets should be no different. Otherwise, the Executive Branch can (and did) just use it to cover their backsides. We need a judge to review the evidence and decide whether or not it is actually sensitive. If not, then proceed with the case. If it is sensitive, throw the case out. 'Nuff said.

Call Obama's bluff

2009-09-16T11:32:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting commentary this morning over at CNN by Gloria Borger. In it, she says the GOP should "call Obama's bluff" on bipartisanship. He says he wants a BiPartisan bill, and both sides say they agree on around 80% of the bill, so why not draft up their own bill on the 80% they agree on? The GOP would look like heroes, and they would be calling Obama's bluff, essentially forcing him to cave.

The GOP's bill should get rid of the mandatory coverage thing. That's stupid, just as comparing it to auto insurance. You are only required to carry auto insurance coverage for your car if you own and drive it, and you only nare required to carry liability insurance. There really isn't a valid comparison to be found here.

The GOP bill should keep other parts of the Senate's bill, such as barring insurance companies from dropping a policyholder in the event of illness as long as that person had paid the premium in full. That should be illegal.

It also should bar insurance companies from refusing to pay for procedures if the policyholder has paid. I know this one from experience: my sister's doctor recommended an MRI because of my sister's dizzyness and chronic earraches. The insurance company denied the claim, saying an MRI was "experimental." My parents paid for it anyway, massively increasing their debt. Good thing they paid for it. The MRI found a life-threatening condition just in time to get her treatment. If they had not, she would have died months ago. And that is unacceptable.

In the current bill there are other things the GOP should keep, such as making it illegal for insurers to have annual caps or lifetime limits. If you pay your premium, the insurance companies need to provide the service you paid for. Period.

There are other things in the new bill unveiled today that the GOP should keep, while they throw out other things that cannot be agreed upon. Call the President's bluff. Stop acting partisan, and do what is best for us.

Supply Side/Reaganomics/Trickle Down: Does it really work?

2009-09-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

My friend Josh and I have a sort of perpetual debate going about the theory of "supply side" economics and whether or not it worked. Neither one of us specialized in Economics, but both of us work in the financial sector (he is an accountant, I am in banking). He contends that it works, and I argue that it did not, as we have been using supply side economics in roughly 20 of the last 30 years.

This post is my attempt at trying to understand supply-side economics.

Basically, supply-side economics supporters claimed that by cutting taxes on the top earners in our society that tax revenues would increase, as well as "trickle-down" to the general populace because the top earners are the ones that create jobs. In essence, supply-side economics cuts taxes to the top earners in order to increase supply, since our society runs on supply and demand.

Proponents used the Laffer Curve to theorize that in order to maximize federal revenue one couldn't go too low with tax rates, nor too high. This is true. But Reagan and his financial advisors (and every following Republican President that has used this since) misunderstood the Laffer Curve, thinking that every tax cut would increase revenue. But that is simply not true. If you decrease taxes too much, revenue goes down. Basically, tax rates were far higher during the Kennedy administration than they are now (50-60% vs. today's 35-40% for top-tier earners). They were cut, and revenues went up. But that was the maximization. It already happened in those days. Reaganomics worked for Reagan. But that was the highest part of the Laffer Curve. Continuing to cut, as Bush 43 did, led to our problems today. But this is just the Federal Revenue side of this.

On the public side of this, or the "trickle-down" side, which contends that increasing the revenues for the highest earners will trickle down into the pockets of even the poorest. The rich business owner will gain more in money, invest more of it into his company, hire more workers, raise wages, and the middle class will earn more, which goes to the Starbucks and McDonalds and to the companies that employ the lower class, and they too will get hired more and increased wages. Sounds great, doesn't it? But it doesn't work out that way in reality. Business owners have always looked for the bottom line. But unlike the '80s, when Reagan employed Reaganomics, when it was better for the bottom line to hire American workers and raise wages to keep them happier at your company rather than the competition's, now it has become cheaper to outsource. "Trickle-down" now longer works. It has become "trickle out."

Keynesian economics, however, advocate the laffer curve as well, but with a better understanding. They too advocate cutting taxes, but to the middle and lower class. This frees up more money in the classes that spend their money more freely. Money circulates more. The tax base increases, thereby increasing tax revenues. On the public side, Keynesian economics, a "mixed economy," is better described as "trickle-up." Sometimes, private enterprises screw it up for the macro-economics of a country, as we saw in last year's meltdown.

Keynesian economics utilizes the private sector pre-dominately, but realizes that once in awhile, the private sector needs guidance from the government and public sector. This is theory that saved us from the Great Depression and brought in the Golden Age of Capitalism (1945-1970). Keynesian economics is still capitalism, folks. It just uses the government to make sure that the economy "trickles-up" instead of down, which works better. It isn't the middle class that outsources. It is the upper-class. I'd take "trickle up" over "trickle out" any day.

Let me know if I missed anything. Again, this is just my non-economist's view of macro-economics.

9/9/09: Beattles, Palin

2009-09-09T08:50:00.000-07:00

Today, the Beattles Remastered has been released. I haven't yet picked up my copy, but I will be soon. Here's a review from CNN:

The newly remastered Beatles box sets are a treat for a casual fan and a dream come true for die-hards.

The mono set may be revelatory for some, but even the box of stereo albums -- the best-known versions and the primary sales focus -- is a step up from the 22-year-old original CD releases.
Need proof?

Check out "Lovely Rita," from 1967's "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."
The shimmering guitar intro, followed by Paul McCartney's soaring "Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh," the bouncy bass line and John Lennon and George Harrison's smirky backing vocals, offers delicious ear candy that doesn't rot your teeth.

Many other audible delights emerge to the surface more often than they did in the prehistoric days of vinyl and cassette because of the remastering.

Harrison's surprisingly cheerful-sounding sitar that mimics Lennon's melody in "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)," from 1965's "Rubber Soul," is much crisper.

Ringo Starr's rat-tat-tat drumming muscle on "Rain," from 1966, sounds brand new. The multitracked harmonies of "Because," from 1969's "Abbey Road," shimmer.

The remastering work likewise subtly expands the band's sound from its earlier days, a time when overdubs and studio tricks were kept to a minimum.

Listening to the band's debut album, 1963's "Please Please Me" (mostly recorded in a one-day session), it all but feels like being in the musty studio watching them perform these songs.
Lennon's sore-throated screaming (literally and figuratively) on the album's finale, "Twist and Shout," has never sounded more sandpapery -- and that's meant as a compliment.

Other full-throttle rockers, like the whoop-it-up Motown cover "Money (That's What I Want)" (from 1963's "With the Beatles") and Sir Paul's one-take vocal explosion on Little Richard's "Long Tall Sally" (1964), also shake the walls.

If you want to know what it was like to see the Beatles perform in the Cavern Club during their pre-fame days, play these songs at a very high volume. Just make sure your neighbors don't mind.
...
For fans who have been bombarded with these songs countless times, there's something new as well.
A splendid time is guaranteed for all.
----------------------------------------
And in political news, Palin is still holding on to her "death panels" ridiculousness. If she still believes it, she's a fool. If not, she's a liar. Either way, I'm glad she isn't in the white house. We have enough of both already there.

"Is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats'
proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by-dare I say it-death panels?" she writes. "Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans."

So, because paranoia rang true for many Americans it makes it true? Not really, Sarah.

I really hope we have a better candidate in 2012 than her.

Obama indoctrinating schoolchildren

2009-09-04T13:07:00.000-07:00

...or not. Susannah, over at Get the Big Idea, posted on this. Obama, on Tuesday, September 8th, which will be the first day of school for most of the country's schoolchildren, will be delivering an address over the internet that most schools will be broadcasting into every classroom.

In Susannah's post, she likens this to the "Hitler Youth," and in her comments links to a video where children were pledging their undying support to Hitler in Nazi Germany. She says she will be pulling her children out of school due to this "unprecedented 'Presidential address' to the captive audience of our nation's school children." She has said she will be pulling her children out of school, which is her right, but is a little ridiculous. I normally wouldn't say anything, but she correctly points out that "hundreds of thousands of other parents across the nation" are doing the same, and she says it is because "Our country’s current political climate has produced unparalleled Government control in our society, and has raised to high alert suspicions of socialist motivations (& worse). In such a climate, for the President to deliver an unprecedented “address” to every child in the nation’s public schools..."

Susannah isn't alone in her hysteria. That's why it is scary. I'm seeing so much hysteria on both sides right now...the left saying the right wants to kill Obama, the right saying the left and Obama want to round them up and put them in concentration camps...enough!

The hysteria has to stop. Susannah, I do respect you, but you are just as guilty as the left in falling into hysteria about the opposition's President.

This address isn't socialistic, nor is it unprecedented.

On the U.S. Department of Education Web site Secretary Arne Duncan wrote that the speech was about "the importance of education."

"The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. "He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."
...
President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

Democrats at the time criticized the speech. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education."

Everyone needs to calm down.

Mexico's war on drugs escalating.

2009-09-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

While living in Mexico last year, I got to see a little of this firsthand. During independence day last september, while I was watching fireworks in Cuernavaca, the drug cartels threw grenades into the crowd in Michoacan, killing and injuring dozens of people there just to celebrate and watch the fireworks.

--------------------------------------------------------------
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- Gunmen shot and killed 17 patients and wounded two others in a drug rehabilitation center in northern Mexico late Wednesday, the mayor of Ciudad Juarez said Thursday.

Police gather at the rehab facility where 17 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, late Wednesday.

Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz said authorities believe a rival drug gang attacked the men at the El Aviane rehab facility.

"At the very least, it was one organized crime group thinking that another group was operating in that place," Reyes told CNN.

Wednesday night's shootings, he said, are similar to an attack at a drug facility in March that left 20 patients dead.

A Mexican civic group said last week that Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, had the most slayings per capita in 2008 of any city in the world.

More than 1,420 people have been killed in Juarez this year, Reyes told CNN on Monday. About 1,600 people were killed in Juarez in 2008, Reyes said.

The latest Juarez killings came on the same day that gunmen shot dead the No. 2 security official and three others in Michoacan, the home state of Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Jose Manuel Revuelta Lopez, the deputy public safety secretary of Mexico's Michoacan state, was killed in a shootout that also claimed the lives of two of his bodyguards and a bystander caught in the crossfire, said Jesus Humberto Adame Ortiz, spokesman for the state.
Revuelta was leaving his office at 5:15 p.m. in the state capital, Morelia, when the shooting occurred, Adame said.

An unprecedented wave of violence has washed over Mexico since Calderon declared war on drug cartels shortly after coming into office in December 2006. More than 11,000 people have since died, about 1,000 of them police.

The offensive against the government has been especially fierce in Michoacan.
In July, La Familia Michoacana drug cartel was accused of assaults in a half-dozen cities across the state and of torturing and killing 12 off-duty federal agents and dumping their bodies on a remote road. That violence was thought to have been retaliation for the arrest of a La Familia leader.

In Juarez, much of the violence is being committed by the rival Sinaloa and Juarez drug cartels, which are fighting for lucrative routes into the United States as well as local street sales, Reyes said.

The deportations of thousands of Mexicans who have served time in U.S. jails into Ciudad Juarez are adding a deadly ingredient to an already volatile state of security, he said.
In the past 45 days, 10 percent of those killed in Juarez had been deported from the United States in the past two years, Reyes said.

"We don't have the statistics to know if they were criminals from the United States or not," he told CNN. "We know they were deported from the U.S. Most of them come from U.S. jails. They end up in the city of Juarez, and that's a problem generated for us, but also for the United States."

Most deportees are simply Mexicans who crossed the border illegally, but some hardened criminals get involved with the gangs, which have networks in the United States, Reyes said.
According to a report released last week by the Mexican Citizens Council for Public Security watchdog group, Juarez had an estimated rate of 130 killings per 100,000 people. The city has a population of around 1.5 million.

By comparison, the homicide rate in New Orleans, Louisiana, the deadliest city in the United States in 2008, was 64 homicides per 100,000 residents, based on preliminary FBI figures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I think this is another reason we need to tighten up our borders. We do not need this to spill over into the US. It's easier to keep it out than to stop it later. While we do that, we need to help Calderon end it there so it doesn't further escalate and spill over. This is something previously only seen in South America, but it has spread further and further north and cannot be ignored any longer.

Waterboarding saved NO lives.

2009-08-31T13:17:00.000-07:00

I have previously blogged about the morality and legality of waterboarding here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are other articles out there that deal with this, such as the illegality of threats of imminent death. But this post will be about the other argument I've heard: "It worked." Not true.

Even though Cheney has claimed that documents would vindicate his claim that his "enhanced interrogation techniques" [torture] saved "hundreds of thousands of lives," (a claim he later backtracked on, implicity denying that they saved a single life in reality) one of the FBI's best interrogaters has shown that, in reality, waterboarding doesn't work.

Here are some of the highlights of the article:

Former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan testified on the use of torture before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are "slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts." Soufan was able to obtain valuable intel using techniques labeled the "informed interrogation approach", which are consistent with the Army Field Manual. His testimony is fascinating.

Soufin was the agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the man now famous for being waterboarded 83 times. Zubaydah had been badly wounded in the struggle to capture him and was almost immediately taken to a hospital. It was there that Soufin began his interrogation, and gained "important, actionable intelligence" within the first hour regarding the role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the 9-11 attacks. Committee Chair Sheldon called this "one of the more significant pieces of intelligence information we've ever obtained in the war on terror."

Soon the CIA-CTC was brought in, and a private contractor instructed them to subject Zubaydah to harsh interrogation techniques. Michael Isikoff wrote that: "Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music." Soufan told the committee that Zubaydah "shut down." Later, Soufan interrogated the man again, using Army sanctioned methods, and Zubaydah disclosed information about the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. According to Soufan, the contractor soon reasserted control, ordering the use of "enhanced" techniques and Zubaydah shut down again. Worried, Soufan objected to his FBI superiors, and was soon ordered home by Director Mueller, who also decreed that FBI personnel should no longer participate in CIA interrogations.

Soufan's account of this interrogation contradicts the May 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel which implied that this valuable information was elicited from Zubaydah as a result of the harsh interrogation techniques used. Soufan's account is deeply damaging to arguments about torture's effectiveness Dick Cheney and other Bush-era officials have been making of late.

Soufan describes his methods as follows:
The approach is based on leveraging our knowledge of a detainee's mindset, vulnerabilities, and culture together with using intelligence already known about him. The interrogator uses a combination of interpersonal, cognitive, and emotional strategies to exact the information needed. If done correctly, this approach works quickly and effectively because it outsmarts the detainee using a method that he is not trained nor able to resist.

He then critiqued the "enhanced techniques":
The Army Field Manual is not about being soft; it's about outwitting, outsmarting, and manipulating the detainee. The approach is in sharp contrast of the enhanced interrogation method that instead tries to subjugate the detainee into submission through humiliation and cruelty. The idea behind it is to force the detainee to see the interrogator as the master who controls his pain. It's merely an exercise in trying to force compliance rather than elicit cooperation. A major problem with it is it is ineffective. Al Qaeda are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, their training prepares them for much worse. The torture that they would receive if caught by dictatorships, for example. In a democracy, however, there is a glass ceiling the interrogator cannot breach. And eventually, the detainee will call the interrogator's bluff..... The technique is also unreliable. We don't know whether the detainee is being truthful or just speaking to mitigate his discomfort. The technique is also slow. Waiting 180 hours as part of a sleep deprivation stage is time we cannot afford to waste in a ticking-bomb scenario.
-----

There is more in the article linked above. It's a good read. We could've gotten the information in many different ways. But no, we wanted to feel better and [torture] our detainees, getting back at them for 9/11. But we did not have to, and it was an exercise in futility.

Here is something else that has bothered me in this whole debate: the questioning of our patriotism if we have a legitimate problems with torture, even of our enemies. I personally have had my Republican credentials questioned because I didn't, and never will, support torturing our enemies.

I think this summed it up quite well for me:

Conservative pundits casually liken waterboarding to prep-school initiation, and claim that anyone who opposes prisoner abuse must simply hate America. The president himself asks us to move on. And the great number of ordinary Americans who have, in fact, expressed outrage are dismissed as members of the bloodthirsty "hard left."

Tort Reform...

2009-08-27T12:06:00.000-07:00

Through all of the healthcare "debate" I've seen a few common things. One of those is tort reform. These days, the American people sue over anything. If we want to bring the price of healthcare down, we need to stop suing our doctors over everything, especially for MILLIONS. Oops, your dentist did your root canal wrong. Sue 'em for 15 million.

Or this one. Suing a comedian because she tells mother in law jokes? Ya gotta be jokin'...(pun intended)...

LOS ANGELES -- Veteran comedian Sunda Croonquist has had a lot of success with her "mother-in-law" jokes, but her mother-in-law isn't laughing.In fact, she's suing the comic for making her the butt of too many jokes.The lawsuit was filed by Ruth Zafrin, her daughter, Shelley Edelman, and Shelley's husband, Neil.

They're accusing Croonquist of spreading false, defamatory and racist lies with her in-law jokes that have become a staple of her routine in nightclubs and on television channels like Comedy Central.

Croonquist knows all too well about culture clashes -- she's half-black, half-Swedish, grew up Roman Catholic and married into a Jewish family. She has joked about her first visit to her mother-in-law's house, saying: "I walk in, I say, 'Thank you so much for having me here, Ruthie.' She says, 'The pleasure's all mine, have a seat."' Then, in a loud aside, 'Harriet, put my pocketbook away."'Then there's the one about her mother-in-law's reaction to news she was pregnant with her first child: "OK, now that we know you're having a little girl I want to know what you're naming that little tchotchke. Now we don't want a name that's difficult to pronounce like Shaniqua. We're thinking a name short but delicious.Like Hadassah or Goldie."

Croonquist said there was a time when her in-laws would laugh with everyone else at the black-member-of-a-Jewish-family jokes."They played my tape at Passover one year, and they loved it!" she said.But things changed after the comedian posted information on her Web site, promoting upcoming gigs in New Jersey.

According to her in-laws, the information allowed pretty much anyone to figure out their identities.They sued in April in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, where they live.The action seeks unspecified damages and demands that Croonquist remove any offensive statements from her Web site, routines and recordings.Croonquist says she would drop any language her family finds offensive, but refuses to pay any settlement.Her lawyer has filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, and a judge is scheduled to hear it on Sept. 8.

Croonquist, who lives in Beverly Hills, is being represented by her husband's law firm.She says it should be obvious to her in-laws that she's not anti-Jewish since she converted to Judaism before she met her husband and keeps a kosher house.Attorney Gary L. Bostwick, an expert in First Amendment law who isn't involved in the case, said suing a comedian is often difficult because courts tend to rule that it should be obvious they are joking.

Rest in Peace, Ted Kennedy.

2009-08-26T09:27:00.001-07:00

Whether or not one agreed with his politics, he was a great senator. He spoke his mind and fought for legislation. We need more Senators like him on both sides of the aisle.

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy
February 22, 1932-August 25, 2009

Three men try to burgerlize off-duty cop's home, get shot

2009-08-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

Score one for 2nd Amendment rights!

From the Miami Herald:

The three people who wandered into a Miami Lakes neighborhood with plans for a home invasion early Monday morning were not greeted by a frightened homeowner, but a police officer prepared to fight back.

That's the scene that unfolded at 4:30 a.m. Friday when three robbers tried to break into the home of a Bay Harbor Islands police officer and his wife, said Lt. Nancy Perez, a Miami-Dade police spokeswoman.

The off-duty police officer fired at the three intruders, possibly injuring one of them.
In investigating the attempted home invasion, Perez said detectives learned that a man had sought treatment for gunshot wounds at Memorial Hospital Miramar, which is in nearby Broward just north of Miami Lakes.

Constitution upheld by Judge

2009-08-21T15:16:00.000-07:00

This is an update from an earlier post.

CNN:

An immigration judge on Friday rejected the federal government’s attempt to deport an
Egyptian immigrant who had been acquitted on charges of illegally possessing and transporting explosives.
Youssef Megahed was released after being detained as a suspected terrorist for almost five months by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in a politically explosive case that has pitted national security claims against charges of profiling and discrimination against Muslims.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, Elaine Kornis, indicated Friday that the government would appeal. However, ICE spokesman Richard Rocha later said the agency is reserving its right to appeal pending a review of the judge’s written opinion.
Megahed was released on his own recognizance, according to a court administrator. He needs to report once a month to a local ICE office and “not associate with known terrorists,” said Charles Kuck, the attorney for Megahed.

I'm really glad this judge had some sense. The Feds' arm (especially the INS) was getting a little long here. This man, Youssef Megahed, student at the University of Florida, had gone on a trip with a fellow student from the University. When pulled over for speeding, the police found explosives in the car. The car belonged to the other student, Ahmed Mohamed, who pled guilty in a plea agreement and is currently serving 30 years.

Megahed pled not guilty, and the jury agreed with him, finding him just a passenger in the car.

Justice had been served.

Then immigration came in to deport him, even though Megahed is a legal immigrant and his family is here. Even though the criminal justice system proved his innocence, the Feds thought they would overturn a state decision and use a legal loophole to banish this man.

Good thing we still have some federal judges with some sense. Megahed will still be watched, and will need to make sure to check all cars he gets into, but he will finally be allowed to go back to his family.

Terrorist released by "compassionate" Scottish government

2009-08-20T14:42:00.000-07:00

Here's the ridiculous news item of the day:

CNN: The man convicted of murdering 270 people by blowing Pan Am flight 103 out of the sky above the Scottish town of Lockerbie two decades ago was heading home on Thursday after authorities set him free.

Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, landed in Tripoli, Libya, about 2045 local time (1845 GMT), according to local media reports.He is suffering terminal prostate cancer and has three months to live, Scottish authorities said.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ordered al Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds, saying he will be "going home to die."

"Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion available," MacAskill said. "Our beliefs dictate that justice be served but mercy be shown."

The White House, which has urged Britain to keep al Megrahi behind bars, said it "deeply regrets" the decision.

President Barack Obama said: "We thought it was a mistake... We've also obviously been in contact with the families of the Pan Am victims and indicated to them that we don't think this was appropriate."

MacAskill said he accepted al Megrahi's 2001 conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on UK soil. He also said he supported a severe sentence.
But he said al Megrahi's lack of compassion for his 270 victims should not be a reason for Scotland to deny compassion to him.

Al Megrahi left prison Thursday, shortly after MacAskill's announcement and boarded a plane shortly afterwards.

Pan Am flight 103 exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie four days before Christmas in 1988, killing all 259 of those aboard the plane and 11 Scots on the ground.

Many of those on board the flight were Americans, and the U.S. government responded immediately to word of al Megrahi's release, saying it "deeply regrets" the decision.

"As we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland," the White House said in a statement.

The Scottish justice secretary said he decided not to transfer al Megrahi to a Libyan prison, even though a prisoner transfer agreement exists between the United Kingdom and Libya, but instead chose to set him free on compassionate grounds.

MacAskill said he believed the United States government and American families of the victims were led to expect before trial that whoever was convicted would serve out their entire sentence in Scotland.

"They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made prior to trial regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted," MacAskill said.

The U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy attorney general to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the U.S. government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland."

The United Kingdom declined to back up those claims, leading MacAskill to side with the American position, he said.

Families of the Lockerbie victims have been sharply divided whether al Megrahi should be ever be released.

Susan Cohen, who lost her 20-year-old daughter, was adamant about her position, calling al Megrahi a "mass murderer" and his release "appalling."

"Are we so devastatingly weak now, have we lost all our moral fiber that you can say that Megrahi can be released from prison for a compassionate release? Where was his compassion for my daughter? Where was his compassion for all those people?" Cohen told American Morning.
Bert Ammerman, whose brother died in the bombing, called al Megrahi's release "ludicrous."

"First of all, he got his compassionate release when he got life imprisonment and not capital punishment, which Scotland doesn't have," Ammerman told CNN. He should have remained in prison, then after his death, his body could have been returned to Libya, he said.

"Two, he's going to be going back, even if he has terminal cancer, as a hero and he's going to be received as a hero in Libya," Ammerman said.
...
Al Megrahi was convicted in 2001 after the prosecution argued he had placed the bomb, hidden in a suitcase, on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, Germany. There, prosecutors said, the bomb was transferred onto the Pan Am plane that went first to London's Heathrow Airport and then took off for New York.
...
Libya has formally accepted responsibility for the bombing and has compensated the families, though Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi later denied any culpability.

Al Megrahi was diagnosed in September 2008 with terminal prostate cancer, and medical officials have said his condition is rapidly deteriorating, MacAskill said. He said he declined an option to free al Megrahi and allow him to live in Scotland after senior police officers cited the severe security implications

Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands," MacAskill said. "The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade."

He added, "However, Mr. al Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die."
-------------------------------------

Anyone else find this ridiculous?

Right-wing paranoid delusions: We are better than that.

2009-08-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

From the Progressive Republican's article Nightmares
and Dreamscapes:
----------------------------------------------------
In a conference room. Maybe seven or eight government employees in their late 30s-early 40s. They’re wearing suits from Ann Taylor, or Men’s Wearhouse sitting on one side of a conference table that looks like it came right out of the Office Depot catalog In one hand they’re holding cups of coffee, or cans of Diet Coke (or some other caffeinated drink - they’ve been working late the last couple of nights) , the other hand busily hammering the keyboards of their mid-tier laptop computers, jotting down notes, trying to capture what the lady on the side of the table is saying.

Across the table is a woman in her mid 60s. Her blouse and pants recently purchased from the local Wal-Mart, her shoes from Payless Shoes. She’s nervously playing with her purse handles as she shuffles her feet. She’s not sure how to answer this last question. She should have been prepared for this question. She was…until just this second.
“We’d all like to get out of here today, Ma’am, so please answer as best you can,” the Committee chair sighs as she asks the question for the third time, “When you the government no longer finds you insurable…” she pauses, not for effect, but because she still can’t believe she has to ask the question.
“…how do you want to die?”
Chilling isn’t it? Cold, bureaucratic evil, like a scene out of the film CONSPIRACY. If certain right wing celebrities are to be believed this won ‘t be that far from the truth should Barack Obama’s health care plan pass both House of Congress.

But they are not to be believed. This is a a nightmare scenario crafted by self-styled leaders of the Republican Party. This is the kind of thing that has to stop.

Let’s be honest: Obama’s Plan is a bad one. It’s costly beyond comprehension. It adds bureaucratic roadblocks to an already excessively bureaucratic process. And, despite all the costs, it only provides additional care for a small percentage of the nation’s uninsured.
It’s a bad plan with any number of weaknesses that Republicans can point to as reasons we should be vehemently against it. Is it necessary to make things up about it?

Who is helped by devising scenarios like the one described above? Does Sara Palin making up spooky stories about Obama’s DEATH PANEL, really add weight to the argument against the real plan?

Does comparing the health plan to Nazis [limbaugh-20090806-hitler.flv] like friend of the blog, Rush Limbaugh, has done?

No. This type of rhetoric serves only to cheapen the debate.

Yes, Democrats spent a large portion of President Bush’s Presidency engaging in these very same tactics. Whether it was calling the President a Nazi for the War in Iraq or shouting down Republican members of Congress, the extreme left showed their true colors by acting insane on the public stage in support of their various causes. We justifiably condemned them for that behavior. We don’t need to turn around use those same tactics.

Not when we have the facts on our side. House Republicans have made some very clear arguments why they are against the current bill :

…was unnecessarily rushed through the Committee without proper understanding or even a reading of the bill by Members;
The massive spending and tax increases will damage an already reeling economy;
Americans will lose coverage they have and like;
The bill gives the government control over Americans’ personal health decisions
Clear, cogent arguments from the men and women we have elected to represent us in Congress. This is what we should be basing our resistance on. Not the overblown rhetoric of extreme right-wing celebrities. We have more sense than that.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't have said it better myself. People screaming "socialism!" "Nazis!" "Communism!" "Death Panels!" or other such nonsense are detrimental to the cause.

Stick to the facts: this plan sucks. We need a better one, not false and crazy accusations.

Republican HealthCare Reform

2009-08-14T13:59:00.000-07:00

So this is going to be a list, of sorts, of what an alternative healthcare reform could be from the Republican side.

I'll start this list from comments I've read from other Republicans and conservatives, such as Jennifer and Pamela. The list will expand with other ideas found, or brought into the discussion in the comments. I'll update as we go.

So far, here is what I've got:

From Pamela D. Hart:
Add a policy, something like Medicare, let’s just call it “Medifree.” Medifree will cover anyone who doesn’t have private insurance, isn’t on Medicare, Medicaid or can’t afford insurance through their employer or any other means. Those who CAN afford insurance but choose NOT to purchase it, i.e. the 18-34 yr old invincibles and families who earn at least $50K, would have to purchase their own insurance. Those who truly can NOT afford insurance would get insurance through “Medifree” because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and are too young to be on Medicare.

Law and Order Teacher:
Have government and private health care form a partnership, something on the order of the public utilities commissions.

Jennifer:
*Change the tax code. Individuals should have the same tax incentives as employers who offer coverage. For example, there could be an income tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families. Over the long-term, people will move to portable, long-term individual insurance.

* Refundable tax credit. A refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families would eliminate the tax exclusion for those who get their insurance from their employers.

* Allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines so that individuals have more choices in plans. This will encourage a robust market in individually owned health care.

* Reduce state regulations and mandates on insurance plans to help reduce costs. There are 1,901 mandates nationwide in 2007, up from 1,843 in 2006.

* Expand tax breaks for Health Savings Accounts. HSAs provide for tax-free accumulation and at the same time offer real protection against larges losses.

* Allow for the growth of convenient clinics. There are about 700 retail clinics located in Wal-Marts, Targets, and other Walk-in Centers. Convenient clinics reduce the costs by offering the uninsured an alternative to emergency rooms. It’s also an inexpensive option for people with HSAs.

* Medical Malpractice reforms are needed to help keep doctors’ insurance costs down which will reduce the costs of care. For example, states could enact laws that would put a cap on non-economic damages.

* Provide vouchers for the working poor so that they can purchase insurance from a state pool.

*Make health insurance more like car insurance. Provide choices.

Ablur:
Cost of Illegal Immigration to our healthcare system
Tort Reform - Frivolous and Record Breaking Awards
Education and Personal Health Responsibility
Freeing up Health Professionals to Deal with actual Health issues
Doctor Availability and the lack of new doctors entering the market
3rd party payer healthcare places incentives in the wrong area (HMOs and the real cost)

Les Paul dies at 94

2009-08-13T11:44:00.000-07:00

Guitar master Les Paul, who created the famous Gibson Les Paul electric guitar {my dream guitar}, died today of severe pneumonia. He was 94.

Les Paul played guitar in clubs even in his 90s.

Paul likely will be best remembered for the Gibson Les Paul, a variation on the solid-body guitar he built in the early 1940s -- "The Log" -- and offered to the guitar company.
"For 10 years, I was a laugh," he told CNN in an interview. "[But I] kept pounding at them and pounding at them saying hey, here's where it's at. Here's where tomorrow, this is it. You can drown out anybody with it. And you can make all these different sounds that you can't do with a regular guitar."

Gibson, spurred by rival Fender, finally took Paul up on his offer and introduced the model in 1952. It has since become the go-to guitar for such performers as Jimmy Page.

"The world has lost a truly innovative and exceptional human being today. I cannot imagine life without Les Paul," said Henry Juszkiewicz, chairman and CEO of Gibson Guitar, in a statement. "He would walk into a room and put a smile on anyone's face. His musical charm was extraordinary and his techniques unmatched anywhere in the world."

Paul is enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Grammy Hall of Fame, the Inventors Hall of Fame and the Songwriters Hall of Fame. He is survived by three sons, a daughter, five grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. Until recently he had a standing gig at New York's Iridium Jazz Club, where he would play with a who's who of famed musicians.

He admired the places guitarists and engineers took his inventions, but he said there was nothing to replace good, old-fashioned elbow grease and soul.

"I learned a long time ago that one note can go a long way if it's the right one," he said in 2002, "and it will probably whip the guy with 20 notes."

Rest in peace, Les.

Economy Stabilizing

2009-08-12T16:42:00.000-07:00

Apparently the economy is starting to stabilize, and the recession may starting to be finally over.

The "Bush Recession" may finally be coming to an end, reports both CNN and FoxNews. Economists are putting the start of this recession at December 2007 (as much as the Obama-deranged would like to blame our current President of eight months).

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

FOX NEWS: Economists date the start of the recession to December 2007 -- defining much of Ben Bernanke's term as Federal Reserve chairman -- and a majority in a Wall Street Journal survey agree that the recession is coming to an end.

As much as I disliked the bailouts and stimulus package, I have to say, they may have worked.

FOX NEWS: However, in the current recession, companies have been using the productivity gains to bolster their bottom lines in the face of declining sales. Many companies have been reporting second-quarter earnings results that have beaten expectations despite falling sales, due largely to their aggressive cost cutting.

So we are going to start seeing the economy move up for once. Thankfully.

But CNN warns:

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
"But until we see more news that either reinforces the belief that the recovery is here or says we've gone too fast too soon, you're not going to see a bigger reaction."

Hopefully this will mean that we'll be fully recovered within a year. If that is the case, I don't know if 2010 will look too good for Republicans.

If it takes longer, 2010 won't look good for Democrats.

We'll see.

My take on HealthCare

2009-08-11T14:48:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted much at all on this subject, because frankly, I haven't read the bill and really don't know too much about what it says.

I know that it doesn't talk about "death panels", euthanasia, abortions, etc. But other than that, it is a 1,000 page bill. And my representatives won't even read it.

So far, from what [little] I do know:

People are angry on both sides.
The right says the left are being thugs at the town halls
The left says the right are being thugs at the town halls
I've seen pictures/videos of both of them doing it
I doubt there are many "paid" disrupters
Lies are being thrown about by both sides as to what exactly this bill is or isn't

I have some opinions:

The Representatives/Senators we've elected need to read the thing, in its entirety, before voting either way
People need to calm down at the town hall meetings, and stop shouting over each other
While I feel for the uninsured, I don't think now is the time to fix this
Thus, I don't like it that Obama is rushing this through

Therefore, before giving healthcare to everyone, I think we need to do something more important: fix the healthcare system for those of us who already have healthcare. If you watch the movie Sicko by Michael Moore, regardless of how you feel about him, this brilliant documentary really shows how the insurance companies screw us over. There are "death" panels on private insurance companies' payroll; there are people who decide if they should pay for healthcare based on monetary/accounting figures. My sister almost died because the insurance company wouldn't approve her MRI to see what was wrong with her. When my parents finally just borrowed the money to do it anyway, they found a life threatening disease that would have killed my sister had they not caught it in time.

And that is wrong. My parents pay for healthcare.

This is what needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we are going to replace these corrupt beaurecrats with government ones, and everyone will deal with these guys. Fix the system we have now, don't just shuffle who pays for it and give it to everyone.

America needs Immigrants to remain great

2009-08-06T13:32:00.000-07:00

I've been reading a lot of editorials and articles lately on historical patterns. Right now, we are living in a similar, albeit smaller scale, time as around the Great Depression. Mark Twain said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." And we are rhyming with a few other periods in time centered on a recession or depression.

From Reset: How This Crisis Can Restore Our Values and Renew America, by Kurt Andersen, talking about another "rhyming" moment:

We've just finished living through a long Gilded Age, in which rich Americans got richer, and more and more people began consuming conspicuously. The original Gilded Age began a century earlier, in the 1870s, during a laissez-faire boom that lasted — déjà vu! — from the end of one Wall Street and banking meltdown (the Panic of 1873) to the beginning of another (the Panic of 1893).

The idea of historical cycles can be reassuring: what comes down must go up. However, great nations can shrivel and empires do come to an end. And America in 2009 also looks as if it could rhyme, uncomfortably, with Great Britain circa 1909. A hundred years ago, the British were coming off a proud century as the most important nation on earth. But during the 30 years between the beginning of World War I and the end of World War II, the United States emerged as the unequivocal world leader, and Britain became an admirable also-ran.

I found this quite interesting. In a few other exerpts, Andersen talks about other historical rhymes, and what the consequences were. After the Great Depression, the US emerged as the world leader. He talks about what we can do to avoid losing that spot to China, and becoming the Great Britain of the 21st century.

Andersen predicts that, if we can get through this the right way and emerge unscathed as the Great Nation we have been, we will see another great economic, technological, and societal boom as we did after each previous recession. We had similar crashes in the '60s and '70s, where "we found ourselves in a slough of despond, with an oil crisis, a terrible recession, declining productivity, a kind of Weimarish embrace of cultural decadence" we then got from that era Federal Express, Microsoft, Apple, and others. Yes, we will lose certain industries, but we will gain others.

What else did other crashes have before we went to Superpower status? We had a wave of immigrants.

The waves of exotic foreigners who poured in during the 1800s and early 1900s were unsettling to Americans at the time — culturally, economically, and politically. But our forebears got over it, fortunately, since the newcomers were instrumental in forging the American Century.

No other nation on earth assimilates immigrants as successfully as the United States. There are those who argue that we can no longer afford to open our doors so wide, but in fact precisely the opposite is true. Beyond giving sentimental, self-flattering lip service to our history as "a nation of immigrants," the sooner we can agree on a coherent and correctly self-serving national immigration policy — that is, to encourage and enable as many as possible of the world's smartest and most ambitious and open-minded people to become Americans — the better our chances of forestalling national decline...

Just as we are now dependent on cheap credit and cheap manufactured goods from China, we really can't afford to say no to cheap laborers from Mexico and Central America, and we need to admit that truth and make the system for absorbing them rational. At the upper end of the scale, it's crazily self-defeating for us to set arbitrary and entirely politicized limits on the visas we grant to skilled foreign workers, such as software engineers and nurses. Wouldn't it make more sense to establish a politically independent federal apparatus, like the Federal Reserve System, that would adjust immigration quotas according to the actual and projected ebbs and flows of our economy?

Basically, we need immigrants. Sometimes we need more, sometimes we need less. We need some way of regulating that, and a better system for getting them legally. We need tax-paying immigrants who will not only provide cheap labor, such as what provided that backbone of the industrial revolution, but also the other end of the spectrum; we need immigrants who will bring fresh ideas and ways of thinking to our complacent system. People like Einstein and other immigrants who brought changes to the United States. Immigrants who will give birth to the future Reagans, Clintons, Obamas, Martin Luther Kings, Rosa Parks, Lincolns, MacArthurs, etc.

We need to get over our xenophobic aversion to immigration in order to survive.

Read exerpts from Reset here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1914738,00.html?loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r3:c0.0741689:b26986058&xid=Loomia

Birthers: Enough. You are all idiots.

2009-08-04T13:36:00.000-07:00

Obama is the President. There is nothing you nutty conspiracy theorists can do about it. Get over it. If you disagree with him and his policies, vote someone else in on November 4th, 2012. But until then, there isn't anything you can do whatsoever, especially by claiming this nonsensical craziness. The State of Hawaii says he's a citizen. There are hi-def pictures up all over the internet of the birth certificate (and for those nutjobs who still doubt, I have them posted below as well!)...

I believe this sums it up quite nicely.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Additional links:
http://factcheck.org/2009/07/the-last-word-we-wish/
http://factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

The Chinese Creditors come-a-callin'

2009-07-29T09:29:00.000-07:00

Read an interesting article at Truthdig today.

The Chinese Communists invaded Washington on Monday demanding not that we sacrifice our freedoms but rather that we balance our budget. Creditors get to make that kind of call. And the Marxists of Beijing, who have turned out to be the world’s most prudent bankers, are worried about their assets invested in our banana republic.

“China has a huge amount of investment in the United States, mainly in the form of Treasury bonds. We are concerned about the security of our financial assets” was the way China’s assistant finance minister put it. Briefing reporters at the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, he added, “We sincerely hope the U.S. fiscal deficit will be reduced, year after year.” Quite sincerely, one suspects, given a U.S. budget shortfall this year that is slated to reach $1.85 trillion.

Suddenly, it was U.S. officials who were promising deep reform to their disgraced economic system rather than demanding it from incompetent foreigners. President Barack Obama’s economic team of Clinton-era holdovers, who a decade ago had hectored China on the virtues of fiscal responsibility, now were falling over themselves to reassure the Chinese that their $1.5 trillion stake in U.S. government-issued securities is safe, and that they should buy more at this week’s $200 billion Treasury auction. If they don’t, we’re in big trouble...

...And don’t blame any of this on peacenik liberals. The new conciliatory—nay, deferential—tone toward China precedes the Obama administration, having begun in bilateral talks during the last years of the Bush administration as the U.S. economy began its ignominious downfall. It was George W. Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, who set the course when the former Goldman Sachs chairman realized how dependent were his Wall Street buddies on Chinese goodwill...

...The tone of this week’s talks, ironically held at the Reagan Building and co-chaired by Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, finally signaled the end of the Cold War assumption that regimes with labels like communist and capitalist could not form profitable partnerships...For those who recall the rhetoric of the Cold War, the idea that we would someday be cooperating with Chinese Communists because they had humbled us economically rather than militarily is a startling turnabout. How did they get to be better capitalists than us, and being that they are good capitalists, why are we still spending hundreds of billions a year on high-tech military weapons to counter a potential Chinese military threat when the weapons they are using are all market-driven deployments?...

I feel like we're in an episode of Punk'd. Except for it isn't Ashton Kutcher playing a joke on us.

It's America playing it on herself.

Gore Vidal's anti-police essay

2009-07-28T15:17:00.001-07:00

I wouldn't normally pay any attention to this sort of vitriol. But Gore Vidal is known as one of America's "great novelists" and he is putting this disjointed, hate-filled, ignorant essay out there for all to read. And the problem is, people agree with him! Since this whole Gates/Crowley police thing, there has been a rash of anti-police rhetoric across the blogosphere, and recent news backs it up (three police officers in one day were killed in the US this weekend, and a border patrol agent was killed last week)...in fact, while crime is down as compared to the '90s, police slayings are up quite a bit.

This attitude is pervasive in our culture. It used to be that no matter how criminal you were, killing a cop was something hardly even thought about. Now even bloggers [in poor taste] joke about it, as was seen here by one comment: "...My philosophy in dealing with the police is simple: stay out of my way and I will stay out of your way. But if you step on my toes, better hope you kissed your wife buh-bye when you left for work that day because I don't put up with any shit from anyone. Especially a cop." I was floored by this comment. I mean, talk about crossing the line.

Here are some excerpts from Vidal's essay, America The Great ... Police State:

...Every municipality is complaining about local police forces run wild. And no one does anything about it. And our masters are armed to the teeth and would seem more likely to fire at us instead of at the troublemakers. I can’t think of any civilized country that would allow this, from the look of these bulky guardians of the peace, to whom no right-minded person would allow even a slingshot to be given.

So, we are a weirdly militarized citizenry governed by the worst elements in the United States, and something is bound to blow up, as I have felt for some time now. In my wanderings around the U.S., I talk to people without money, without power, ordinary voters, as well as nowadays, people maimed by war, or time, or life or whatever, and I am convinced more and more that this is a vicious country in which the police are allowed to run amok, absolutely independent of anyone, and that is why from time to time they are allowed to get away with murder. One surprisingly knew that a wrinkle has been discovered in the seamless surface of our troubled state. Policemen are seldom tried for their crimes, or indeed, held responsible for what they do, which disturbs the peace and causes distress among the orderly.

So, we are a weirdly militarized citizenry governed by the worst elements in the United States, and something is bound to blow up, as I have felt for some time now. In my wanderings around the U.S., I talk to people without money, without power, ordinary voters, as well as nowadays, people maimed by war, or time, or life or whatever, and I am convinced more and more that this is a vicious country in which the police are allowed to run amok, absolutely independent of anyone, and that is why from time to time they are allowed to get away with murder. One surprisingly knew that a wrinkle has been discovered in the seamless surface of our troubled state. Policemen are seldom tried for their crimes, or indeed, held responsible for what they do, which disturbs the peace and causes distress among the orderly...

...Anyway, the president has not done what he should have done, which is to have reminded us that the United Kingdom—a more livable nation than the United States, let me say with first-hand experience of both—has disarmed its police. There are no angry men wandering around carrying guns over there. This is a lesson to us, but we’ve armed practically every grange house in the United States because our regular guys just want to swagger around.

Let us accept the facts staring us in the face—that demonstrably we are no longer a republic. We are no longer governed by laws, only by armed men and force. This is just like the days of Billy the Kid. You have an armed man going down a dusty street and that is authority. And it has come to this for us...

And so Vidal goes, decrying police and wanting to disarm them, because they are all criminals in his mind, based upon some encounter he had in the '40s.

Not to mention that police corruption is at all-time lows, so much so that when an isolated incident does happen, it makes national headlines.

Not to mention that Police Officers are shot at as a part of their jobs.

But let's take away their guns and tasers. Let's send them out there like UN Peacekeepers without guns. Let them just ask criminals to be nice. I'm down. Let's do it. I'm sure those criminals, armed with uzis, shotguns, and knives, will be more than happy to oblige a uniformed, unarmed person. I'm sure crime will go down, and utopia will be the norm of the land again.

We'll start the unarmed policemen with Gore Vidal's hometown.

Why Crowley was wary of a screaming Gates

2009-07-28T09:19:00.000-07:00

The general public don't realize that any call, "routine" or not, give suspicion to cops. Any call can turn deadly. Cops have died at the hands of pulled over motorists; officers have died at domestic disturbances, yes, even at the hands of the home's owner. Examples?

Sunday night, three officers responding to a domestic disturbance were talking to one of the residents when another began to shoot at the officers for no reason.

Three officers were hit. Only two survived.

Click here for the whole story.

Sgt. David Kinterknecht died answering a "routine" call. How was Sgt. Crowley to know that Gates wasn't armed? Or that his yelling wouldn't inspire a roomate to do the same? The police don't know, so when someone won't calm down, they are arrested to immediately diffuse a situation.

This weekend was bad for cops responding to routine calls:

In New York, NYPD Officer Rodney Lewis was shot responding to a domestic disturbance.

In Oklahoma, two sheriff's deputies were killed trying to serve an arrest warrant at a suspect's home.

All of you who judge Sgt. Crowley for diffusing a situation with an irate homeowner: You never know who is armed and may shoot the police for no reason at all, even from their own residence.

Professor Gates continues racist behavior. UPDATED

2009-07-24T02:03:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I shared the situation as it happened, complete with the police report.

It is just getting worse. Obama has come out against the police, saying that the Police "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates, while acknowledging that he "doesn't know all the facts" and that he "may be a little biased" because the professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., is a friend.

"But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

So instead of letting the police do their job, he makes this into a national incident. Not only that, but he generalizes and stereotypes all police offices, especially white ones. Isn't that what is being thrown at the police here? Police around the country are understandably upset. Obama is playing to the "cops are bad" mentality. Why don't we just get rid of the police and see how we are then. Let society crumble under anarchy. See who gets "profiled" then.

And now Professor Gates, whose charges were dropped, is going to sue.

Attorney Charles Ogletree said Gates might sue the department and would bring forward witnesses who say they've had similar experiences with Crowley.

When asked for specific examples, Ogletree said only that they may come out in time depending on how the police department handles the situation moving forward.

Isn't procuring false witnesses a crime? But Ogletree is saying that they will bring "witnesses" when money is on the table. Witnesses get paid for their time. And suddenly, when money is to be had, these people will come forward? Sounds fishy to me. Some mature professor.

He can't handle that the police officer didn't let the celebrity get away with getting in the officer's face. He yelled "You don't know who you are messing with!" when the officers came to investigate the possible break in. And then injects race into this. If you look at pictures, there is a black officer, and the secondary officer was hispanic. But since the primary officer was white, Gates pulls the race card and tries to claim racism. Seems to me like Gates is the racist here.

In the wake of this, many people are coming to the support of Crowley, of all races and walks of life.

Numerous police officers, including African-Americans, have spoken up on Crowley's behalf and portrayed him as a good and fair officer. Crowley, who is white, had once been chosen by a black police officer to teach a police academy course on ways to avoid racial profiling.

Cambridge police Commissioner Robert Haas said he "deeply regrets" the arrest but stands by the procedures his department followed.
"I trust [Crowley's] judgment implicitly. He is a stellar officer," Haas said.

And again:

"I believe that Sgt. [James] Crowley acted in a way that is consistent with his training at the department, and consistent with national standards of law enforcement protocol," Commissioner Robert Haas said, referring to the officer who made the July 16 arrest at the professor's home.

Crowley also said he is exercising caution and his previous actions clearly show he is not a racist.
In fact, Crowley taught a racial profiling course at the Lowell Police Academy, said Deborah Friedl, deputy superintendent of the police department.
Last year was his fifth year as a co-instructor of the course, Friedl said.
"He seems to be a highly regarded instructor at the academy. He consistently received high praise from students," she said.

Check out this video, in which an African-American female voices support for Sgt. Crowley and says "shame on" Gates for turning this into another racial statement.

But Gates continues to demand an apology from the police for daring to arrest him, when he's obviously famous and they "don't know who they are messing with!" I am so tired of celebrities thinking they are above the law. And I'm tired of minorities accusing white police officers of racism whenever they are arrested. It's getting ridiculous.

It's true there was racism here. But it was Sgt. Crowley; the racist behaviors came from Professor Gates and his supporters who jumped behind the black man against the "evil policeman"...racism is racism, even when directed at white men.

**UPDATE**

Obama has apologized for worsening the situation, and said he "hoped the controversy surrounding Gates' arrest provides Americans with "a teachable moment" on how they can improve "relations between police officers and minority communities."

Gates is still maintening that he was 100% faultless, and that he may still sue.

Gates' lawyer is still threatening suit, and that he'll find people that don't like Crowley, saying "I think you will be hearing much more complex and different perspective on him [Crowley] in the coming days and weeks," Ogletree said, alleging that Crowley "is well-known among people, particularly young people, for some of his police practices."

Harvard Professor plays race card, gets arrested UPDATED

2009-07-22T09:27:00.000-07:00

From CNN

I've seen this on a few blogs, with different takes. Here's what CNN has to say about it, which to date has the most information available. It IS conflicting, but take a look:

Charles Ogletree, Gates' lawyer in this case, told CNN on Tuesday that Gates -- the director of Harvard's W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research -- had returned from China on Thursday to his Cambridge home and discovered his front door jammed.

He opened his back door with his key and tried unsuccessfully from inside his home to open the front door. Eventually, Gates and his driver forced the door open from the outside, Ogletree said.
The professor was inside for several minutes when a police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, appeared at his steps and asked him to step outside, the lawyer said.

According to his lawyer, Gates told the officer he lived there and showed him his Massachusetts driver's license and Harvard University identification card. The officer followed him into his house and said he had received a report of a possible break-in, the lawyer said. Gates grew frustrated that the officer was continuing to question him in his home and asked for the officer's name and badge number, Ogletree said.

The police report offers a different account of the incident.
Gates refused to step outside to speak with the officer, the police report said, and when Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" the report said.
"While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me," he said, according to the report.
The report said Gates initially refused to show the officer identification, but eventually produced a Harvard identification card, prompting Crowley to radio for Harvard University Police.

Gates followed the officer outside and continued to accuse him of racial bias, the report said. After Crowley warned the professor twice that he was becoming disorderly, the officer wrote he arrested Gates for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space."

You know, I'm a little conflicted here, but after reading a few articles and blog posts on this, I have to say I'm with the Police Officer on this. The Officer is required to follow up on calls of possible break ins, and many criminals will claim to be the owner. When the Officer asks for proof, the citizen should show proof, and leave it at that.

But following the officer outside, accusing him of things? That can quickly get under a cop's skin. And make him feel threatened, prompting a warning. If Gates didn't stop after getting warned, he deserved to get arrested.

Gates thought that he could harass an Officer just doing his job and get away with it because he played the race card and because he is famous.

**UPDATE: Here is the police report. As far as I can see, Gates is lucky charges were not pressed.

Another idiot thinks Obama isn't our President...

2009-07-19T12:32:00.000-07:00

...and is trying to use it to get out of military service? W.T.F.?

Source

US Reservist Stefan Frederick Cook received his active duty orders on June 9th, and by July 8th he filed suit under lawyer Orly Taitz, the slime lawyer heading up the class action lawsuit against Obama, challenging his Presidency. This is ridiculous. Cook wanted "conscientious objector" status, because he didn't want to go to Afghanistan if the President isn't a Republican. Oops, I mean because he believes that the President isn't the President. What? This turncoat should be court-marshalled for this. Isn't there some kind of military code against bringing frivilous lawsuits against your Commander-in-Chief?

Good thing the judge had some sense. US District Judge Clay Land dismissed the lawsuit today because the soldier had already received a reprieve from the military, rendering the lawsuit moot. But the Judge had some good stuff to say about this stupid lawsuit:

..."[The Founding Fathers] concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely ‘political disputes,’ and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”

But here's the clincher: Cook believes this crap.

"...[Cook] fears that if he executed Obama’s orders, he could be prosecuted as a war criminal
for following the orders of an illegitimate commander-in-chief."

But here's where he could, and should be, prosecuted in a court-marshall:

Land asked Taitz whether Cook requested to simply have his orders rescinded, instead of filing a lawsuit.

Taitz said she filed an Article 138 complaint with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen. An Article 138 complaint gives members of the armed forces under the Uniform Code of Military Justice the right to request redress if they believe they had been wronged by their commanding officer.

According to Ausprung, an Article 138 complaint has to go through the soldier’s chain of command. Cook did not go through his chain of command, Ausprung said.

Anyone who believes this garbage is an idiot. But using it to get out of military service? Wow. "Coward" isn't a strong enough word.

Illegal Immigrants Actually good for US economically

2009-07-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

I have my bachelors degree in Spanish, for those of you who don't know. Many of my senior papers were written on immigration, and I've done quite a bit of research during my 4 1/2 years of college, as well as living abroad in Mexico for awhile, so I do know what I'm talking about here.

Nonetheless, I'm not an expert (most of us bloggers aren't either).

This is from an article I read in USA Today in early 2008 (I read it in TIME as well, but can't find that one right now) goes right in the face of many arguments about deporting the 11 million illegals we have.

Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how
much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully
tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions
of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One
rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.

Paycheck withholding collects much of the federal tax from illegal
workers, just as it does for legal workers.

The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration
status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the
government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might
qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State
University says there are no firm figures on how many such taxpayers there
are.
"The real question is how many of them pay more than they owe. There are
undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people in that situation," Ford said.
...
"It's a mistake to think that no illegal immigrants pay taxes. They
definitely do," said Martha Pantoja, who has been helping Hispanic immigrants
this tax season as an IRS-certified volunteer tax preparer for the non-profit
Nashville Wealth Building Coalition.
...
Pantoja said she has helped a number of construction workers who,
because they are classified as independent contractors by their employers and
have no taxes withheld, owe big tax bills come April. Beyond income tax, they
have to pay the full Social Security and Medicare taxes due.
The
Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal
workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and
Medicare.
...
The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most
of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover
retirement checks to legal workers.

"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security.
The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said.
"It does help the system remain solvent."
The Social Security Administration
drew from census and Immigration and Customs Enforcement data in 2007 to project
the effects of higher and lower immigration patterns.
If net immigration is
high at 1.3 million people a year, the SSA's combined trust fund would be
exhausted in 2043. But the fund runs out four years earlier if
annual net immigration amounts to about half that — 472,500 legal immigrants and
250,000 illegal immigrants.
...
In 2006, then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress that
"many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the
tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."
An IRS spokesman said
more recent figures aren't available.
The Social Security and Medicare taxes
from mismatched W2s for the same period was $41.4 billion,
Hinkle said.

That adds up to roughly $90 billion in federal taxes during
they eight-year period.
The IRS defends the ITIN system, despite
criticism that some illegal immigrants have used it to open bank accounts, get
mortgages and establish a record of residency and taxpaying they hope might
someday lead to legal status.

"The ITIN program is bringing taxpayers into the system," Everson told
Congress.
Ford, of Middle Tennessee State University, said a majority of
economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S.
economy.

He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales
taxes, property taxes and excise taxes (such as the gas tax), are
significant.

He calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion
dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006.
That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30% less productive than other
workers.

"If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less,
especially with the baby boomers retiring," he said.

Man charged $23 quadrillion dollars

2009-07-15T08:59:00.000-07:00

A New Hampshire man went home one night after running errands to check his bank balance online. This is what Josh Muszynski's online banking said his account balance was:

-$23,148,855,308,184,500...plus a $15 overdraft fee.

What did Muszynski buy?

A pack of cigarettes at the gas station.

Muszynski called the bank about the string of numbers on the screen and a $15 overdraft fee the bank tacked on to his mysterious debt. After two hours on the phone, Muszynski said, the representative on the line had no idea what to say.
"She just tried to assure me that everything would be fixed, and I couldn't see something like that being fixed," Muszynski said.

Nearly 24 hours after the hole formed in his bank account, Muszynski checked his statement again. The bank corrected his statement a day later.

I especially liked what he said he'd do with the money if he really had that much, and here's where the politics comes in:

If he had $23 quadrillion, Muszynski said he would give it all away, and maybe also bail out General Motors a few more times.

HA!

Congressional report on Domestic [warrantless] wiretapping

2009-07-11T10:42:00.000-07:00

The Congressional investigation's report released yesterday had some interesting things to say about the Bush Administration's domestic surveillance program.

To summarize:

1. The Congressional Probe doesn't question, nor does it criticize, the objectives and intentions of the program launched in 2001, since its aim was to stop terrorism.
2. The investigators did, however, conclude that the legal basis for doing the program was "factually flawed" and that relying on one attorney, the now infamous John Yoo, to provide the legal framework was extremely inappropriate for all parties involved.
The White House should not have relied upon one attorney in the Department of Justice. John Yoo was also well out of line to provide it, because he circumvented his bosses, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"The lack of oversight and review of Yoo's work ... contributed to a legal analysis of the [program] that at a minimum was factually flawed," it says.

Since then, the Justice Department has repudiated all of John Yoo's legal opinions on this and others: the John Yoo Memos, in which he gave [flawed] legal rationale for the US Executive Branch to overturn much of the Bill of Rights, citizen or not, in search of terrorism.

The report notes that several members of Congress -- including then-House Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Nancy Pelosi -- were briefed on the program on October 25, 2001, and a total of 17 times before the program became public in 2005.
The document repeats the public assertion by former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden that no member of Congress had urged that the program be stopped.

Source

John Yoo should be disbarred. He circumvented Dept. of Justice protocols, and his legal memos were all, at best, "extremely flawed." Also, I have to ask: Why did the White House depend solely on the opinion of one immigrant lawyer on issues so important as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Leftwing vs Rightwing vs liberal vs conservative vs moderate vs progressive...

2009-07-09T13:42:00.000-07:00

I was reading this article on Progressive Republican about the terms that get thrown around. I liked it a lot, so I'm going to paste much of it here. Basically, the author, William Golden, is tired of labels being thrown at the other side and back as insults. Especially when "liberals" or "progressives" are labelled as "left-wing" and "conservatives" are called "right-wing"...

Here are his definitions. I think I agree with them:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left-wing and Right-wingers often sound like liberals and conservatives but are not afraid to trample truth in order to achieve their political goals. “Propaganda” is often too strong a term to even begin to describe the logic and the veracity of what passes as political discussion from both ends of the spectrum.

Liberals and Conservatives both have principles and represent what is best in America. They just disagree. They may even see truth differently but they both try to put America first. America is not a victim when these two meet — preferably over a beer or some other wholesome American pasttime. America is blessed because at the end of the day we all, liberal and conservative alike, are challenged in our views and there wisdom and answers from both.

A Moderate is absolutely the finest blending of red, white and blue. Moderates are perhaps the most practical of all Americans — their focus is on consideration of the facts and selecting the best solutions. Unlike liberals and conservatives they seldom have the hurdle of having to get past their pride to get on with getting on to finding an answer. Unfortunately perhaps, being a political moderate does not work everywhere in the USA and the result is that moderate politicians are often caught crossing the street when the light turns against them. God bless them.

Progressives are made up of liberals, moderates and conservatives. A progressive will normally claim fondness for one of the aforementioned political outlooks. The two greatest differences between progressives and their other American kinfolk is that they are proactive, rather than reactive; and they live in the land of ‘why not?!’ Progressives sometimes share the same challenges that moderates do, except they’ve figured out how to run like hell across the street when they see the lights change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like these definitions. Anyone want to add to them?

I'm Afraid of Sarah Palin

2009-07-08T09:03:00.000-07:00

I've been on a number of Liberal and Conservative blogs alike. Many have been chatting away about Sarah Palin's decision to step down.

The Liberals are happy about it, in a sense, because they never liked her.

The conservatives are happy about it, because Sarah Palin can do no wrong in their eyes.

And that makes me afraid.

The right talks about the "Obamassiah" and "the One" on the left.

For those on the right, that is Sarah Palin.

On one blog, I read a conservative blogger defend Palin's decision:

"She didn't quit! What are you smoking?"

Um, what? She didn't quit when she...quit?

If Sarah Palin is all we have to offer in 2012, we are done for. As David Frum writes over at New Majority,

...[we] are afraid that Palin’s distinctive combination of sex appeal, self-pity, and cultural resentment has a following in today’s GOP. We are afraid that it is not utterly inconceivable that she could win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and we are afraid that if she did so she would lead the party to a 1964-style debacle, accompanied by unnecessary losses down the ballot.

Palin 2012? God I hope not.

2009-07-06T11:14:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of speculation about why Sarah Palin decided to resign as Govenor.

Most likely, it is to clear the way for a Presidential run for 2012.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

Sarah Palin one of the worst candidates to come from the ranks of the GOP in a long time.

During the McCain candidacy, she couldn't name any Supreme Court decisions she agreed with or disagreed with (except for Roe v. Wade, of course). Her foreign policy experience? Russia is almost seen from Alaska!

And now she quits on her constituents after a [undeserved] lashing from the press. Yes, her lashing was undeserved on such subjects as her family life; her womanhood; her sexuality. On her political career, however, she was fair game, and just couldn't take the heat.

So she abandons Alaska so she can facebook and twitter away to her [fanatically, unrealistically] loyal fanbase.

Just because she is conservative does not mean she is qualified for the Presidency.

Her resume was often compared to Obama's. In 2012, his will be much more qualified, with four years as President, while hers will have shrunk, since she couldn't even finish what she started. She will hold no weight in a contest between her and the incumbent.

How ridiculous that she actually sees this as a strategy.

The GOP better find someone strong, and soon.

Otherwise we'll be stuck with "gotcha!"

Happy Independence Day!

2009-07-04T00:00:00.000-07:00

Happy Independence Day!

I know, its tomorrow, but I'll be out of town.

So as of yesterday, July 2nd, we have been free for 233 years. (The Second Continental Congress approved the Resolution of Independence on July 2nd, 1776).

In the words of John Adams, in a letter to his wife Abigail:

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Though he was off by two days in the celebration, he was correct in the spirit of it. For 233 years,we have celebrated this day and the freedoms we were given.

So thank you to the founding fathers. Thank you to all veterans, past, present, & future, for making our freedoms possible.

And may we be forever free, whether a Republican or Democrat sits in the Oval Office.

May we be free, no matter what our political affiliation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Palin Steps down!!!!

2009-07-03T13:15:00.000-07:00

Breaking News: CNN-

Gov. Sarah Palin announced Friday that she will step down as Alaska's chief executive by the end of the month. She will not seek election to a second gubernatorial term in 2010.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announces she's stepping down this month.

Palin, a Republican, was elected governor in 2006. She was tapped as Arizona Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate last year.
Palin said she was transferring authority to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who will be sworn in at the Governor's Picnic on July 25.
A Republican source close to her political team told CNN's John King that it was a "calculation" she made that "it was time to move on." The governor's "book deal and other issues" were "causing a lot of friction" in her home state, the source said, adding that he believes she is "mapping out a path to 2012."

As the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Palin has been considered one of the front-runners for the GOP nomination in 2012. Her decision not to seek another term as governor is sure to stoke speculation that Palin is seriously eyeing a run for the White House.

In an interview last month with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Palin said she was unsure about her re-election bid because she needed to focus on her state and her family.
"So, no decision yet on either 2010 or let alone 2012?" Blitzer asked.
"No decision that I'd want to announce today," Palin responded.
Palin catapulted on the national stage last August when McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, chose her as his running mate.

Whoa. Not sure how I feel about this yet. She's stepping down, most likely to run for President?

I'll have more on this later.

Global warming is to Democrats as Global terrorism is to...

2009-07-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

Read an interesting article over at New Majority, which brought up some interesting points regarding the cap & trade bill, Democrats & Republicans, and the tendancy of Politicians to fling baseless accusations along the lines of "treason."

In a phone interview with MSNBC, Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, accused the Republican party of being unamerican in voting against the cap & trade, stimulus, and budget measure. Waxman used some surprisingly familiar rhetoric when he said that the GOP has been "rooting against the country" by voting no on the Democrats' bills.

In the article, the author first gives part of Rep. Waxman's accusations:

So far, this Congress -- since Obama became President -- the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, they’re saying no to a global warming bill... They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

The author then points out the similarities in the rhetoric from the left on global warming, and the rhetoric from just a few years ago from the right on global terrorism. He takes Waxman's quote, and replaces "global warming" with phrases about the war on terror and Iraq:

So far, this Congress -- since they became the majority -- the Democrats have said no to the troop surge, they’re saying no to a war funding bill... They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Republicans. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global terrorism. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Democrats doubt the whole success of the surge, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

Hmm. Interesting. Never thought about it that way. The similarities are striking.

Don't believe it? Here's Paul Krugman from the NY Times:
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Whoa.

The author of the article points out that both sides are looking for "snakes in the garden," being vigilant against those they view as trying to ruin the country. But, he points out, "his accusation was both wrongly directed and poorly applied."

That happens on both sides of the aisle. It really should stop. I like how he ends the article:

...In Waxman's recent episode, legitimate concern was mistaken for callous sedition, quite possibly because he (like Krugman and others) truly believes global warming is a more deadly threat than radical Islam. In his world, regrettably, basic policy skepticism is “treason” and the largest tax on the middle class in more than a decade, in the words of another Democrat, is “patriotic.”

Funny, you could switch that around as well.

Progressive Republicans: Time for Red Dogs?

2009-06-30T14:58:00.001-07:00

I read an interesting entry over at The Progressive Republican.

In the article, it talks about how the Blue Dog Democrats are the only real opposition to Obama's big plans, like health care, cap & trade, stimulus(es), federal budgets, etc.

What I like about Republicans as they prepare for 2010 is their ability to offer new ideas, to put alternatives on the table, to meet philosophical challenges head on with … oops, its the Blue Dog Democrats doing that. Where are the Republicans?

Its a great point. Where are the Republicans? Since Obama's inaugeration in January, the Republicans have not offered any real alternatives to Obama's plans; they have merely been blind opposition [read, whiners]. The Blue Dogs have been the only ones offering real solutions, alternatives (with real numbers, too!). What is going on?

The GOP is falling sharply in popularity these days (the latest studies indicate another 2 points dropped). Strange, since some studies also indicate the country is mostly conservative (thanks, Bluepitbull!)...

So just what is going on?

The GOP is killing itself by making everyone adhere to the party orthodoxy. Latest example: the eight GOPers who voted for cap & trade at the behest of their constituents are being asked to leave the party by other GOPers.

This happened to the Democrats, too. How did they survive? By getting more liberal and kicking out all who wouldn't toe the party core? No.

The Blue Dog Democrats, and the New Democrats, rose in to balance the party out. And now they run this country.

I blogged about this before, here, here, here, and here.

So this is what we need: Red Dog Republicans. Where the far-left Democrats were choking the fiscal conservative Democrats, the far-right is choking the social progressives within the Republican party. You want proof? The more the GOP swings to the right, going back to "Reagan", the more the party shrinks. The Conservative Bloggers keep talking about the party becoming more conservative, yet every time that has happened recently the party has grown smaller and loses more points. Could they be wrong? Could swinging to the right actually be the reason the GOP is shrinking?

Red Dogs:

Social Progressives (not necessarily liberal). Example: I'm pro-life, yet also pro-gay marriage.
Fiscal Conservative (not Reaganomics [voodoo economics], but truly fiscally conservative). Example: I'm not a fan of Obama's spending, but neither am I a fan of supply-side. I don't believe in trickle down; but neither do I believe in hand-outs.

Any others to add to the list? Anyone else want to be a Red Dog?

Minnesota update: Court declares Franken the winner.

2009-06-30T12:20:00.000-07:00

The Minnesota Supreme Court has declared Al Franken the winner of the contested Minnesota senate race against Norm Coleman. Coleman's challenge was dismissed in an unanimous vote, stating that Franken "received the highest number of votes legally cast" and is entitled "to receive the certificate of election as United States senator from the state of Minnesota."

Its about time! Franken was selected by the Minnesota citizens eight months ago...and they have been denied a senate seat since during Coleman's court challenges.

Coleman could still take it to the Federal level, but its unlikely that would change anything. In the meantime, Minnesota will finally have their senator, as the govenor promised that he would sign Franken's election certificate if the court ruled that way.

Republican and the Cap and Trade Bill

2009-06-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

There were eight Republicans that voted for the controversial cap and trade bill that passed Friday. Those Reps were:

Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
Mike Castle, DE
Mark Steven Kirk, IL-10
Leonard Lance, NJ-7
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
John McHugh, NY-23
Dave Reichert, WA-8
Chris Smith, NJ-4

On some conservative blogs, these eight reps are being treated as "traitors" and are being asked to leave the party. Not a good idea, conservatives. You really can't afford another eight Republicans gone, just over one vote. Dee, at Conservatism with Heart, has a better idea. If you are displeased (and in their districts), call them and let them know. She has links, phone numbers, etc.

I read a great article on this whole thing today on The Progressive Republican, which had some really great points on this whole thing. Basically, these eight Representantives represent districts that favored this bill (Chris Smith being the exception). The author of the article asks "...they were simply reacting to the demands of their constituents. Since when did it become unacceptable to do what one’s constituents want a member of Congress to do?"

Good point. These eight Reps are representing a district. They are supposed to do what is asked of them by their constituents, not their political party. Example: Mark Kirk's district, IL-10, was for Obama's plan 61% for, 38% against.

I wish more Representatives would actually vote on issues based on what their constituents want, and less how their political party's leaders (radio gods nonewithstanding) say they should vote.

By contrast, a quick survey of liberal web sites found no demands that the 44 Democrats who voted against the legislation be purged or punished in any way. This is why the Democrats control Congress and why Republicans won’t for a long time to come.

Republicans: Denounce Norm Coleman

2009-06-26T08:53:00.000-07:00

Seriously. The Minnesota citizens have waited long enought for representation. Its been now eight months since they voted. And they still don't have their senator.

The party that cried "Sore Looserman!" in 2000 (Gore was being a bit of a tool with all those recounts (and his invention of the internet haha)) needs to take their own advice.

Al Franken leads Coleman by at least 312 votes after all recounts. Yet he is still fighting. This isn't a noble fight, however.

Its a blatant voter rip off. The people spoke. They chose Franken. Deal with it dude. Stop being such an ass, and stop putting your career above the people you swore to serve. They don't want you!

The lower courts of Minnesota have spoken: Franken is the winner. Coleman is the loser. Stop denying the Minnesota Citizens democracy for your stupid partisanship.

Please, Republican Party: If you really stand for what you say you stand for, denounce Coleman and let the people speak.

Source

North Korea threatens "Nuclear Fire Shower" attack on US

2009-06-25T13:09:00.000-07:00

This is an update to my previous post.

North Korea has now directly threatened us.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but I think it has to be along the lines of:

Take out the Kang Nam.
If attacked by North Korea, then do the following:
Blowing up their navy while its all in the same spot.
Missile strikes against all military targets in the small country.
Invasion of special ops to take out all of Kim Jong's family heirs.

There is more, but that's just my ideas. This isn't "Pre-Emptive": This is response to a direct threat. Thoughts?

N. Korea needs to be put in its place.

2009-06-24T11:17:00.000-07:00

North Korea has threatened to "wipe out" the US and its allies today.

A US Destroyer has been following the Kang Nam, a North Korean ship suspected of transporting illicit weapons to Burma, off China's coast, in accordance with U.N. sanctions passed to punish the nation for the nuclear test last month.

The UN sanction requires that ships suspected of carrying illicit cargo to allow inspection at sea. If they won't comply, they will be escorted to the nearest port for inspection.

North Korea has not taken kindly to the resolution and the US's involvement in its enforcement.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

North Korea has banned ships from the waters off its east coast starting Thursday through July 10 for military exercises, Japan's Coast Guard said.

North Korea is expected to be testing short & medium range missiles during that time, including the one aimed at Hawaii.

Source

I am tired of being threatened by this small country and its smaller man in charge. I'm sure our ally, South Korea, is tired of it as well. We need to do something about this. What exactly, I'm not sure. But something is better than nothing.

Any suggestions?

Iranian Women Heroes of the Revolution

2009-06-23T14:58:00.000-07:00

Iranian women are quickly rising to the forefront of the Iranian revolution. In memory of "Neda," a girl that was shot even though she was not taking part in the protests, Iranian girls & women all over the country are "facing off" against the government.

...Another [woman] walks down the street, defiantly showing off her hair and body in a revealing dress. And still another woman says she's not scared of paramilitary forces -- no matter how many times she gets beaten.

...Amid the clashes and chaos, there has been a recurring scene on the streets of Tehran: Women, in their scarves and traditional clothing, at the heart of the struggle. Some are seen collecting rocks for ammunition against security forces, while video showed one woman trying to protect a fallen pro-government militiaman wounded in the government crackdown...

...Abbas Milani, the director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University, agreed that Neda was becoming a symbol for all the women who have become involved in the turmoil that has followed the disputed election. "She will become the image of this brutality and the role -- the truly significant role -- that women have played in fighting this regime. I think that women are the unsung heroes of the last few years. They are the ones who began chipping away the absolute authority of the mullahs."...

One woman says of the movement:

"I'm absolutely optimistic, because history has taught me that all the revolutions start like this," she said. "Every revolution has violence and some people die, but nothing stays like this forever."