The Owl's Nest

How the Great Recession is Different Than Other Recessions

2011-10-24T12:51:00.002-04:00

The Great Recession Hits American
       Wall Street wrecked the economy with the proverbial stuff hitting the fan in the last couple of years of the Bush administration. This is a direct result of deregulation lobbied for during the 1990s and 2000s. This complete melt down of our banking, housing and in the general economy has resulted in the loss of 20% of the national net worth, resulted in 15 million American families being under water with their mortgages, a few million more having completely lost their homes, 24 million Americans unable to find full time work even though the want it and need it. Additionally, there are 50 million Americans without any health insurance, tens of millions more without adequate health insurance (insurance that would result in the bankruptcy of the insured if catastrophic medical situations arise), and 47 million Americans on government food assistance. Let us not leave the 11 million underemployed Americans out in the cold either.

What Makes This Recession Different From Past Recessions?
    In past recessions, the economy slows down and many businesses lay off workings as a result. The job losses generally aren't localized but rather are scattered across many businesses throughout the economy. When the economy improves and business picks up, workers are hired to handle the additional demand. The job loss is temporary. This is what normally happens during a recession.
       Normally, banks loan each other huge short term loans. Normally banks make short term loans to businesses as well so business can make payroll, pay for raw materials or cover temporary cash flow shortages. These short term lines of credit keep the economic engine of America (and the world) chugging along just fine.        That is not what has happened this time.What happened this time is something different all together. This time, the banks freaked out - they realized that they had created trillions in toxic assets, that other banks had done the same. They realized that at any time, any bank, big or small, could go under. In fact, the larger the bank, the more likely they were to go under. So that short term credit froze up.
   As a result, many businesses went out of business, they went bankrupt. They couldn't make payroll - oh, they were fine, healthy, productive companies - they just lost the ability to cover their short term debt obligations due to the banks freezing up. Rather than generalized, shallow, temporary layoffs, we had permanent, localized layoffs. The jobs lost when credit froze up aren't coming back. This is why we were told at the time that the recovery would be a jobless recovery, remember? This is why unemployment hangs tough at around 9%.

Cutting Taxes For The Rich - Did/Does This Really Result In More Jobs?
If it does, lets do it again, if not, lets let the tax cuts expire, fair enough?

       When the Tax Relief & Reconciliation Act of 2001 (commonly called "The Bush Tax Cuts") was passed, unemployment was at 4.5%. If, indeed, cutting taxes for the rich results in job creation as has been claimed, one could expect to see an decrease in unemployment as a result. What happens instead is that unemployment goes up from 4.5% to 6.0% by 2003. The government's response was to cut taxes even more with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This further reduced taxes on the wealthy. Okay, if the theory that cutting taxes on the wealthy results in job creation is reality, then joblessness in America should be seen as going down from 2003 on. Take a look at the raw numbers, the actual unemployment rate here and judge for yourself.

The Bush Tax Cuts put a trillion dollars into the pockets of wealthy Americans between 2001 and 2011. Can you say the changes in unemployment justify continuing the Bush Tax Cuts?

Dave Camp's "Democrats' Tax Bomb Will Hit Every American" Fantasy Based Fear Rant

2010-11-07T12:53:00.000-05:00

Dave Camp's Profile on "Line of Sight" Blog

Nashville, TN. - Nashville, Tennessee? Really? Isn't Dave Camp a congressional representative from Michigan? Indeed, he is. However, his user profile from his latest blog on the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts posted on September 20, 2010, on the ultra-conservative website "A Line Of Sight" shows him to be from Nashville, Tenn. This is just one minor issue I have with Mr. Camp's presentation to his Facebook Fans . You'd think if he were going to use a ghost writer, if that is what he did (hard to imagine he made the mistake of saying he was from Tennessee himself), he'd at least use one located in Michigan, the state he represents. Michigan has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States. Heck, Mexico has a lower unemployment rate than Michigan does!

My first question when I read Dave's article "Democrat's Tax Bomb To Hit All Americans" was "Where is the link to the bill that he is talking about?" and then I realized, he isn't speaking about the democrats passing bills that will increase the taxes on all Americans. Dave Camp is talking about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Dave states in his opening remarks "There is a massive tax bomb about to go off in Washington DC – one that will explode the tax bills of every family, senior and small business by $3.8 trillion over the next ten years. While the countdown clock is fast approaching zero, Democrats are running around like a version of Keystone Kops, providing no security, but without the laughs."

Now, the truth is, the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire here in the very near future. However, the Obama administration wants to continue those tax cuts for all but the multimillionaires and billionaires in America. So what is Dave Camp blathering on and on about all the time? He won't come out and say it, but he is right - if all the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire ALL Americans will have to pay more in taxes.

However, it is the Republicans in the Senate who are blocking key legislation introduced by the Democrats which would extend the Bush Tax cuts for the average American (people like you and me) and for small businesses (mom and pop shop) and which would require the wealthiest to pay more.

Dave Camp continues to complain about his colleges in the senate: "This tax bomb will raise marginal tax rates for individuals and families at every income level. It will force hard working Americans to pay over $200 billion more in taxes next year alone. On January 1, the child tax credit will immediately be cut in half, from $1,000 to $500 per child, costing 31 million families an average of $1,033 in higher taxes next year. The marriage penalties in the standard deduction and the 15% bracket will return, costing 35 million married couples an average of $595 in higher taxes in 2011. And, the 10% bracket will be eliminated, raising the lowest tax rate to 15% and costing 88 million taxpayers an average of $503 in higher taxes next year."

He is right again: if the republicans in the senate continue to block the passage of the Democrat's legislation that will extend these tax credits for the lower and middle class, American's will be hit.

So I have a question for Dave Camp: Since it is the GOP senators that are blocking the passage of the extension of the middle and lower class tax cuts, why isn't he writing articles about them and asking them to do what is best for America?

Dave Camp spares no one from the fear factor while mistakenly blaming the democrats for the actions of the GOP Senators:

Grieving families: "Also looming ominously on the horizon is the reinstatement of the estate tax, which will jump from 0% to 55% next year."

Senior Citizens: "Millions of seniors who invest their retirement savings – including more than half of all seniors who pay income taxes – will see tax rates on capital gains and dividends rise significantly, imposing an average tax hit of $1,700."

Small Businesses: "Worse yet, this tax hike will hit employers – especially small businesses – at a time when unemployment continues to hover close to 10%."

And then Dave Camp makes the most worrisome comment I've heard from him in a while. He states: "Instead of raising taxes and making it harder for small businesses to create jobs, we should cut non-security government spending to 2008 levels and freeze current tax rates for at least the next two years."

Dave Camp is the Republican senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee and what is worrisome is that he fails to understand that constricting government spending during an economic downturn or during a recession (like the recession we are still in) is a huge mistake. The government did this in 1937, which resulted in the double dip of the Great Depression.

No, Dave Camp, I'm sorry. It is time for Michigan to have someone in your seat who understands not only the problems of the broader economy, but those of Michigan's economy. Mr. Camp, the economic policies that you supported under George W. Bush have failed America and yet you insist on returning to them. You bear false witness against the Democrats while failing to point out that it is your own political party that is blocking a continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Middle Class in the Senate.

So how about it Dave? Will you support cutting taxes for middle and lower class Americans and raising them for the upper class? America needs the upper class to step up, show us they are patriots and help America pull out of the hole we are in.

K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid.)

2010-08-07T14:14:00.000-04:00

I'm a pragmatical, radical, anti-hysterical, tree huggin', air breathin', cheeseburger eatin’, anti-fanatical, American patriotical, coffee drinkin’ citizen. In other words, if a politician is talking about real solutions to real problems, and I don’t mean this death panel, anti-muslim sword rattle, can’t figure out how to move the Great Wall of China to the Mexican American border fantasy folks talking smack either – I mean real solutions to real problems, then hey, I’m voting for you. But lets get a few things straight first, okay?

The Right tends to prides it self on being pro-life, and then tends to spend our public monies on death and war and secular big business combined with working hard to defeat health care for all Americans, all the while they pass laws to send jobs overseas and cut welfare for the not-working folks left behind. As much as the Right labels the Left “The Big Spenders”, Republican presidents have been the ones who have initiated budgets with huge deficits – that is what Voodoo Economics does man! Trickle up wealth, man.

The Right refuses to extend unemployment insurance payments to Americans who have been out of work for 99 or more weeks, claiming they don’t want to increase the national debt, but then argue that extending tax cuts for the rich are necessary, even though doing so will add a trillion to our nation debt over the next ten years just like they added a trillion dollars to our national debt over the past ten years. Seriously, if those tax cuts are supposed to create jobs, what happened to the jobs, man?

They argue that adding to the deficit to continue loosing a war in the middle east is necessary as well. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, you’re blaming the other guy for the huge debt.

Talk is cheap. It is time to be serious about working together as Americans for sane, responsible, and sustainable governance. How about putting tariffs on imported goods so they are slightly more expensive to import as they would be to manufacture here? Hey, we’ll all be back to work. The government will have more income than out go, and America will be America again.

Rep. Dave Camp’s [R-MI] “One Minute” Speech on Health Care

2010-03-17T13:59:00.003-04:00

Rep. Dave Camp’s [R-MI] “One Minute” Speech on Health Care

"Americans do not want a government takeover of health care.” Rep. Camp, the current bill, does not constitute a government take over of the health care system. The bill does not call for the seizure of all medical buildings and other facilities, does not mandate that all health care workers become federal employees, does not call for outlawing private health care insurance and does not call for making all health care related services publicly owned. To call it a “government take over of health care” is to intentionally mislead your constituents and others who might happen on your video speech.

“They do not want a two thousand page bill that puts federal bureaucrats in charge of their personal health care decisions.” - This is true and good because the current bill does not put “federal bureaucrats in change of … personal health care decisions.” This is misleading. The current bill puts federal regulation in-between the insurance provider and the citizen, not between the health care provider and the citizen. Again, this misinformation is fear based and doesn’t speak to solving a problem. It serves to create a different problem.

Additionally, when formatted in the usual manner, that is in 12 point, Times New Roman font, single spaced, with 1” margins all around and without a number in front of each sentence, the bill is around 600 pages. If you and your staff, combined with the rest of the GOP members and their staff can’t make sense of 600 pages of legislation, perhaps all y’all are in the wrong business. I’ve read it, researched it and can understand it.

Except in the case of abortion, no where does the legislation place the federal government or any other aspect of government in-between me and the health care providers I work with.

“They do not want a half a trillion dollar cut in Medicare to fund a new entitlement program, and they do not want a half a trillion dollar increase in taxes, or one trillion dollars in new federal spending.” - 500 billion in wasted funds has been identified within the Medicare program. Why shouldn’t it be eliminated? To imply it is being cut to “fund a new entitlement program” is misleading. The GOP complained about waste in the Medicare system, okay, so it has been reduced. What is the problem with that?

Oh, and in order not to mislead people, you ought to say “one trillion dollars over ten years” just so folks don’t think we, the people, need to pull a trillion out of our pockets up front.

“They do not want the back room deals that were cut to buy off special interests, and they certainly don't want a health care bill that will increase the cost of their health insurance but that is exactly what the democrat bill does and that is exactly what the democrats are trying to cram through congress this week.” - Seriously? Trying to “cram” through? I can’t say I blame them with the road blocks you and your Status Quo Support Team have thrown up in the way of things. Perhaps if all y’all hadn’t been so obstructionist, the dems wouldn’t have been in positions where votes were so important that back room deals, like the Stupak Amendment, needed to be cut to get the bill passed. Have you thought about that? I have and you and yours have really done it this time, Rep. Camp!

“If the majority wants to pass this bill, they ought to have the guts to hold an up or down vote and not try to hide from the American people what is really being voted on.” - Oh, wouldn’t it be nice if the GOP allowed up or down votes, didn’t filibuster, didn’t attempt to attach meaningless amendments, invoke obstructionist procedures and didn’t lie to the American people?

I’m sorry, you don’t feel you are lying about things?

Well, given this bill needs to be presented to the public for 72 hours prior to a vote as per procedure, why then would you say the dems are hiding it from the American people? The way the dems are crafting this bill is exactly the same way the republicans (and democrats) have crafted bills for decades. It is intentionally misleading to imply that something out of the ordinary is happening here.

Rep. Camp, if you really want an up or down vote, tell your party to change their priority from defeating Obama to passing meaningful health care reform. You see, the “American People” aren’t fooled by what you and the GOP are doing.

“Madam speaker, Americans do not want and can't afford this bill. Lets scrape it and start over. I yield back." - According to the CBO, this bill reduces the federal deficit by 100 billion dollars over ten years. Rep. Camp, please explain why we can’t afford a reduction in the federal deficit?And please don't go into how you think the CBO has been fooled by the contents of the bill. That simply doesn't happen. The folks at the CBO are the best in the world at this sort of thing.

As far as starting over goes, are you insane? Why would we, the people, want to spend another year listening to lies about health care from the industry, from pseudo-grassroots organizations, delusional and paranoid citizens and the GOP? Seriously, death panels? Uncle Sam is going to kill Grandma? Start over? Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

How about we pass these reforms, then start working on a real public option? A real public option is critical to the long term survival of the federal budget and to the short term survival of the citizen:

When rich and powerful interests control the very means by which we extend our lives (as they now do) & those same resources are withheld from citizens for the sack of profits (as they now are) – when such action results in the deaths of thousands each year (as, indeed, it now does), the government is constitutionally obligated to protect citizens against such fatal economic aggression.

We have no other right and moral course but to take control from private interest to protect the lives of our citizens, for private interest has shown itself incapable of honoring life and putting people’s lives before obscene profits.

So at the end of the day, the way you vote, Rep. Camp, tells the good people of Michigan whether you are on the side of profits or we, the people.

It will only be when the intelligentsia of both parties come together in the united cause of saving this great nation from the python's grip of greed that we will indeed take the best of both, neither to borrow and spend, nor tax and spend; but indeed, to accept the reality that unregulated capitalism, void of economic redistribution (and what is a tax other than economic redistribution of wealth?) – that the free market is nothing more than the longest road from feudalism to feudalism, for at the end of the day, democracy will be controlled by the institutionalized wealth of a few families, who will become the new royalty, while the masses will fall, by force, into permanent poverty, devoid of any hope of achieving the American Dream en masse, and who will become the new serfs.

At this time in our history, we need elder statesmen, not bleeding deacons.

A Review of Rep. Dave Camp's (R-MI) "Week In Review"

2010-03-08T13:58:00.000-05:00

I've had it with politicians and other people in the spot light who think they can mislead the people with fear and do so with impunity.

It is important that ALL politicians and public servants present facts to the American people. You wouldn't think that needs to be said; however, in today's political climate of "anything goes", it definitely needs to be said. In fact, it is the reason for having decieded to write this particular article in the first place.

You see, I have a representative that insists on distorting facts, making false claims and simply presenting misinformation - to what end, one can only guess, but my money is on returning his political party to power. I'm not interested in power games, I want truth and policy based on facts, not fear inducing fantasies.

In the spirit of dealing with my frustration with this situation in a constructive and civil manner, a link to the original "Week In Review" from Rep. Dave Camp is included here.

Lets talk about jobs. First off, stating that the unemployment level is 30% higher "than the Obama administration promised" is simply flat out wrong. The Obama administration never promised that unemployment would remain at any level. To say that the unemployment level is 30% higher than the administration's projections or estimates is fair, honest and not misleading in any way. And yes, saying he broke a promise (that was never made) is misleading.

When viewing the complete article, the original graph used by the administration is included with some modification. The title of the graph is "Democratic Projection of Unemployment Rate with Stimulas . . ." Now I ask you, is a projection the same as a promise?

America is having its fair share of troubles these days and therefore, more than ever, Americans need honest, fact based political discourse on the issues related to our economy and to our lives. What we need least of all is the intentional use of fear as outlined in the GOP Fund raising Guide for the 2010 elections .

So what is this government take over of health care? Neither bill suggests that the government seize all the buildings related to the health care system. Neither bill suggests that all doctors, nurses and other health care professionals become federal employees. Neither bill suggests eliminating private health care insurance. All three of these things would need to occur in order for the government to "take over" health care. In fact, few elements of either bill deals with health care directly. The vast an overwhelming number of changes the bills make are related to heath care insurance. For example, they eliminate being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions. The reality is that neither bill is a government take over of health care, nor a government take over of the health care insurance industry.

In this group, we see that for some reason, the GOP has decided that "using the nuclear option" doesn't mean what it has meant for decades: the leader of the senate declares that the rules of the senate are null and void because they were passes in a previous congress and therefore the only rules that apply are those found in the constitution, i.e. simple majority vote on legislation. Reconciliation is NOT the nuclear option.

Perhaps the GOP is planning to use the real nuclear option if they should some day retake control of the senate and are "prepping" the citizens for it by making us think it means something other than what it means? At any rate, for my rep to be misusing the term tells me A) He isn't as informed about the senate as he needs to be; or B) He is intentionally misleading his constituents for some unknown reason in step with the rest of the GOP. Rep. Camp writes on his web site "“I am disappointed that Democrats are moving ahead with the nuclear option." - This is completely false.

I've had it with statements that are intentionally misleading or are indicitive of an ignorant politician. Either way, I can't support a politician that relies upon his or her own facts. Opinion is one thing - an honest disagreement about the substance of policy is one thing, but to actively engage in spreading fear to regain control of our government rather than working toward resolving the problems we have is right out.

That is why I've joined the Mid-Michigan chapter of the Coffee Party... I want honest government working to solve America's problems.

Only two kinds of people oppose health care insurance reform. Are you one of them?

2010-02-03T12:13:00.002-05:00

Only two kinds of people oppose health care insurance reform.
Are you one of them?

Yep, only two kinds of people: 1) people who value money more than human life; and 2) people who aren’t informed with facts enough to make a sane choice. If that ticks you off, you might be one of these two types of people, so keep reading.

Hey, look, what I mean by real health care reform is a single payer public option system for health care insurance, no refusal to insure for pre-existing conditions, no yearly or life time caps on benefits and services, no “doughnut hole” for prescriptions and no excuses for not having insurance.

Now wait, slow down there a minute – don’t go telling me that single payer public option means the United States is becoming a socialist country, that is flat out BS. Don’t tell me that a single payer public option system means a government take-over of the health care system either. That is simply something ignorant politicians spout because they lack the brains to understand what is best for the future of our country. Yea, that’s right.

Hey, listen, stop yelling long enough to hear some straight thinking for a few minutes, okay? I care as much about this country as you do. I’m just as concerned for my children as you are for yours. So take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a while. This is my blog, which means I have the right to speak through the written word and you have the right to read it – besides, I can’t hear you ranting on this side of the computer screen anyway.

First off, in countries with truly socialized medicine, all the doctors, nurses, specialists, surgeons etc. are government employees. They didn’t tell you that, did they? Not one healthcare bill introduced in Congress has included making these folks government employees. And that is because these bills aren’t about a government take-over of health care, they are about health-care insurance reform. Huge difference.

In a truly socialized medical system, all the hospitals, treatment centers, outpatient clinics, etc. that are a part of that government run system are owned by the government. They didn’t tell you that, did they? Not one bill introduced in Congress calls for the seizure of these buildings and properties in an effort to socialize our medical delivery system. And that is because these bills aren’t about a government take-over of health care, they are about health-care insurance reform. Huge difference.

Single payer public option insurance doesn’t change who doctors work for or who owns the hospital. Single payer public option means we all pay into the same insurance pool, spreading the costs out over a larger pool, reducing the costs for everyone. Now, keep reading, I’ll prove to you that I’m right about this.

Republicans Scream For More Competition, Oppose Ending Anti-Trust Exemption

One of the issues that I’ve heard from republicans is that there isn’t enough competition between health insurance providers to keep premiums down. First, note that republicans are talking about health insurance, not doctors and hospitals. See what I mean? The republicans suggest that insurance companies be allowed to offer their policies to people in neighboring states. My question is, why aren’t they allowed to do so now?

The reason the don’t do it now is because in some states, there are so few people that the insurance pool isn’t sufficiently large enough to allow competition and still have an affordable premium, so insurance companies are allowed monopolies.

So we have two concepts illustrated here: 1) a large pool is needed to support affordable insurance premiums as demonstrated by the insurance company practices; and 2) insurance companies are allowed monopolies to keep costs down.

Okay, so then how are insurance companies going to reduce premiums, the goal of reform, by doing things they all ready claim to increase premiums? And more importantly, if as the republicans claim, more competition is what is needed to reduce the cost of premiums, why are the republicans against ending the health insurance exemption from anti-trust laws? Having a monopoly is the complete opposite of competition, right?

Something doesn’t add up there.

Current Insurance Practices Support Single payer public option Concept

Oh, yes they do!

Since the health insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws, that is to say that it is legal for health insurance companies to have monopolies, the industry has worked in concert to divide up areas with low populations so that the largest possible pool can be created to reduce per-participant costs (premiums). In other words, in areas of low population, the industry has decided that in order to keep premiums affordable and as low as possible, a monopoly is required. Another name for monopoly is Single payer public option. One company that you buy insurance from and one company that pays the health care provider. A monopoly. A single payer public option. Humm.

How can single payer public option be good for low population areas where the insurance industry agrees that a monopoly yields the lowest prices, but then turn around and tell us that if we are all in the same pool, costs won’t be the lowest possible?

Okay, so if we do what the republicans suggest, and we allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition but allow them to keep their legal right to form monopolies (single payer public option zones), which are the exact opposite of more competition, how does that lower premiums? Seems we'd be dividing folks up into more and smaller pools, no? That would increase premiums...

Well, hey, look, here is how insurance works, just so we are both on the same page. With insurance, the risk of the group that has the insurance is calculated along with other costs and the price of the premium is arrived at. It is far more complicated than that in detail, but that is the general idea. This is true for car insurance, house insurance, life insurance, all insurance to be sure. The fewer members of the pool means the risk is spread out over a smaller number of people therefore the individual costs are high. The more people in the pool (new homes, old homes, rented homes, owned homes, new cars, old cars, etc) the more the risk is spread out and the lower the cost to the individuals in the pool. That is why it has made sense to allow monopolies in low population areas and why there is room for more players in large population areas.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if you create the largest pool possible for the risk to be spread out over, the lower the overall cost to the individual participants.

And that is what single payer public option means – it means we are all in the same pool to have the lowest costs possible. And in a single payer public option system, it makes sense to require all adult people to buy insurance, or to raise taxes to cover the cost (eliminating your health care premium at the same time).

So why do you oppose lowering health care premiums for all Americans?

Lets take a closer look at how the system works right now.

There are two main groups of people whose health is worse than the rest of society, therefore, their health care costs are higher. Those two groups are poor people and old people. The healthiest group of people are – well, in general, the more money people make, the healthier people tend to be. The more money you make, the more likely it is that you will have health insurance.

The healthier the pool of people insured, the higher the insurance companies profits.

Okay, so I think I understand how this is structured now.

Poor people get Medicaid and old people get Medicare, both of which are government run health care insurance programs. This means that the two groups with the highest costs are insured by the tax payers, while the healthiest groups are insured by the health insurance industry. Put another way, the liability is socialized while the profits are privatized. That sucks.

Lets go one step further into the mud, shall we?

Lets take a look at the uninsured, who also have a real high health care cost compared to insured groups. Uninsured people use the ER more than any other group. This is the most expensive type of medical care. However, people without insurance don’t have the money to pay their medical bills. While they are making their minimum payments, if any at all, the hospital has to cover the costs themselves and does so by raising the prices they charge to those with insurance, you, the tax payer.

First, I want to thank you, the tax payer with health care insurance, for paying for the uninsured in the form of higher premiums, for paying for the old people in the form of higher taxes and for paying for the poor people in the form of higher taxes, as well as paying for your own insurance in the form of smaller paychecks and fewer raises.

And I must apologize because in all my wandering around within this issue I’ve forgotten why you are opposed to the health care insurance reforms and the single payer public option. Feel free to use the comment section below to remind me. Thanks in advance.

The Constitutional & Moral Imperative

When rich & powerful interests control the very means by which we extend our lives (as they now do) & those same resources are withheld from citizens for the sack of profits (as they now are) – when such action results in the deaths of thousands each year (as, indeed, it now does), the government is constitutionally obligated to protect citizens against such fatal aggression. We have no other course but to take control from private interest to protect the lives of our citizens, for private interest has shown itself incapable of honoring life and putting people’s lives before obscene profits.

Thanks for reading my blog! Post a comment! Share this with others!

Serious or sarcastic? I can't tell!

2009-12-09T12:11:00.002-05:00

From time to time, I read a response from someone that just blows my mind because their ideas are so alien, so outrageous and yet I understand that they are perfectly serious in regard to what they are saying. Their statement is a true reflection of their mind. So be it.

Even more rare is the post that not only blows my mind, but also leaves me wondering if the comment is a serious comment or a sarcastic comment disguised as a serious one. Such is the case with the following comment I recently read as a response to an article attributed to lay author Sarah Palin (actually ghost authored for her) entitled Copenhagen's political science .

Here is the post (click to enlarge, back button to return to post):

So what is your vote on this comment? Is it seriously how someone thinks? Is it sarcasm disguised as a real sentiment? I'd like to hear from you!

The Earth's Ten Commandments

2009-11-22T22:27:00.002-05:00

Earth's Ten Commandments -- Ernest Callenbach 1990, author of "Ecotopia"

Thou shalt love and honor the Earth for it blesses thy life and governs thy survival.
Thou shalt keep each day sacred to the Earth and celebrate the turning of its seasons.
Thou shalt not hold thyself above other living things nor drive them into extinction.
Thou shalt give thanks for thy food to the creatures and plants that nourish thee.
Thou shalt limit thy offspring for multitudes of people are a burden unto the Earth.
Thou shalt not kill nor waste the Earth's riches upon weapons of war.
Thou shalt not pursue profit at the Earth's expense but strive to restore its damaged majesty.
Thou shalt not hide from thyself or others the consequences of thy actions upon the Earth.
Thou shalt not steal from future generations by impoverishing or poisoning the Earth.
Thou shalt consume material goods in moderation so all may share the Earth's bounty.

Imagine!

Tricky Rick Perry Sues For Peace, Fears NY23 Repeat

2009-11-14T22:11:00.002-05:00

Teabaggers & Palin Flock to Perry,
Regular Republicans Wince

It is no secret that Tricky Rick Perry has been courting the Tea Party conservatives for the better part of a year now. He has raised the flag of Texas in his tea party speeches about the right to secede. He has participated in the closed door meetings at the Value Voters summit. He has even accepted the endorsement of Sarah Palin.

But recently, his campaign has taken a shift back to the traditional Texan Republican base. Will the Tea Party conservatives trust his two-timing ways? Will the traditional Texas Republican machine forgive his wander lust?

In a recent email to Tricky Rick Perry's supporters, he sues for peace between the Texas Tea Party/Palin supporters and the Regular Republicans and points to a letter from former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas George W. Strake, Jr.. Strake recently sent the letter to members of the Republican party all across Texas. It is unknown whether or not Strake intended it to be an endorsement for Perry or if Tricky Rick is simply using it to further his own re-election agenda.

Apparently, George W. Strake wants to unite the conservatives in Texas with the traditional republicans for fear of spilling too much republican blood, and Tricky Rick is all too eager to grab those coat tails. In doing so, he risks having himself labeled a republican-in-name-only (R.I.N.O.) in supporting the traditional republican base. Tricky Rick's campaign manager Rob Johnson sent the email out on November 14th, 2009, suing for peace. Here is the email:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

With Senator Hutchison's recent decision to remain in Washington and not resign her Senate seat, we thought you might be interested in a quick news update on the campaign.

We are glad that Senator Hutchison has finally made a decision not to resign. With so many missed votes already this year, hopefully her decision will allow her to again become a full-time senator for the people of Texas.

Please take a look at these two news stories, which explain her decision quite well:

• WFAA, with video
• Dallas Morning News

We also thought you might be interested in reading a few lines from a recent letter George W. Strake, Jr., former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, sent out to Republicans across Texas:

As someone who helped build our Republican Majority in Texas since the days Democrats dominated every statewide office and both houses of the legislature, and as someone who has supported Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's four campaigns for the U.S. Senate, I write to you today with great concern about the damage that is about to be done when our Republican Governor and Republican U.S. Senator collide in what will be a bloody primary, AND the blood will be all Republican.

....

Now is the time for patriotism and unity. The future of our nation is at risk. We need to come together as Republicans and deliver a clear message to our fellow Texans that we are a united party, united in opposition to the radical liberalism of Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic Party.

Download the entire letter here.

Thank you for your continued energy and enthusiasm.

Rob Johnson
Campaign Manager

Get Involved: Visit RickPerry.org/blog to join the conversation, join the Governor's Facebook page, or follow the Governor on Twitter.

Political advertisement paid for by Texans for Rick Perry PMB 217, P.O. Box 2013, Austin, Texas 78768

Not wanting to have a repeat of NY23, Tricky Rick hopes to have his cake and eat it too by attempting to secure both the Tea Party Conservatives and the Regular Republicans. Can Tricky Rick pull it off? Can he continue to appear to be sympathetic to the conservative movement while still making his "business as usual" back room deals with long time traditional republican supporters? If he does, who do you think he will remember after the election, the conservatives or the capitalists that have kept him in power all these years?

Palin Takes Anti-Rule-of-Law Stand on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

2009-11-14T00:58:00.001-05:00

Sarah Palin opens her Facebook post with: “Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.”

Sarah seems bewildered at why the President of the United States would insist that the United States follow the constitution by putting a terrorist on trial for the murder of thousands of Americans.

She continues: “It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities.”

It would seem Sarah Palin has no confidence in the best legal system in the world, nor in the city with the best lawyers in the world. Her fear that the trial might some how result in the release of this mass murderer seems to over-ride her patriotism by breaking the Republican rule that sitting Presidents shouldn’t be criticized during a time of war.

It is still hard to imagine that the government of the United States of America, under George Bush, denied these murderous villains their right to a speedy trial: "After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for that attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice," Attorney General Eric Holder said. "They will be brought to New York -- to New York -- to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood."

Eight years in prison without a trial! Where is Sarah Palin’s outrage that our constitution was ignored in this case? Where is Sarah Palin’s support for the Rule of Law? If she is so scared that she would be unwilling to take constitutionally appropriate action in this case if SHE were president, she is unfit for that office.

In America, it is the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Fear, the ought guide the actions of a President.

Sarah continues with: “If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high.” Perhaps she'd simply prefer a good ol' fasioned lynching instead of a trial?

What Sarah fails to understand is that at the end of the day, it really isn’t an Obama Administration decision. In America, people have a right to a speedy trial. In America, true patriots don’t let fear trample the constitution. In America, we trust our legal system to serve justice. You betcha we do!

Not the stuff Presidents are made of.

References:

Obama Administration's Atrocious Decision
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=100000427154637#/note.php?note_id=173486643434&id=24718773587&ref=nf

Critics Weigh Cost of Trying Alleged 9/11 Plotters in New York
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/critics-blast-decision-send-alleged-plotters-new-york-trial/

We should get a divorce!!

2009-11-09T23:50:00.012-05:00

FEEL FREE TO COPY AND POST ANY WHERE YOU WANT!!

In response to:

Theo Sparks, “The Last Few” blog, December 29, 2008 - Let's Get A Divorce!
If you haven't read this suggested divorce from Teabagger blogger Theo Sparks, please take a minute to right-click on the link, open it in a new window, and have a quick read....otherwise, my response may leave you wondering why I'm bothering with this!!

We should get a divorce!! (Sorry Texas! It is just that you are about the right size!)

Dear American Irrational Righters, Teabaggers, Neocons, Republicans, Fascists, White Supremacists, Dittoheads, Beckernoids, Libritarians and Obama haters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, being the last time you went McCarthy on me. For the most part, it has been okay, with the exception of 8 or so bad years.

But the whole of your behavior since the latest election has made me realize that I want a divorce. I want you to know I’ve tolerated your spoiled brat behavior for many years for the sake of honoring the constitution and your right to remain on a dry drunk, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.

We will never agree in regard to misinforming the American people as an excuse to go to war, lying about who did what or manipulating the masses with fear or that the poor are simply insurance against "wage inflation".

Let’s just call it irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is my response to your suggested model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass, each taking a portion of the land based on the percentage of folks that agree with the ideology in question. Lets keep it simple, you get Texas. Tricky Rick Perry wants to secede anyway, so why not? Texas is about 20% of the land mass and about 20% of the people support your 18th century values.

Since Fort Hood allows Pagans to practice their religion on base, we’ll move Fort Hood to Michigan, they’ll appreciate it (the Pagans, and the Michiganders). And given Michigan’s abundant support services for the working poor and the fact that you’ll be stopping welfare and food stamps, so will the our fine military personal, given you’ve been paying them less than poverty wages for years.

After that, dividing up the rest of the, dare I say at the risk of sounding socialist, “community property” should be relatively easy! As you stated: "Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate values."

We’ll keep the supreme court since you all believe they aren’t doing their job anyway, claiming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Health Care Reform, Gay Marriage and Roe v Wade really are unconstitutional. You take your Bible, we'll keep our copy and the libraries, natural history museums and those liberal universities you hate so much.

You can keep torture, we'll keep Habeas Corpus. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem, we're sure you'll be happy whistling "Dixie".

Since you can’t be trusted to not start pre-emptive wars, don’t believe in diplomacy and believe religions other than your own should be cleansed from the earth, we’ll keep the cops, the military and the nukes. You can have the NRA, the Teabaggers and, of course, your firearms. (No, Teabaggers is not a sexual reference, it is a political one. Get over it.)

You’ll need them since we’re keeping the Border Patrol, but moving them to the northern Texas borders where we plan to use unspent stimulus money for “make work” jobs building a new wall. We’re sure you won’t mind since none of you voted for the simulas anyway, and we'll be paying it back. Sorry, but you’ll have to be on the other side of wall: hence, keep your firearms, you’ll need them.

You can keep the free market, we’ll settle for regulated capitalism so we don’t get robbed blind again. You can keep the greedy corporations, we’ll keep those that are socially responsible.

Since Wall Street owes us both from the TARP your President passed, you get the 20% of Wall Street that believes in free market and we’ll keep the other 80% that want an honest, level playing field, and real long term growth.

You can start a new exchange in the empty NASA buildings; we’re keeping the space program since it has no military purpose.

We’ll take the peaceniks and the war protestors and the diplomats and you can retain your right to invade and hammer places that you think threaten you. When your way of life is under assault, we’ll move in to protect the oil fields. We know you’d want us to.

And since you’re against “Big Government”, we’re keeping the post office, FEMA, USDA, FAA, NOAA, DOA, DOE, FDA, CDC, DOT, DOJ, NATO, SAC and many others as well. You don’t believe they do a good job anyway.

And by the way, we are keeping the U.N. and won’t be paying your share of the dues any longer. You can use the empty buildings from the above groups for your embassies should you decide not to be isolationists and are allowed to join at some future date. (We're keeping the UN veto.)

You’ll have to start minting your own money. We know how upset you’ve been lately about the Fed printing money, so we’re keeping the Fed as well. The Dallas branch of the Fed. can move to "People's Republic of Ann Arbor, Michigan" as you've so affectionately called her over the years.

You can put Reagan on your twenty dollar gold piece, we won’t mind. We’re keeping Jackson on our twenty dollar bill since he started the Democratic Party and is the only President to ever completely pay off the national debt.

You can keep the SUVs, Hummers and other gas guzzling dinosaurs, we’re going electric. We’re letting you know now so you can diversify away from big oil or sell it to China.

We’ll go for universal health care and you get the insurance companies and can continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right.

You can practice “trickle down economics” because we’ve all ready given “trickle up poverty” a try and don’t like it. By the way, how's that cut-taxes-for-the-rich, double-the-national-debt, free-market thingy working out for ya? We think it sucks, you can keep it, too.

And since you fail to understand them, we’ll keep our history, our name, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights and especially our flag because these things have been fought for by Americans of all colors, all creeds, all nationalities, all sexual orientations and all religions but rarely by the rich, the wealthy, the well connected – you know, your people.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded people.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,
Robert Hall

P.S. You also get Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt, Armey, Cheney, Palin and of course the only “News” station you need, Fox.

P.S.S. Since Reagan doubled the national debt and since Bush doubled the national debt, we think it is only fair that you get the 7 trillion in debt they spent, plus one trillion for interest accrued. Maybe you can pay China back with oil, since we're going electric.

P.S.S.S. We’re pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq; feel free to fill void left behind.

On the other hand, if you want to stop making things up, focus on debating substance instead of fantasy and are seriously interested in helping to solve the immense problems facing America, well, actions speak louder than the shouting you did at the Town Hall meetings this past summer.....

GOP Claims Democrats Ignore Unemployment

2009-11-07T02:43:00.001-05:00

After Seven Weeks of Holding Up The Unemployment Extension Bill,
GOP Claims Dems Ignore Unemployment

After blocking the unemployment extension bill for 7 weeks with amendments dealing with ACORN and other non-unemployment related items and by voting against allowing the bill’s rapid passage by not allowing debate, the GOP published some unemployment statistics in their article “While Democrats Ignore Unemployment, Americas Pay the Price” posted on the GOP.gov website by an unknown author. One statistic they failed to mention was that during their 7 week blockage of the extension bill, 343,000 Americans fell off unemployment benefits into economic chaos.

Breakdown: Unemployment Statistics Mentioned in GOP Article
(GOP Stats in green)

*15,700,000: Americans unemployed and looking for work - the highest number ever.

8.2 million Americans have become unemployed since the beginning of the Great Recession (Dec. 2007). Of the 15.7 million currently unemployed, 7.5 million were unemployed prior to the start of the Great Recession. Isn’t that interesting?

While 15,700,000 may indeed be the highest raw number of unemployed Americans to date, as a percentage of the work force (which is how unemployment is measured, isn’t it?) we aren’t even close to the highest unemployment rate in American history.

Our current unemployment rate is only about 1/3 of the historic highs. The unemployment rate is currently 10.2% of our work force. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was 30% and higher.

*Since the trillion dollar Democrat "stimulus" was passed, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by more than 3.2 million.

5 million lost their jobs between the start of the Great Recession (Dec 2007) and the passage of the "stimulus" (Feb. 2009).

"Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points (“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – OCTOBER 2009”. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor).”

The “stimulus” was not a trillion dollars. It was $878 Billion, and yes, it makes a difference. One number is fact-based ($878 billion) and the other is fantasy (1 trillion). Americans need fact-based political discourse, not fantasy-based agitation.

*190,000: Individuals whose jobs were eliminated in October.

This is called “nonfarm payroll employment”. The three month (most recent three months) average for this measure is 188,000 per month (BLS). In the previous 3 months the average was 357,000 per month (BLS). So in the last three months, the monthly average for this measure has decreased by 48%! This is good news! It is yet another indication that we may well be heading out of the Great Recession!

We see even better news when the average number of lost jobs per month between November 2008 and April, 2009 is considered. That average was 645,000 lost jobs per month (BLS). This reflects a strong post-stimulus reduction in the number of lost jobs. This point-in-time reference is used for consistency. It is not know what the impact of the stimulus has been on this measure to date. With only 25% of the stimulus funds having been spent, the actual impact is probably very small. Since the Great Recession started, nonfarm payroll employment has fallen by 7.3 million jobs (BLS).

*1,737,000: People unemployed in October because they have been laid off.

Wouldn’t it be more clear to state this is the total number of laid off workers since the start of the Great Depression rather than making it appear as if it is related solely to the month of October 2009?

*2,804,000: Jobs lost since Democrats' "stimulus" was passed in February.

Given that 8.2 million jobs have been lost since the start of the Great Recession (BLS) in December of 2007, this would mean that 5.396 million jobs were lost before the “Democrats’ “stimulus” was passed in Feb.” 2009. This means an average of 385,429 jobs were lost per month for 14 months prior to the Republican’s point-in-time reference and an average of 311,555 jobs were lost per month for the 9 months since the “Democrats’ “stimulus” was passed in February”.

Cleaning it up a bit, these numbers indicate that job losses have slowed down by 73,874 fewer lost jobs per month since the stimulus was passed by the Democrats. Loosing fewer jobs per month is a good thing, right?. This may be another indicator that we are moving out of the Great Recession.

*9,284,000: People who are working only part-time because they cannot find full time employment.

“The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in October at 9.3 million. (BLS)” This number was 9 million in May of 2009 as well.

* 2,373,000: People who want work, but who are not currently looking because of the state of the economy.

The number above isn’t found in BLS report at all. The closest statement that could reflect the number is: “Among the marginally attached, there were 808,000 discouraged workers in October, up from 484,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The other 1.6 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in October had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – OCTOBER 2009. page 2)”

IF this is where the number is coming from, it is presented in a very dishonest way.

* 5,594,000: People unemployed and searching for work for more than 27 weeks - the highest level ever.

“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed over the month at 5.6 million. (BLS)” It is also important to note that these statistics weren’t kept during the great depression. Had they been, our current numbers would not be any where near the historic highs of the Great Depression.

*1,090,000: Job seekers that are new entrants to the workforce and have yet to find a job.

This is a fair representation of the statistic.

*26.9: Average number of weeks job seekers are unemployed after losing their jobs - the highest number since the statistic was first recorded in 1948.

This is a fair representation of the statistic. It is also fair to mention that given the reality that this is the greatest economic downturn since 1948, it would expected that this number would be the highest on record.

*27.6%: Unemployment rate among job seekers between the ages of 16 and 19-the highest level since the statistic was first measured in 1948.

This is a fair representation of the statistic. It is also fair to mention that given the reality that this is the greatest economic downturn since 1948, it would expected that this number would be the highest on record.

*15.7%: Unemployment rate among African Americans-the highest level since 1985.

Highest unemployment rate among African Americans since Ronald Reagan was President. This is fair (those were some rough years, indeed).

*13.1%: Unemployment rate among Hispanics and Latinos.
*17.5%: Rate of under-employment (unemployed + working & not earning enough to live on).
*15.5%: Unemployment rate among job seekers without a high school degree.
*65.1%: Rate of the U.S. population in the workforce.

This is a fair representation of these last four statistics.

The question for you to consider and possibly comment on is whether or not the GOP presented these statistics in a fact-based way or whether they are presented with half-truths, misinformation and/or extreme bias?

Thanks in advance for your comments!

References:

Unknown, 2009. “While Democrats Ignore Unemployment, Americas Pay the Price”. Retrieved from http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/11/06/while-democrats-ignore-unemployment on Nov. 6, 2009

Gomstyn, Alice 2008. “Bailout Bill Basics: From TARP to Tax Breaks”. ABC NEWS Business Unit. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5932586 on Nov. 6, 2009

Unknown, 2009. “THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – OCTOBER 2009”. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf on Nov. 6, 2009

New Videos from Rep. Alan Grayson

2009-11-06T18:50:00.000-05:00

Thougth I'd share this list:

New Videos from Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-D)

Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-R) Deceives American Public on Fox News

2009-10-31T00:07:00.006-04:00

Michelle Bachman is the republican congresswoman from Minnesota. She appeared on Sean Hannity's program. Both her and Sean talk about what is on page 92 of the health care bill. Both Sean and Michelle present the idea to the viewers of Fox News that page 92 clearly states people will not be able to purchase private health care insurance which will lead to a single payer system and constitutes the US government sliding into socialism.

Here is the transcript of the video segment in question:

From "Michelle Bachman on Pelosi Health Care Bill: "This Is the Crown jewel of Socialism"
at 1 min 18 secs into the video:

Sean Hannity: "Now one of the other things, page 92, one of the main promises that the President made was that if you like your insurance, you'll be able to keep your insurance. Now you've spent time sifting through the bill. My read on page 92 is that that's not true. Your interpretation?"

Michelle Bachman: "I agree. It's not true. It's, it's very clear on page 92 that people will not get to because it says specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a 'date certain'. Which means, people will ultimately go into a single payer plan, where it is government providing health care and only one single government system,..."

Here is the text from page 92 of the Health Care Bill :

Is it clear to you that page 92 says what the elected member of the United States Congress says it does? Didn't she say "It's, it's very clear on page 92 that people will not get to because it says specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a 'date certain'."? Is this grounds for impeachment? Should Sean be fired for flat out misleading the American Public? Does the first amendment also mean there is no consequence for lying? What do you think?

Link to Health Care Bill

Sarah Palin's New Book Actually Longer Than Health Care Bill

2009-10-29T22:22:00.004-04:00

One of the complaints about the health care reform bill is that it is 2000 pages long. Actually, it is 1990 pages long, but, none the less, complain they do. Reminds me of my college days with the students, and myself sometimes complaining that there was just too much reading to do.

Saying the bill is 2000 pages long gives people a false impression of the actual length of the bill. First off, the bill is double spaced. The margins on the left and right are two inch margins, about twice as wide as the normal default margin. Additionally, there is a page number in the center of the top of the page that requires a lot of wasted space as well. Also relevant is the use of a 14 pt font.

In an effort to allow the average American to be to compare apples to apples when it comes to the bill’s length, lets format the bill in the usual manner and see what happens.

First of all, by single spacing the bill, the number of pages immediately drops to around 995 pages. Next, put the page number in the header as usual. Next, cut the font down to 12 pt, the usual size. Change the side margins to 1” instead of 2” and standard formatting is applied. Using page 88 of the bill, chosen at random as a page with all text, no large print or lists and page 88 can fit into one standard formatted page three times. This allows us to reduce the pages to around 331. With tables of content, some special divisions of sections and what-nots, lets round up to 400 pages of standard formatted text (verses 1990 of “legislative format” text).

Four hundred pages of text to revamp the world’s largest economy’s health care system. Not bad. To put this into a perspective which truly allows the average American to compare apples to apples, Sarah Palin’s new book “Going Rogue” is 432 pages long. Granted, there aren't any pictures in the Health Care Bill.

From Dave Camp's Website: Washington, D.C., Oct 29 - U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-MI, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member, today released the following quote in reaction to the Democrats finally revealing details of their health care bill, after nearly three months of closed door meetings: "Americans' health care is too important and too complex to risk on one gigantic bill that has been written behind closed doors. After three months, all that has changed is that Democrats have added 1,000 pages to it – ..."

Perhaps a bill the length of Sarah Palin's book is too long for Dave Camp and his republican friends to read. Judging from the "best seller" status of Palin's book, most Americans disagree.

PDF of page 88 in Legislative Format
PDF of page 88 in Standard Format (page 88 fits three times)

References:

Dave Camp's Facebook Page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Camp/6775033524?ref=sgm

Going Rogue: An American Life (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rogue-American-Sarah-Palin/dp/0061939897

Affordable Health Care for America Act
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Dave Camp Official US Congressmen Website
http://camp.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=151998

How to Stop Lots (But Not All) Clutter From Being Posted To News Feed

2009-10-26T21:14:00.005-04:00

PLEASE NOTE: NEW FIXES WILL BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE FACEBOOK GROUP

OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!

AS SOON AS THEY ARE POSTED TO THIS BLOG!!

We Can't Change What Others Publish, But We Can Reduce Our Own News Feed Clutter

And Can Spread The Word!

After tweeking and twitching some settings on FB yesterday, I've noticed I'm generating more clutter in the news feed. I've also made the following changes to reduce the clutter I publish to the news feed.

• Float your mouse over "Settings" to the right of your name and click on "Privacy".

• A new page will load.

• You will see "News feed and Wall" Click on it.

• For the minimum amount of clutter published to your news feed (from you), deselect everything.

• Click "Save"

You're friends will now have less clutter in their news feed. Reducing their clutter requires them to make the same changes, so share this link with them!

Thanks and good luck!

Send additional fixes you'd like to see blogged to robertemory@live.com -- and thanks in advance for sharing them!

GOP Sen. Sessions Puts Immigration Amendment on Unemployment Bill

2009-10-26T15:05:00.003-04:00

Republican Sen. Sessions (AL) today put an immigration amendment on the unemployment extension bill that would require all unemployment recipients to prove they are citizens of the United States before being allowed to collect benefits.

The amendment expands the existing E-Verify Program to include unemployment recipients. Currently the E-Verify program applies to federal contractors and other employers and is managed through the Department of Homeland Security. Sen. Sessions complained that his amendment to make the program permanent wasn’t included in the E-Verify 3 year extension bill which is waiting for the President’s signature.

If the Senate can’t get enough votes for cloture on Tuesday, Americans could be in for a long wait to receive an extension. Cloture is a process in the Senate which allows a bill to go directly to the floor for an up or down vote without the process of considering amendments. 60 votes are needed for cloture.

Meanwhile, 7,000 Americans a day are loosing their unemployment benefits. Many of these folks are finding themselves facing personal bankruptcy as a result of loosing their benefits. In Texas, the wait for foodstamps is at least two months.

The unemployment extension passed the House almost four weeks ago and has been held up in the Senate by GOP amendments such as one for ACORN, one for using stimulus funds to fund it (which they all voted against), and now this one dealing with immigration issues.

It would seem the GOP is more interested their agenda than for what is in the immediate best interest of the America people. One has to wonder why the GOP doesn’t pass the extension bill and introduce new bills dealing with these side issues at a later time, say five minutes after this extension bill passes?

You can call Sen. Sessions at (202) 224-4124, but receptionists are under strict orders not to accept opinion from out-of-state callers and will interrupt you, redirecting your call to the Capital operator without waiting to hear what you have to day.

Additionally, it would appear that his web form page is set to reject IP addresses that are out-of-state. (His opponent in the next election, yet unknown, will be accepting campaign contributions from folks outside of Alabama!) If you wish to write him, his mailing address is: Sen. Jeff Sessions, 335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

Other action you can take is to call the White House: “I’m asking the President NOT to sign the new E-Verify law unless Senator Sessions permanently withdraws his E-Verify amendment to the unemployment extension bill.”

The White House Comments phone number is (202) 456-1111 or Contact The White House (Webform)

If you’re a Facebook user and would like updates to the unemployment extension bill, please join “We Support The Unemployment Extension Bill”.

References:

Sen. Sessions Offers E-Verify Amendment to Unemployment Extension
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/october-26-2009/sen-sessions-pushes-e-verify.html

Sessions: Congress erred in E-Verify extension vote
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20091023/NEWS02/910230321/Sessions++Congress+erred+in+E-Verify+extension+vote

Contact The White House (Webform)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Keeping Pages You Join Private On Facebook

2009-10-25T16:46:00.002-04:00

PLEASE NOT: NEW FIXES WILL BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE FACEBOOK GROUP

OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!

AS SOON AS THEY ARE POSTED TO THIS BLOG!!

PLEASE NOTE: SOME FOLKS HAVE THIS OPTION, SOME DON'T - IF YOU DON'T, CHECK BACK TOMORROW - HUNTING DOWN THE FIX TONIGHT!!

If you want to keep the Fan Pages you join private on Facebook, here are the simple steps you need to follow to change your permission settings and avoid those misunderstandings!

Float your mouse over "Settings" to the right of your name and select "Applications".
A new page will load.
Click the drop down menu in the "Show:" box on the upper right of the page and select "Authorised"
"Ads and Pages" will show in the list when the new page loads
Click on "Edit settings" for "Ads and Pages"
A small window will open, Click on "Additional Permissions" and de-select "Publish recent activity (one line stories) to my Wall"
Click "OK"

You're all set and all private again!

Good Luck with the new Facebook interface!

And join us in the "OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!" on Facebook!!

Please leave feedback on this "How To" post!!!

Keeping Groups You Join Private On Facebook

2009-10-25T16:26:00.001-04:00

PLEASE NOT: NEW FIXES WILL BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE FACEBOOK GROUP

OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!

AS SOON AS THEY ARE POSTED TO THIS BLOG!!

If you don't want to publish information about the groups you are joining to your news feed, make the following changes to your settings:

Float your mouse over "Settings" to the right of your name and select "Applications".
A new page will load.
You will see "Groups" listed on the left side of the page. Click "Edit settings".

The "Edit Groups Settings" window will open. Set your privacy
level for who you want to be able to see your Groups when someone clicks on the "Info" tab in your profile. Next, click "Additional Permissions" and de-select "Publish to streams" check box and set your email options. Click "OK" to save the settings changes. While your in here, you might as well take a look at the settings for the other applications!

Good Luck with the new Facebook interface!

And join us in the "OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!" on Facebook!!

Please leave feedback on this "How To" post!!!

How To Stop Publishing New Friends Messages to FB's New News Feed

2009-10-25T15:42:00.010-04:00

PLEASE NOT: NEW FIXES WILL BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE FACEBOOK GROUP

OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!

AS SOON AS THEY ARE POSTED TO THIS BLOG!!

Here is what I did to stop posting who I've recently become friends with on Facebook:

TO CHANGE YOUR BASIC PRIVACY SETTINGS FOR NEW FRIENDS:

Float over settings

Select "Privacy"
Select "News Feed and Wall"
De-select "Add a Friend"
Click "Save"

SOME FOLKS MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS NEXT OPTION, BUT IF YOU USE "FRIENDFEED" ALSO CHANGE THE FOLLOWING SETTINGS:

First, float over "Settings" to the right of your name. When the menu drops down, click on "Application Settings".

A new page will load.

Click the drop down menu on the right and select "Granted additional permissions".

Click on "Edit settings" for "FriendFeed" and de-select "Publish recent activity (one line stories) to my Wall." then click "OK".

Go back up to the drop down menu, click and select "Authorised".

A new page will load. You will see "FriendsFeed". Click "Edit settings" and a small window will open. Click on the drop down menu for "Privacy" and select "only me" then click "Okay".

Havaing made these two changes to my settings, I noticed the last two people I became friends with DID NOT show up in the news feed.

Enjoy and PLEASE share this page with ALL your Facebook friends!

Please join this Facebook Group
OMG!! FB!! WTF!! WE WANT OUR OLD NEWSFEED BACK!!

Stuck On Stupid: Buchanan Goes Racial On Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-23T12:54:00.003-04:00

In a recent article titled "The Affirmative Action Nobel", Pat Buchanan makes himself perfectly clear. What he is saying is "Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize because he isn't white."

Mr. Buchanan sent out his weekly newsletter via the official eNewsletter of the conservative underground called "HumanEvents.com" along with a second article titled "Nixon and Obama - Soul Brothers?".

Buchanan isn't satisfied with disparaging the President of the United States with racial slurs, he continues his racism in his article Alienated & Radicalized, an article in which he supports the activities of the "Oath Keepers", making the statement that "America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.". And, when you read the article, it is clear that Pat is talking about white Americans, not all Americans. He also makes it clear that "The Oath Keepers" is a white organization.

As republicans like Buchanan, who want power more than they want what is best for America, continue to radicalize the extremists on the right, the closer America comes to real armed conflict in the streets of it's cities.

After reading these articles, it becomes clear to any fair minded person that Mr. Buchanan isn't at all afraid of showing the country that he is a racist, that he supports racist causes, nor is he afraid to let us all know that these racist groups are arming themselves for a bloody conflict that they believe is inevitable.

Racists must be taken seriously if history teaches us anything. And racists with guns, backed by well know, public figures who are power players in one of America's political parties must be taken very seriously.

Please post your comments......

Barack Obama: Faith And Politics

2009-10-22T09:35:00.002-04:00

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." - President Obama, June 26, 2006

This speech by President Obama, given on June 26, 2006, is his most important speech to date on faith and was given prior to his launching of a presidential campaign. The speech was given at the Jim Wallis Call to Renewal conference.

He speaks about the issue of faith in politics, both on the right and left sides of the aisle. In this remarkably open and candid speech, President Obama lays out his views about how faith is best mixed with politics. Well worth the time spent listening. A transcript is included after the five video segments, which is actually a copy of the speech, rather than an actual transcript of the speech. It may differ slightly from the audio.

Barack Obama : Call To Renewal - Faith and Politics 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tdoQr3BQ1g

Barack Obama : Call To Renewal - Faith and Politics 2 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYzDIhbgDtg

Barack Obama : Call To Renewal - Faith and Politics 3 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTFUsckSDe8

Barack Obama : Call To Renewal - Faith and Politics 4 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVt59yd2W0U

Barack Obama : Call To Renewal - Faith and Politics 5 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x29oqiXwg34

Transcript:

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I've had the opportunity to take a look at your Covenant for a New America. It is filled with outstanding policies and prescriptions for much of what ails this country. So I'd like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you've given so far about poverty and justice in America, and for putting fire under the feet of the political leadership here in Washington.

But today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years.

I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.

Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.

But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.

Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.

I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.

And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.

Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.

And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply the fact that I was pro-choice. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose."

The doctor went on to write: "I sense that you have a strong sense of justice. I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason. Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded. You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, that we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others. I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

"Fair-minded words."

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame because it's people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you so much everybody, I appreciate it.

Update On Couple Denied Marriage License In Louisiana

2009-10-20T04:45:00.002-04:00

"Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license," Jindal said. Keith Bardwell is an elected official. Does he even have a license as an elected official?

How will this resolve?

Does the governor know?

How hard is it to remove one racist from a position of power? Do we need to get Obama on the case or can the republicans in Louisiana handle it on their own?

What do you think?

Couple Speaks Out

Justice Says Law Wasn't Broken

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Jindal, Mary Landrieu want official who wouldn't marry interracial couple ousted
http://blog.nola.com/politics/print.html?entry=/2009/10/jindal_mary_landrieu_want_offi.html

Governor calls for firing of justice in interracial marriage case
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/16/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html

Jindal: Revoke license of JP that denied interracial marriage
http://www.zimbio.com/Keith+Bardwell/articles/w-jGOQwL4Ez/Jindal+Revoke+license+JP+denied+interracial

Will The Real Budget Deficit for 2008 Please Stand Up?

2009-10-19T01:31:00.002-04:00

Written for members of the Facebook Group "Citizens for Fact-based Political Discourse"

Apples to Apples

What is a budget deficit? "The federal government collects taxes, fees, and other revenues each year while spending on programs and operations. A deficit occurs when total expenditures in a given fiscal year exceed total revenues. When this happens, the government has to borrow money to make up the difference." In other words, the deficit is "the total amount of new federal debt at the end of a fiscal year, not including interest on previous debt".
"Budget Cycles" are worth mentioning as well. The "Budget Cycle" for any President begins the first Jan. after taking office and ends the first Jan after leaving office. For G.W. Bush, his budget cycle began Jan. 2001 and ends Jan. 2010, with 2002 being the first year attributable to George Bush. (Elected in 2000, takes office 2001, first budget is for year 2002. Obama: elected 2008, takes office 2009, first budget is for year 2010.)
Another factor that is worth mentioning is that the budget begins in the White House and is then sent to Congress.

The Current Deficit

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) recently told NBC's David Gregory "Remember, we just had the figures come out earlier this week, a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, more than all four of the last budget deficits combined."

Last week CNN reported that 2009 was the first year for a trillion dollar deficit. CNN's Louise Schiavone reported on August 25, 2009 that the expected deficit for 2009 is expected to be 1.6 trillion, "four times larger than last year's (2008) deficit."

For 2008, the "official" deficit listed as 455B. This is the number Sen. Jon Kyl was using when he stated the current deficit is "more than all four of the last budget deficits combined." Here's why that is less than honest - well, without speaking to intent, let it be said that here is why that statement is less than accurate.

Will The Real Budget Deficit for 2008 Please Stand Up!

G.W. Bush had a habit when it came to the budget he sent to congress: he didn't include the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These costs were "off budget", which means he didn't include them in his budget to congress so the cost of the war doesn' t show up in the "official" deficit for those years. Double-think good about that: the cost of the wars are not included in the official numbers used for the budget deficits for the Bush Era.

Therefore, his "deficits" looked like this (in billions): 2002 = 157.8 ; 2003 = 374; 2004 = 413; 2005 = 319; 2006 = 248; 2007 = 162; 2008 = 455

When Sen. Kyl says the current deficit is greater than the last four combined, he's excluding the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

Here are the actual deficit numbers as reported in 2008 in the Alternate Fiscal Deficit and Debt Reported by U.S. Treasury for 2008:

The "Alternate Deficit and Debt" report includes both on and off budget items. The first column is the "official" deficit number and the second column is the "actual" deficit of the federal government. Neat trick, isn't it?

This report is necessary simply due to the need for the government to deal with reality (at least, off the record). This chart clearly shows two things: the "real" deficit for 2008 is $1.009 trillion, not the often quoted $454.8 billion and the first year of a trillion dollar deficit was 2008, not 2009.

This shows the deficit for 2008 as being just over one trillion dollars and does not include the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The TARP's purpose was to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled" assets and was passed in 2008, but will show up as an expense in 2009.

Standing up as the REAL DEFICIT for 2008 is the amount of one trillion, nine billion and some change.

Budget Cycles

As mentioned earlier, budget cycles are also important when it comes to federal budgets. There is a lot of talk as of late about "Obama's exploding deficit" for this year. First of all, it is a fact that this year (2009) is the last year of Bush's budgets. President Obama will have the opportunity to send his budget proposal to congress later in 2009.

Fox News reported in June of this year that the deficit topped $1 trillion for the first time, again using the lower "official" number rather than the actual or "alternative" number: "The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion." This surge in the deficit was a result of the Bush TARP expenditure, falling tax revenues and other emergency measures.

But wait, there's more: expect the deficit this year to be in the neighborhood of $2 trillion! TARP and the bailout are a huge part of that deficit. There is also the 550 billion dollar deficit from spending more than is collected and then the cost of the two wars. It is fair to attribute the cost of the wars to the Bush administration. It is fair to attribute the TARP to the Bush administration as well as the budget shortfall created from spending more than the government is collecting (about 550 billion). One can agrue over who should get the red ink on the bailout ($800 billion). One could also argue about the other emergency spending done since Bush left office. One can not, with a fair mind, argue that Bush did nothing other than to leave the Obama administration with an exploding deficit.

Agree? Disagree? Please leave a comment!

References:

2009 Federal Deficit Could Go As High As $2 Trillion
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/federal-deficit-2-trillion/2008/10/13/

Federal Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion for the First Time
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/federal-budget-deficit-tops-trillion-time/

December 2008 - GAAP-Based 2008 Federal Deficit

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/gaap-based-federal-deficit

2008 Financial Report of the United States Government

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08frusg.pdf

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Historical Tables - Budget of the U.S. Government - Office of Management and Budget - Fiscal Year 2010
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf

Deficits and Debt 101
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/09/deficits_debt_101.html

Kyl doubts people die from lack of health insurance. You see what I'm talking about?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/kyl-doubts-people-die-lack-health-insurance

"Budget deficit shock" CNN's Louise Schiavone reports on the soaring federal budget deficit.

Trillion dollar deficit

How to Customize the Links You Post On Facebook

2009-10-14T14:31:00.000-04:00

I thought I'd share with folks some things about posting links that might not be "common knowledge" for Facebook users. A little customization might just get a few more people to read the link, share a link or leave a comment on the link's topic. It also gives you the opportunity to have some fun with the headlines!

First, lets take a sample article, say this one: "Perry stays secret on many things, including forensics files". Its about the governor of Texas and his refusal to allow the state to determine if an innocent man was executed or not. At any rate, right click on the link you want to share and copy it.

Next, go to your Facebook page and paste the link into your status window:

Facebook will go to the link and insert it into your status page. Now we can begin to customize the link.

Float your mouse over the title of your link as shown below. Notice how it becomes underlined?

Clicking on this link will open a small window which will allow you to change or modify the title of the link.

Once you've made the changes to the title of the link, click on the white area next to the title to see what your new title looks like, as shown in the picture below.

Isn't that fun? Imagine all the headlines you can change in big or little ways!

Facebook is full of simple tricks like this for customizing what we post, what we link, including videos and music files!

Now the next part of the link that you can modify is the "blurb", which in our example reads "The Dallas Morning News Latest News pages contains . . ." and so forth.

Float your mouse over this part and click on it as well.

A small window will pop open and allow you to either right click and paste some text from the article or simple write your own blurb.

Click on the white part when you're done and if you don't like it, click on the blurb again to make changes.

The changes you've made will show up in the link now.

As you can see, we've now customized our link to speak more clearly to those that might be interested in reading about the topic.

Before you click share, delete the link from the top part of the status window and type your customized message about the link.

Click "Share" and you're all set. If other people click "share" on your posted link, the changes you've made go with the link!

And when your linking Videos and MP3s, you can make simular changes to those links as well!

Here is what the final product looks like:

This technique of customization is also handy when you're posting a PDF or other page that shows a title like http://www.asdf.com/ or some other non-informative information. Happy posting and see you on FB!

Please leave a comment and let me know if this information is helpful!

3 Things You May Not Have Noticed Obama Doing

2009-10-10T23:10:00.004-04:00

Whether you like him or not – whether you agree with his politics or not, you must admit he has a lot on his plate. From managing two wars to staving off economic collapse with health care reform in-between, this President certainly has his work cut out for him.

On top of working long hours and most weekends, President Obama also has the added annoyance of his critics complaining about everything the man does. If he uses Medicare as a model for health care, they scream about waste and fraud. When waste and fraud are identified and savings in Medicare are proposed, they scream “Told you he was going to cut Medicare.” Indeed, with all the complaints about Obama, literally stretching from his birth to his recent Nobel Peace Prize, you’d think not much was getting done. But while the obstructionists are playing Six Degrees of Separation, the President has been busy “gittin’ er dun”.

Behind the headlines and the loud noises from the temper tantrums being thrown by those no-mongers that would thwart his desire to fix what needs fixing, President Obama has been quieting doing many other things. Here are ten things he’s been quietly working on that will help shape the citizen-centric America of the next several years:

1# Obama Moves to Protect Consumers via Antitrust Enforcement, Reversing Bush Era Policies

Noticing that the Bush Administration’s policy on antitrust issues strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Christine A. Varney, said that the Bush administration policy “lost sight of the ultimate goal of antitrust laws — the protection of consumer welfare.” The Obama administration is returning to a consumer-centric, aggressive policy in dealing with antitrust issues such as those that challenged the IT giants in the 1990s.

In fact, the Justice Department has been going so strongly in this direction, some are concerned it may slow down the economic recovery. The new enforcement policy reverses the Bush administration’s approach, which strongly favored big business. Headway in this area will increase competition by disbanding companies practicing monopolistic strategies. Increased competition is a good thing.

#2 Obama’s Concern for Civil Rights Results in Increased Enforcement

In August of this year, the American public was so distracted with the loud gnashing of teeth over health care that the administration’s announcement concerning the reversal of another Bush Era policy was hardly notice in circles other than those concerned with such things.

The current administration intends to resurrect high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies in different areas where statistics show minorities receive disproportionately poorer results. Bush appointees discouraged such generalized enforcement, focusing on individual cases where intentional discrimination was evident.

3# Administration Tackles Mountaintop Coal Mining & Other Mining Issues

With the previously unheard of coordinated approach between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Army Corps of Engineers, the Obama administration announced in June that it will be taking steps to reduce environmental impacts of the worst type of coal mining known as “mountaintop coal mining”. This effort will span six Appalachian states: Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The Bush Era Policies in regard to mountaintop coal mining included little oversight, disregard for environmental impact, disregard for ground water contamination, impact on human health and safety issues, and disregard for the impact this crude mining has on nature. The Obama administration’s approach will focus more on the impact of this type of “rape mining” on American citizens living within the zone of impact as well as on nature within the zone of impact.

As early as April of 2009, overturning a Bush Era regulation allowing mining companies to dump their waste near rivers and streams was targeted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. He instructed the Justice Department to seek a court order to overturn the regulation, calling it “legally defective”. The EPA lost in court. The administration will seek legislation to deal with the issue.

In August of 2009, the EPA very quietly approved one of six major mountaintop removal permits, sending mixed signals to the industry and to environmentalists alike.

Mountaintop mining is the crudest and most environmentally unsound mining practices in the world, forever changing the landscape, the biodiversity and the quality of life for people living in the “zone of influence”.

President Obama and his multitude of special assistants, cabinet members, and agency personal have been very active behind the loud wailing of the opposition. Next time someone says Obama hasn't gotten anything done, you can bring up these three things.

References:
Obama Takes Tougher Antitrust Line
Administration Plans to Strengthen Antitrust Rules
Antitrust Chief Hits Resistance in Crackdown, Recession Worries Cited
Justice Department to Recharge Civil Rights Enforcement
Eric H. Holder Jr.
Obama Administration Takes Unprecedented Steps to Reduce Environmental Impacts
Salazar Seeks to Vacate Bush-Era Mining Rule: Disposal of Mountaintop Waste Was Eased
Judge rebuffs Obama administration on mining rule
Obama EPA approves another mountaintop removal mine
The Coalfield Uprising
Obama steps up push for consumer protection agency

Dad gum bunch a feed grabbin' bums!

2009-10-07T11:10:00.002-04:00

I’ve always enjoyed having a conversation with Floyd. He has a certain way of breaking things down, of keeping them real and simple. I guess farming gives him a lot of time to think about things. Recently, I thought I’d ask him about this health care debate. Here’s what he had to say, best as I can recall anyway….

“Well, now, seems ta me them insurance folk would'a solved these problems by now if ‘n they'd a wanted to. Seems to me if’n them insurance folk was interested ‘n competin' with each other, they’d be competin’ ‘stead of carving up the territory and dividin’ it. Seems ta me if’n them insurance folk wanted ta insure all folk, they'd a all ready be doin’ it. Seems ta me "free market" ain't free at ‘tall.” Like I said, Floyd has a way of putting things.

“Every time I hear’d that bunch a feed grabbin' bums yellin' "free market", I know’d they be makin' a whole bunch a money ‘n folks’d be loosing somethin’ like their homes ‘n their jobs. Yep, "free trade" meant jobs a’goin’ over seas ‘n more money fer them fat cats. "Free market" in bankin' turn outta mean you'll be freed from that there mortgage payment ya had.” Floyd took aim and spit in his tobacco can – Pa-tonk! It was a good four feet away, then shook his head for a minute or two.

“Nope. I didn't buy that pig slop when I hear’d it. Bill o’goods, it were! Nope. I'll take Uncle Sam’s insurance. Ya see, no limits, an’ it don’t matter how sick a feller gits neither. An’ they won’t be a’ choppin’ off what they call pre-existin’ condition folk. So what if Uncle Sam is runnin' the show! Works for all them old folks. Why wouldn't it work fer the rest of us hard workin’ folks? Anyone ‘gainst that is’a plum crazy or richer than common folk, fer sure.” Floyd just keep whittling his cherry stick while he talked.

“I'll take freedom from the worry a going broke ‘n loosin’ the farm paying for the doctor. An’ I'll take freedom from loosin' the farm n' having to put up with a turd for a boss cuz maybe the kids er sick or their ma is an’ I need a policy ‘n gotta find work in town fer it. An’ I'll take freedom from rich folk havin' a say in whether me 'n my loved ones live er die. Yep.” Floyd spit in his can again – pa-TONG! He stopped whittling his cherry stick and look out over his fields.

“Ya know, that there constitution gives Uncle Sam the right to protect us from enemies that would kill us an’ that includes health insurance folk. Heard the other day that forty five thousand Americans die a year cuz they don't got no policy. That ain’t right.” Pa-tong – never have seen him miss that can.

“An if ‘n they wanna call me a lib’ril, fine by me. Jesus was a lib’ril, so I thank ‘em. 'lest he was till them folk got ta rewriting the holy book ta make the Lord a conservative. Bible says changin' it's a sin. Son, ya better go tell yer lady yer goin’a be out here a spell now cuz ya got me all worked up ‘bout them bible changin’, good fer nothin’ money grubbers!”

Wouldn’t it be nice if our elected officials had as much sense as Floyd does?

Fox News's Shep Smith: 'Every Vote Against The Public Option Is A Vote For The Insurance Companies'

2009-10-06T19:16:00.000-04:00

I thought I'd seen it all in this health care debate, but an anchor on Fox supporting the public option? Sweet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT61GNLBclk

Governor Perry Had Arson Report Prior To Replacing Commission Members

2009-10-05T18:08:00.000-04:00

The Owl's Nest has confirmed that copies of the arson report fire expert Craig Beyler completed in August had been distributed to the Texas Science Forensic Commission (TSFC) members as well as Gov. Perry in advance of the abrupt replacement of TSFC Chairman Sam Bassett, and TSFC members Alan Levy, and Aliece Watts.

All members of the TSFC who had read the pre-released report, more than just the three replaced, accepted the conclusions: no evidence of arson was found. Cameron Todd Willingham did not commit arson.

Additionally, when Bassett, Levy and Watts were let go, the aide to the governor who called to tell them they had been released, thanked them, then added “The governor is going in a different direction.”

While unclear in it’s meaning, this statement was taken by certain members of the TSFC that the governor wasn’t happy with the findings of the arson report. One member of the commission added off the record: “He clearly doesn’t want to be the first governor in American history to have been proven to have executed an innocent man, especially in an election year.” Governor Perry faces a primary election in March, 2010.

All three members of the commission had asked the governor to remain on the commission for another term, or “at least long enough to finish the [Willingham] investigation.” The Governor ignored their requests.

It has been confirmed that the arson report to be discussed at the meeting was to show that there was no evidence of any arson involved in the fire of December 23, 1991 that killed Cameron Todd Willingham's three daughters, two-year-old Amber Louise Kuykendall and one-year-old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham. Willingham himself escaped the home with only minor burns. Stacy Kuykendall, Willingham's then-wife and the mother of his three daughters, was out shopping and not home at the time of the fire. The claim of arson was instrumental in seeking and getting the death penalty.

With the possibility of a US Department of Justice probe into Gov. Perry's alleged violation of USC 18.1001, which states it is a crime for anyone "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States" to "falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.", the question of whether or not Gov. Perry will spare himself the investigation by allowing the hearing to take place before the end of the year remains open.

Given that Texas accepts help with the state’s judicial costs in the form of federal funds from Uncle Sam, Perry and others implicated in the apparent cover-up could be prosecuted under federal law.

A source close to the US Department of Justice stated that the "timing and manner of Gov. Perry's replacement of commission members is suspicious given that exonerating evidence was to be presented within 72 hours of the action". Officially, the Justice Department will neither confirm nor deny whether a possible probe will take place, or if an investigation is under way.

The Governor’s office has yet to issue a formal statement concerning the possibility of a federal probe, but is looking into the potentiality. The press office today stated they were unaware of any federal probe into the allegations, but "would look into the matter".

Additional inquires into whether or not John Bradley, newly appointed chair of the TSFC, is being investigated for possibly engaging in an alleged conspiracy with Perry to withhold evidence from public scrutiny in this case could not be verified.

However, a copy of fire expert Craig Beyler’s report, “Analysis of the Fire Investigation Methods and Procedures Used in the Criminal Arson Cases Against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham” has been obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and is available online.

Let America be America Again by Langston Huges

2009-10-05T08:48:00.000-04:00

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!

I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.

O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,

America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

Langston Hughes

Reflections on Healthcare: What? Are You Serious?

2009-10-04T11:34:00.000-04:00

Where in the world did Americans get the idea that affordable health care insurance for all Americans was a bad thing, some evil plot to kill grandma or the death of capitalism as we know it?

Doesn't the stuff about health care reform just make you crazy sometimes? All the ridiculous scare tactics and misinformation out there: death panels, the end of capitalism, fascist take over --- well, one night I simple couldn't take it any more. I put on my jester hat, sun glasses and spoke my mind.

(It should be mentioned that I don't speak to whether or not health care reform should include a public option or whether we need reform at all.)

Reflections on Healthcare: What? Are You Serious? Part 1

Reflections on Healthcare: What? Are You Serious? Part 2

Reflections on Healthcare: What? Are You Serious? Part 3

Thanks for watching. Hope you enjoyed it. Leave a comment!

Perry Appoints Pit-bull New Czar of the Texas Forensic Science Commission

2009-10-03T15:22:00.002-04:00

October 3, 2009

In a blatant attempt to silence the findings of an independent arson expert who was to testify to the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TSFC) on October 1 regarding the probably execution of an innocent man by the state of Texas, Governor James Richard Perry suddenly appoints his long time friend, John Bradley, as the new chair of the commission. Bradley said the first time he had learned of his appointment was the day it was announced, when he got a call from Perry's office.

Meanwhile, the ousted chairman, Sam Bassett, told a reporter that he had heard from Perry's staffers that they were "concerned about the investigations we were conducting" and added "In my view, we should not fail to investigate important forensic issues in cases simply because there might be political ramifications." Bassett made it clear that, election time or not, the truth was the most important issue in front of the commission. Obviously, James Richard Perry didn't agree.

Also abruptly-dismissed Alan Levy, a top prosecutor in the Tarrant County DA’s office said he has no idea why Perry suddenly removed him from the TSFC which was set to have a hearing on October 1st to help determine whether or not an innocent man was executed by the state. Levy was also unconcerned about the impact of making the report’s contents public during an election year. He also said Wednesday that he has no idea why Gov. Rick Perry abruptly removed him from the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

John Bradley, one of the most hard-line conservative prosecutors in Texas, seems perfectly willing to go along with Governor James Richard Perry’s plan to obstruct justice. He cancelled the meeting because he claimed it was “too soon” for him to prepare for it and added that he didn’t know whether it might be rescheduled. He has also declined a request for the meeting to go forward with the previous members of the TFSC, an option clearly in his perview to grant.

With the possibility of the U.S. Department of Justice getting involved, how far is James Richard Perry willing to go to hide the fact that Texas murdered an innocent man?

There is an election coming up. It will be a test of the moral fiber of Texans. What kind of governor do you want? One who is interested in the truth, or one that is willing to hide it for his own personal gain?

References, back ground and additional readings:

Local prosecutor has no idea why Perry removed him from Forensics Commission
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1647991.html

Texas Governor Stymieing Panel Probing Flawed Death Penalty Case?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/texas_governor_stymieing_panel_probing_flawed_deat.php

Governor Rick Perry Finally Speaks: Defends Execution of Todd Willingham
http://open.salon.com/blog/scottcobb/2009/09/18/governor_rick_perry_finally_speaks_defends_execution_of_todd_willingham

Rick Perry Covers His Collusion In Faulty Execution
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/10/rick-perry-covers-his-collusion-in-faulty-execution/
Is Perry trying to cover up wrongful execution in Texas?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1263390.html

Gov. Rick Perry's cousin shot dead by deputies
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/2/63920/8645

Probe looks into Perry cousin's killing by officers
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6647168.html

Critical questions remain in arson case
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/27/0927arson.html

Gov. Perry replaces head of agency investigating Texas arson findings
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100109dntexperryarson.1cf2d2edb.html

Leader of Texas Science Panel is Conservative DA
http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/0boi4m14it8eu?q=John+Bradley

Forensics board appointment raises political questions
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/100309/sta_500429248.shtml

What is Racism?

2009-10-02T23:35:00.000-04:00

I recently started a group on Facebook called "Racism is Flat Out Wrong". While I had my own reasons for starting the group that I shared in my blog, one of the first members of the group asked a question I didn't expect would be asked: "What is racism? How can we discuss it if we haven't defined it?" I've been thinking about that question ever since. It's been a journey and well worth the investment of time and energy.

This video addressing an aspect of racism in America that isn't talked much about: "White Privilege". I thought it worth while to share.

"At any time, in any place, by any one, for any reason, racism is flat out wrong."

Please leave a comment!

What's In A Song? Glenn Beck Sees Conspiracy

2009-10-01T23:55:00.002-04:00

So lets talk about this uproar, this temper tantrum about this simple song, written by a teacher who was helping her students celebrate Black History Month with a song honoring the first African American president:

The Complete Words to the Song "Barack Hussein Obama":

Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama!
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again!
Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama!
He said we must be fair today!
Equal work means equal pay!
Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

So we're worried about teaching our children these four anti-fascist things?

1. We all need to work together to make America strong again.
    (Unity. Fascists don't preach unity.)
2. Men and women should get equal pay for equal work.
    (Gender Equality: Fascists preach superiority.)
3. That we need to make sure our country is fair to everyone.
    (No sir, Fascists preach superiority.)
4. Racial equality is a good thing.
    (Fascists preach superiority, not equality.)

These are the most anti-fascist lessons we could teach our children!

This was one teacher, in one school, in one class, for black history month, who did this unbeknownst to the President. The words were sent home to the parents prior to the concert.

How does this constitute a conspiracy to indoctrinate our children?

Fans of Glenn Beck and Lipton please respond, I don't get it.

Now THIS worries me:

"Kids Pray to Cardboard Cutout of George W. Bush" (Not a reflection on Bush, but sure is indoctrination!)

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002206/

Please leave a comment about why you have an issue with this. Insulting posts or posts that are hateful will be deleted. Civility matters....

What will the State of Texas Teach Your Child About The Bible?

2009-09-28T13:12:00.004-04:00

A Letter Writing Campaign for Answers

State tells schools to teach Bible literacy but not how

Ten Questions the Texas State legislature and Governor Perry Haven’t Answered

Now that the legislature of the State of Texas and Governor Perry have legally defined Christianity as the official religion taught in Texas public schools, it is imperative for all parents to fully understand just what Governor Perry and company, intend to teach our children about Christianity.

Don't you want to know which version of the bible is going to be taught? Don't you want to insure that what is taught isn't in conflict with what you choose to teach your child? Wouldn't it be swell to know in advance what the State of Texas is exposing our children to in order to make an informed choice?

Here is a list of essential questions every Texan parent should know the answer to before allowing their child to take Sunday School in a public school:

Since there is no way to determine if what will be taught about the Bible agrees with my personal religious beliefs, will the class be mandatory or can I choose not to have my child exposed to potentially false religious teaching?
Given that the Catholic Bibles have more books in it than do Protestant Bibles, which will be taught to my child?
Which version of the Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible will be taught?
Can my church donate the bibles that will be used to a school so I can be sure my child will be taught from the correct one?
Will the interpretations of the bible passages that are studied agree with the spiritual teachings of the church my child and I attend?
Will lesson plans be available in advance to insure my child isn’t taught incorrect Christian beliefs?
Will the Texas public schools be teaching that Christmas is in December, or in April as some Christians believe?
Will my child be able to defend their faith if the teacher is incorrect in their interpretation of the Bible?
Will atheist children and children of other faiths be required to remain silent so as to not adversely influence my child’s faith and beliefs or will they be allowed to challenge God’s Word in class?
OR
Since my child is of another faith, will my child be allowed to present their own beliefs when writing papers or engaging in discussions or will they be prevented from expressing their own religious convictions during the class?
Will my child get extra credit for going to church?

Snail Mail Letter Writing Campaign

In this electronic age, with emails flying from place to place at the speed of light, it is all too easy for our elected officials to reply in like: a form email, personally sent to your inbox. While using the US postal service (Snail Mail) to contact the Governor might seem old fashioned, sending him a letter marked "response requested" is the best way to insure your letter gets the attention you deserve.

This PDF File is a letter which includes all the questions in this article as well as a place for your name, address and is addressed to the Governor of Texas. Take a few minutes to load the file, file in the blanks, print it out and mail it to Governor Perry.

Please leave a comment!

Governor Perry and the Official State Religion of Texas

2009-09-26T12:40:00.007-04:00

Dear Governor Perry
and Other Members
of the "Official Religion of the State of Texas" ,

I recently heard you speak and claim that people today are confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion. I disagree. People understand they go hand in hand. The “Official Religion of the State of Texas” is unconstitutional.

I’m very uncomfortable to learn that you don’t understand the constitution of the United States of America and that neither do many members of the Texas Congress and judiciary. Please study it some more. Maybe our letter will help with that some. Feel free to share it with other members of the “Holy Church of the Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

Once you have studied it and understand it, please defend the constitution of the United States of America, which demands that our government, at all levels, show no favoritism of one religion over another, more commonly known as “separation of church and state”.

You see, in our family, we teach our children the religion of our choice and we send them to school to learn about other things, not what the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” is, or for them to get confused about which religion is right.

Nor do we wish for our children to have to listen to some other student tell them they are going to hell because they don’t go to the “Holy Church of the Official Religion of the State of Texas”. That is not the purpose for which public schools exist: they are not there to give theocratic politicians a platform for religiously indoctrinating our children.

And I’m concerned about this new law that requires public schools to incorporate Bible literacy into the curriculum is really about establishing the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

Which version of the Bible are they required to teach? In other words, which denomination is the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” endorsing as the correct one?

• I think the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” bible should be the Catholic Bible because I raise our children Catholic.
• I think the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” bible should be the King James version because that’s what our church uses.
• I think the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” bible should be the New American version - that’s what our church uses.
• I think the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” bible should be the Greek Orthodox Bible because we’re Greek Orthodox.
• I think the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” bible should be just the New Testament because that’s what our church uses.
• I think the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” bible should be the Torah because we’re Jewish.

What bible does the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” use and is that the one that the as does the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” will impose on the infidels, the non-believers?

• You see, our children are raised atheist and have a right to freedom from religion, for without freedom from religion, no freedom of religion can exist. We should not have to battle in the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” to raise our children in the religious atmosphere we choose as parents. The State should not be showing preference of one religion over another, it’s unconstitutional.
• You see, our children are raised Jewish and have the right to freedom of religion. We should not have to battle the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” to raise our children in the religious atmosphere we choose as parents. The State should not be showing preference of one religion over another, it’s unconstitutional.
• You see, our children are raised Hindu and have the right to freedom of religion. We should not have to battle in the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” to raise our children in the religious atmosphere we choose as parents. The State should not be showing preference of one religion over another, it’s unconstitutional.
• You see, our children are raised in Islam and have the right to freedom of religion. We should not have to battle in the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” to raise our children in the religious atmosphere we choose as parents. The State should not be showing preference of one religion over another, it’s unconstitutional.

You see, our children are raised [Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Jehovah’s Witness, First Baptist, Evangelical, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Free Methodist, Atheist, Deist, Hindu, Presbyterian] and this is different than the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

You see, we don’t go to the “Holy Church of the Official Religion of the State of Texas” and aren’t at all happy with you making all of us go to your church. It is unconstitutional.

And what is all this about teaching Christmas in schools? I hope you’re teaching the children that Jesus was born in April. You see, we raise our children as Jehovah’s Witnesses and we don’t celebrate Christmas. Jesus was born in April, not December and you’re confusing our children with the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

I hope you’re teaching that there is no physical evidence that Jesus lived at all because we’re raising our children as atheists and no physical evidence exists. You are teaching the children that the story of Jesus is a myth like Santa is a myth, right?

• You see, we’re raising our children in the Jewish faith and we don’t celebrate Christmas as does the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.
• You see, we’re raising our children in the Hindu faith and we don’t celebrate Christmas as does the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.
• You see, we’re raising our children in the Pagan faith and we don’t celebrate Christmas as does the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

Does the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” teach the Holy Trinity as our church does? You see, we’re raising our children Catholic.

Will the cross you show the children be a Protestant cross or a Catholic cross, because, either way, we’re raising our children that the other one is the right one, not the one chosen by the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

And what is this our child tells us, that a moment of silence “to pray” is practiced in their classroom? We’re raising our child in the tradition of the Cherokee, Sam Houston’s people, and they're taught to offer tobacco to the directions when they pray. Tobacco isn’t allowed in schools, so how can they pray in the manner they are taught, which differs from the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”?

What is this our child tells us, that a moment of silence “to pray” is practiced in their classroom? We’re raising our children in the traditional Hindu way. They are taught to pray at alters, with gifts to the god or goddess they pray to. Will alters be allowed in schools so our children can pray as taught? I realize this is a different way to pray than is taught by the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” but we have a right to our own religion. Have we lost the right to teach our children how to pray as we see fit?

And what is this our child tells us, that a moment of silence “to pray” is practiced in their classroom? In our Christian church, we teach that prayer is a private matter and should only be done in private. I hope this is what the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” is also teaching.

The State of Texas has no right to indoctrinate our children with the “Official Religion of the State of Texas”.

But I guess it is okay to do as long as the “Official Religion of the State of Texas” is the same as our religion. On the other hand, it is un-constitutional and any politician that believes otherwise is ignorant and unfit for office.

©2009 Robert J. Emory. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy this letter and use it for any purpose. Take it to your church, PTA, or classroom. Email it to all of you friends. Post it on Twitter, on Facebook or MySpace. Do your part as an American to protect freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

References:

Unknown, 2008. House OKs religion in school, The Dallas Morning News, Inc. retrieved on September 26, 2009 from http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/052707dntswrelexpress.2ed82b.html

Sandoval, Stephanie, 2008. Texas schools' moment of silence upheld after Carrollton couple's challenge, The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-silence_05met.ART0.North.Edition1.37cc71f.html

Unknown, 2009, Religion Briefs: Texas schools scrambling over Bible literacy law, The Associated Press via The Daily News, Longview, WA retrieved http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/09/12/this_day/doc4aaace2733015334708497.txt

Google Search if interested in additional sources for the content of this letter:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Texas+Schools+religion&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

The Average Joe

2009-09-22T00:07:00.000-04:00

Author Unknown

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe because some other liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.

Joe prepares his morning breakfast; bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some anti-capitalist fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo; his bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and the amount in the total contents because some crybaby fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy union members fought and died for these working standards. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker’s compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC (or the NCUA, if he's part of a credit union) because some socialist wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression (and then again recently). Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by the Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Corporations can not force the poor conditions on American workers they would like to be able to. You can thank the unions for that. So they are now moving their operations overseas to places with no unions. Look at the conditions the workers in those countries endure. Little to no environmental standards, child labor, minimal pay with no health coverage, filthy living conditions — all so you can enjoy the standard of living fought for by unions.

Please leave a comment . . .

Of Triplets, Texas, Tea Parties and Temper Tantrums

2009-09-20T10:51:00.000-04:00

Being the father of triplets, I have plenty of experience with temper tantrums and what I see right now is the political right having a temper tantrum.

Take Rush Limbaugh’s daily tirades on the radio waves as an example. Repeatedly, this infotainer screams and yells, flapping his arms about the place in response to his imagined impending doom of western civilization, like Chicken Little without a head, shouting “The sky is falling!”.

Take Glen Beck’s recent temper tantrum in response to the report that only 70,000 people attended the Tea Bagger’s protest in DC on 9-12 as another example.

Take Texas Governor Rick Perry’s ignorant talk of secession at a time when our country is at war, when young Texans are risking and giving their lives for the good ol’ USA, as the foulest smelling of all temper tantrums yet expressed.

The common wisdom in dealing with a child that is throwing a temper tantrum is to simply ignore them. President Obama is doing just that.

In a recent conversation on Fox News, Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly complain that the President to whom they have both shown great disrespect has opted to chose a Spanish-language network ("Univision!") for a Sunday morning interview rather than Fox News. President Obama has opted to ignore the temper tantrum.

Bewildered by such news, Bill O’Reilly claims it is a huge mistake for the Obama administration, asserting that the “power of the media has shifted to Fox News and talk radio”.

No, Bill, the power of the media hasn’t shifted to Fox News. What has shifted to Fox News are the minority of Americans having a temper tantrum over loosing the last election combined with less agitated folk who’ve temporarily fallen for the fantasy fabrications like death panels, an impending dictatorship, the death of capitalism and a whole host of other delusional distortions.

Interestingly enough, and perhaps too little too late, during their conversation, both Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly contradict Glenn Beck’s claim that 1.7 million tea baggers attended the 9-12 Protest in Washington DC on Sept. 12th. They both cite 70,000 as the correct number.

Partial Transcript of Conversation:
Chris Wallace: "...when you have David Axelrod go on 'Face the Nation' last Sunday and denigrate the million or, I don't know, the hundred thousand – thousands and tens of thousands of people who came here in the streets here in Washington to protest..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Seventy thousand"
Chris Wallace: "...and, and, and basically says, you know, they're not representative. Well, they're representative of those seventy thousand; I think they're representative of a lot of people."

Maybe Fox News infotainers are beginning to get it: they are being ignored for their temper tantrum which they exhibit in such ways as misreporting facts like the size of the DC crowds on 9-12, reinforce irrational ideas like death panels, and make unfounded accusations of fascism and tyranny.

Perhaps Fox News is realizing that making mountains out of mole hills as they did when they began the anti-Czar drum beat against the Obama administration all the while failing to mention President Bush had 47 Czars over his eight years in office – perhaps they are realizing they will be ignored for it. Perhaps they will understand that there are those of us that remember their mantra during the Bush administration: you don’t criticize a sitting President during a time of war.

Perhaps it is time for the politicians on the right to stop confusing tyranny with loosing an election. Perhaps it is time for the politicians on the right to stop throwing their temper tantrum. Perhaps it is time to start working on resolving the real issues that face America with honesty, integrity and a sincere desire to work within the system rather than to subvert it with well-funded agitations of fringe elements dangerous to the well being of the union.

Fox News and company have made no secret of their desire to render the President impotent. It would appear they are in shock that there are consequences to such seditious intentions. This speaks volumes about the depth of their denial.

Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for the dry drunk radio hosts and cable news personalities. They act with impunity fostering fantasy fears in an effort to control and dominate the American political landscape, and who wish to subvert the will of the American people by overthrowing a dully elected President.

Sedition has a price.

Tick Tock…

Thanks for reading my blog. All comments welcomed.

References:

Chris Wallace & Bill O’Reilly Conversation on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrWh8VVaz60

Beck Pushes 9/12 Rally Crowd Size to 1.7 Million - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOmtlfiJeLQ

Racism is Flat Out Wrong

2009-09-17T14:41:00.003-04:00

It was the early 1970s and the Civil Rights Movement had just created great change for the better in our country. My parents took us on a vacation to Florida in '74, which, for a fisherman like me, was a dream come true. Entire days were spent fishing in the Golf of Mexico. There was no dead zone in those days. It took less than a minute to catch a fish off the pier. One after the other.

My best friend Ronnie and I had a pocket book on Florida fish because these fish were so strange to us Michiganders, we didn't know which ones were good to eat and which weren't. In those days, you could eat the fish you caught without worry of liver failure.

By the time the vacation was done, my tan was darker than dark! I was brown, deep, deep brown. The darkest tan I'd every gotten. I knew I had the best tan. After all, few if any of my class mates had gone to a sunny state like Florida for Christmas vacation. Heck, it was the first (and last) time my family had every done so.

When I returned to my home town, I wasn't greeted with "Wow! Nice tan!" -- I was greeted with something I wasn't used to, something I'd never encountered before. "Hey Nigger!" "You must have a nigger in the wood pile!" Being smaller than average didn't stop me from getting into fights (or from getting beat up).

Racism is painful.

Years later, driving down the main street of a small town in Utah with my cousin Tiny, the police pulled out right behind us. Tiny kept looking in his mirror. "What's wrong, Tiny?" I asked. "It's the police again. They follow me every time I come into town because I'm Indian." Tiny had no record, nor had he ever been in trouble with the law. I wasn't sure if he was spot on or paranoid about things.

We stopped at the store, made our purchase and pulled out of the lot. Within 1 block, the police were again behind us, following us. We were going the speed limit. When we switched lanes, the police officer also switched lanes. White drivers were speeding past us yet the police continued to follow us.

Racism kills the American Dream. It's flat out wrong.

Years later, while working in the prison system in a program for parole violators who'd violated parole with substance abuse issues, I was confronted by some white inmates. "Some people don't know if their black or white." they said. They weren't happy with how I acknowledged the relationship between poverty and drugs and how racism played a part in much of it. I told them that I believed them because some men went through life angry all the time because they were men and not women. In addition, the remainder of my days working there were ones spent looking over my shoulder, being hyper-aware of my surroundings, wondering if I was safe for speaking truth.

Racism causes people to live in fear.

In the summer of 1969 and I was seven. I went out into the back yard to play. In the sky, I saw a plume of black smoke. I ran into the house to tell my mother that there was a house on fire the next street or two over from where we lived. She said "No, son, that is Detroit. It is on fire. The people are rioting and burning the city." I was terrified. My grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins lived on the east side of Detroit. My mother assured me they were okay. When I asked her why they were rioting and burning the city, all she said was people were tired of how they were being treated. She never mentioned race.

Sunday came and off to grandma's house we went. We passed convoys of national guardsmen on the expressway. When we got to grandma's house, I heard my aunt say we needed some milk and bread for supper. I volunteered to go down to the A&P to buy them, as was my habit. "NO!" my aunt yelled, "You can't go out there. The A&P is gone, burned down. You stay in the yard."

Out into the yard I went. When I was sure no one was watching I jumped the fence into the alley. I went two blocks down to 7 mile road, hit the sidewalk and stopped short. There was the A&P, dark, empty, the entire roof was one huge, burned out hole. I turned around after a minute to head back to Grandma's house. Two hundred feet in front of me on the side walk was a national guardsman with an M-16 rifle, walking toward me. I took off down the alley and didn't stop until I was inside Grandma's house again.

At any time, in any place, by any one, for any reason, racism is flat out wrong.

Most recently and most disturbing of all, there was a hate crime in the home town I grew up in. A good family, having lived in their home for twelve years, active in the community and in their neighborhood awoke one night to find a burning cross in their front yard. A first in a community well over 150 years old. They are scared and their children are terrified.

Racism robs children of their childhood.

If certain elements of our media and certain politicians continue agitating the fearful and the discontents, we will again arrive at the place where the progressives in our society are assassinated. We will again arrive at a time when there are riots in our cities. We will again see large plumes of smoke in the distance or in our own neighborhoods. Except this time, the national guardsmen are over seas. Continuing to agitate the fearful and the discontent amounts to nothing less than an attempt to overthrown a dully elected President. It is seditious.

I am fortunate to have had these experiences that I might understand the reality of racism better than I otherwise would have been able.

Racism is scary. It's flat out wrong. At any time, in any place, by any one, for any reason, just flat out wrong.

Join me on Facebook in making a statement about Racism by joining the group "Racism Is Flat Out Wrong" and by inviting your friends to join.

Thanks in advance.

Please leave a comment with your thoughts.....

My Sacred Wall

2009-09-12T14:05:00.000-04:00

You say “Follow Jesus” on the conservative right,
“This nation’s a Christian one.” and you put up a fight.
You say “Jesus is the one for me and you.”
You say “God has chosen ones, based on what you do.”

You say “Love is the greatest power of all.”
While you post your pages of hatred
Upon the Sacred Wall.

You say gays go to hell and
Burn for all of time,
For wanting to married the one they love,
Like you’ve married yours and I’ve married mine.

You say this country means
Equality and freedom for all,
And then you post your pages of hatred
upon the Sacred Wall.

You tell me to believe that Jesus is
the truth, the way, the light.
You tell me to read your book and see
how he helped the poor,
feed them, gave them hope
(all for free)
Then you cut and limit welfare,
And blame poverty on the dope.

Shanty towns, tent cities and all the rest,
Soup kitchens, the homeless ones,
America at it’s best.
You saved the rich, to hell with the rest…

Manipulate with your billions,
Help the rich with your trillions,
Scare the hell out of the millions,
And all the while you hold your book up,
You make me want to throw up…

Don’t you know?
You bring hope to a crawl when you
post your pages of hatred
Upon the sacred wall.

You rant and rave about the demise
Of how the country was meant to be,
A Christian one – then what a surprise –
Guantanamo detainee.

Water boarding and medieval torture,
What Would Jesus Do?
Lament the rise of democracy? Or it’s fall?
You post your fear based pages of hatred
Upon the sacred wall.

Ok, I read your book,
One hundred fifty two times,
And his hands, they did heel:
Their bodies, their spirits – their minds!
I notice he charged no one,
Not pennies, not nickels nor dimes.

But when we want healthcare for all,
You say to the poor “Go get bent!”
And run around screaming and yelling
As if universal healthcare was Devil sent…

You tell me about Jesus and I should live like him,
He healed the sick, cured them, gave them sight.
He did it of his own free will and he did it right!
But when it comes to healthcare for us all,
You battle against the good work attempted on the Mall,
And hang your signs of hatred upon the sacred wall.

And then you wonder and to me you say:
“Why haven’t you prayed to Jesus today?”
So now I will tell you one and all,
“I will not post pages of hatred upon my Sacred Wall.”

Robert John Emory
August 5, 2009

Top Ten Forum Debate Rules for Conservatives

2009-09-11T17:59:00.000-04:00

This list is dedicated to Ann Coulter, author of “How to Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)”. Having read the book, I thought it best to refine the somewhat verbose text down to a simple and understandable list of the top ten rules to follow to be as effective as possible.

1. All bad things that happen to a republican Presidents are the fault of the last Democratic President. Example: 9/11 is Clinton’s fault, not Bush’s, Bush’s first recession is Clinton’s fault, Bush’s second recession, the Great Recession is really Barney Frank’s fault (it’s okay to substitute a member of the house or senate if you can’t pin it on the previous Democratic President, as long as you pin it on the Democrats).

2. All good things that happen to a Republican President is to the credit of that President. Example: Housing prices going up under the Bush administration.

3. All bad things that happen to a Democrat President are, of course, their own fault. Example: Housing prices going down is Obama’s fault.

4. Anything good that happens to a Democratic President while in office is to the credit of the preceding Republican President. Example: Clinton was able to balance the budget, lower the debt and show a surplus because of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economics.

5. If a Democratic President does it, we should impeach him. Example: Bill Clinton engaging in oral sex with an intern and Obama trying to pass health care reform: both are examples of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore, are impeachable offenses.

6. If a Republican President does it, it is for “National Security”. Example: torture, secret prisons, warrantless wire tapping of American citizens were “necessary” and are not “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore, not subject to impeachment.

7. If a Republican President attempts to "protect us" and takes away rights, it’s for our own good and therefore, not fascist. Example: rendition and warrantless wiretaps.

8. If a Democratic President attempts to “protect us”, we’re actually loosing freedoms and therefore, they are fascist. Example: health care reform.

9. If Rush, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, Buchanan, Gingrich or Palin say it, they know what the real deal is and quoting them or paraphrasing them is acceptable and doesn’t need to be “proven”. Exercise your free speech. Example: death panels, socialist plots, and questionable birth certificates, what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

10. History is irrelevant. It can be re-written. For “official” historical information, please read books by Rush, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, Buchanan, Gingrich or Palin.

Additionally, never yield your ground. Never admit that a liberal has made a valid point or has anything of value to say. Simple discount them as being less than a “True American”. Always remember that the conservative, the republican and the tea-bagger have a monopoly on the truth. If you do your own research, be sure to use web sites provided as a public service by Rush, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, Buchanan, Gingrich or Palin. Avoid all use of “Google Scholar” and all work submitted by the socialist professors at our universities. Avoid all government websites for statistical information as they are controlled by Obama. Only cite think tanks that are funded by and work for conservatives, the republicans and the tea-baggers.

And remember, winning is always more important than the truth.

That Was No Apology, Mr. Wilson

2009-09-10T12:47:00.000-04:00

During last night’s address to the joint session of congress, Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled “YOU LIE!” when the President said illegal immigrants would not be able to participate in the public health care option.

And then Joe Wilson quickly apologized by calling a presidential aide and sending an email to reporters:

"This evening, I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."

Usually when someone apologizes, they start with stating what they did that they need to apologize for: "This evening, I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill.”

He is apologizing for letting his emotions get the best of him, not for showing the President disrespect. Not for calling the President a liar. Not for acting in a manner toward a President never before witnessed by the living generations of Americans watching this speech.

And doesn’t the statement “While I disagree with the president’s statement…” translate into “I’m holding my ground. He’s a liar.”?

“I extend sincere apologies to the President….” This third person delivery smacks of insincerity at best.

This is no apology to the President for showing great disrespect. This is nothing more than an apology to the Republican Party for being embarrassed by one of its own.

Joe Wilson, you still owe the President a sincere apology.

I'd love to hear how you feel about this. Please leave a comment......

Tea-baggers: A Retrospect

2009-09-02T13:20:00.003-04:00

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

Question with Boldness.
Hold to the truth.
Speak without fear.

Reagan raised the deficit 164%, cuts taxes for the rich, no problem they said.
Reagan deregulated the savings & Loan Industry, Free Market!, no problem they said.
Reagan backs Saddam Hussein in war against Iran, no problem they said.
Reagan addresses the graduating class of 1986 telling them to embrace his economic policies, no problem they said.

Savings & Loan Industry crumbles resulting in a $385B bailout, no problem they said.

Reagan raids the Social Security fund, no problem they said.
Reagan's CIA funds mujahedeen in fight against Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, no problem they said.
Reagan breaks the unions, no problem they said.
Reagan and Allies sell chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, no problem they said.

A loud sucking sound is heard as American Jobs go over seas, no problem they said.

Mujahedeen abandoned by Reagan once Soviet Union pulls out & Taliban rises to power, no problem they said.
Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait after cease fire with Iran to pay for Iran-Iraq war, no problem they said.
First Golf War fought and won, no problem they said.
What about his WMDs, the biological and chemical weapons he has? No problem, they said.

9/11 - bin Laden, leader of the Taliban with ties to the mujahedeen attacks America.

Afghanistan invaded to combat Taliban, no problem they said.
Iraq invaded to combat Hassan, no problem they said.
Bush raises deficit by 75%, cuts taxes for the rich, deregulates banking industry, no problem they said.

Patriot Act takes away record amount of freedom and trounces Constitution, no problem, they said.

Bush/Cheney order "detainees" to be tortured, no problem they said.
Cheney calls Geneva Accord "quaint", no problem, they said.
Bush/Cheney suspend Habeas Corpus and begin practice of rendition, no problem they said.
Bush/Cheney administration set up secret prisons, no problem they said.
Bush/Cheney spy on Americans, No problem they said, besides, what do you have to hide?
Bush signs into law bank industry deregulations, no problem, they said.

Housing market begins to decay in 2006, no problem they said.
Recession begins in 2007, no problem they said.
Bush rushes largest bailout in world history through congress, no problem they said, we need it now.
Bush has 47 Czars during his eight years in office, not one tea-bagger or republican says boo - "No problem."

A non-elite is elected President and Obama takes office Jan. 12, 2009.

Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about the constitutionality of Czars.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about loss of rights.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about fascism.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about jobs.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about bailouts.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about deregulation.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about credit laws and banking laws.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about the constitution.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about the public debt.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about record deficits.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about funding an unwinnable war.
Suddenly tea-baggers are concerned about taxes.

And it's all Obama's fault?

Question with Boldness.
Hold to the truth.
Speak without fear.

(C) 2009 John E. Steele - Can be reprinted and distributed as long as credit is given to the author.
Please leave a comment about this post below....

Not So Many Footsteps in the Sand

2009-08-31T12:46:00.000-04:00

One night a man had a dream.
He dreamed he was walking along the beach with Jesus.
Across the sky flashed scenes from the Jesus’ life.
Healing the sick, feeding the poor, turning the other cheek.
For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand:
one belonging to him, and the other to Jesus.

When the last scene of Jesus’ life flashed before him,
he looked back, at the footprints in the sand.
He noticed that many times along the Path of Time since Jesus lived his life,
there were only one set of footprints.

He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in history.
This really bothered him and he questioned Jesus about it:
"Jesus, you said that once we decided to follow you, you'd walk with us all the way.
But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in history
there are only one set of footprints.
I don't understand why when we needed you most you would leave us?"

The Jesus replied:
"I love you and I would never leave you,
During historical times of trial and suffering, like in the world today,
When you see only one set of footprints, it was then that humankind abandoned me."

And he started to cry. “Jesus,” said the man, “Why are you crying?”

“I cry for those that claim to know me or my father who fight Holy Wars and kill.
I cry for the children who eat bugs from lack of food and die from thirst,
I cry for those that claim to know me and don’t,
Those who keep their money and care nothing for their neighbors.
I cry for those who use my “Second Coming” as an excuse for evil.
There is no “Second Coming” for I have never left.

I cry for those forgotten ones, displaced from war, homeless, hopeless.
I cry for the lack of respect for the life-givers, the women of the world.
I cry for the churches that have great wealth while many die from hunger, thirst, disease.
I cry for all the wonders of my Father’s creation that are disappearing.”

The man stopped walking, for he, too, was now crying.
Then Jesus said “It is as if I had never lived.”

As the man walked down the beach, he noticed Jesus was gone,
He looked back and saw only one set of footprints in the sand…..

Author unknown

.

Posting Links on Facebook, MySpace Without the Advertizing

2009-08-28T09:03:00.000-04:00

Do you like to post links to your MySpace or Facebook page from time to time? I do and most of my friends do as well. Wouldn't it be nice to post these links without all the advertizing that goes along with it? I think so too!

Next time you want to post a link to an article, click the "Printer Friendly Version" or "Print" link first. The article will generally appear in a new window minus all the adds. Grap this link and post it!

Take this article as an example:

Regular Version
Printer Friendly Version

How sweet it is!!

“In God We Trust”: It Is Constitutional Or Not?

2009-08-25T17:53:00.000-04:00

There as been a quiet debate going on in coffee houses across America and in public internet forums such as Facebook: “Is it a violation of church and state to have ‘In God We Trust’ on our money?” Is it constitutional or unconstitutional?

There are those that point out that in our country, our government, at all levels, must maintain separation of church and state. For all practical purposes, this means that the government must treat all religions exactly the same. For example, the government could outlaw all ritual killings of animals for religious purposes. This would be treating all religions the same. The government can’t pass a law that says ritual killing of animals for kosher meat is okay, but killing chickens in the practice of Voodoo is illegal. That would be showing favor to one religion over another, the “big no-no” when it comes to separation of church and state.

Those that maintain it is unconstitutional to have the motto “In God We Trust” appear on our money as a violation of separation of church and state argue that it favors one type of religion over another, namely those that believe that God is the name of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. For example, Christian faiths don’t have an issue with “God” appearing on our money, while Jewish faiths maintain that one must print “G~d”. The Muslim faiths say Allah is the name that should appear, while many pagan traditions maintain that the Goddess is in charge of things (and, by the way, she’s really ticked off). Of course, the atheist will say no one is in charge. But still, the argument goes, having “God” appear is the big no-no and in this way, the government is showing favor of one religion over another.

Those that argue it isn’t unconstitutional say that our founding fathers intended this to be a Christian nation or that God can represent any religion or even if it wasn’t unconstitutional in the first place, they wouldn’t have added it in the 1950s in the midst of McCarthyism. Many argue that doing so is a move away from God and into a society without morals.

There really isn’t a good constitutional argument presented by those in favor of it that I have found; every reason seems to be religious and, incidentally, argued by the religion that appears most favored in the language of the motto itself.

I believe the correct answer to the question of constitutionality is “Yes and No”. Yes, it is partially unconstitutional, and no it is, partially, not unconstitutional.

Lets split our money into their two natural groups: cash and coin.

First, lets talk about our cash money, the bills we put in our wallets, purses, piggy banks and pockets: ones, fives, twenties, fifties and hundreds. These are not distributed by the United States Government!

They are distributed by a private bank called the Federal Reserve Bank. Here is how it works: “Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.” (Federal Reserve Notes).

The Federal Reserve Bank has even issued its own stock (Timberlake, 2008)! So the correct answer is that a private company can print “In God We Trust” on it’s paper without violating the constitution of the United States.

Don’t believe me? Take a bill out and read what is on it: “Federal Reserve Note” right there on the top. Most folks don’t realize that the federal reserve isn’t part of the government, it is a private bank (Timberlake, 2008).

On the other hand, coins are minted by the various U.S. mints and is money in the truest sense of the word. The U.S. mint began in 1792 and has been the federal agency responsible for the production and distribution of coinage every since.

At that time and for many decades afterward, coins were the only money used in the United States. Paper money hadn’t become the norm yet. It wasn’t until 1861 that the first greenback was printed and put into circulation. But still, to this day, a penny is a penny, a quarter, a quarter, etc.

They are made by the federal government, for the federal government, and issued by the federal government. Therefore, it most definitely is a violation of the required separation of church and state to have “In God We Trust” appear on our coins as it shows favor by the government of one religion over another.

So I believe the correct answer to the question as to whether or not it is unconstitutional to have “In God We Trust” on our money to be: Yes and No!

References (in addition to the links provided):

Federal Reserve Notes, 2009, U.S. Department of Treasury, retrieved on 08-25-2009 from http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml#q2

Timberlake, by Richard H, 2008; Federal Reserve System, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Edition, retrieved on August 25, 2009 from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FederalReserveSystem.html

Why Welfare Is Necessary

2009-08-18T05:29:00.000-04:00

2 + 2 is on my mind . . .

Have you ever heard someone say "Those lazy welfare people! They'd rather be on welfare than working! I'm tired of my hard earned money going to them!" Well, lets take a look at the issue and see whether or not it matters if they are lazy and would rather be on welfare or not.

What the Numbers Are

If you don’t like numbers, just skip down to the heading “What the Numbers Mean”. If you don’t mind thinking about numbers, here are some to chew on. Currently in the United States of America, unemployment is just under ten percent: 14,000,000 unemployed people as of June, 2009 (people receiving unemployment benefits). Also, lets consider people who are working part-time but want and need full-time work: 9,000,000 as of May, 2009. There are another 2,200,000 people who want full time work and have looked at some point in the last twelve months.

Now lets look at some poverty rate numbers. The newest information I can find on-line is from 2007. In that year, it was reported that 12.5% of Americans were in poverty. That’s 37,500,000 people.

What The Numbers Tell Us

These numbers tell us that there are at least 62,700,000 people in the United States that are either receiving unemployment, are under employed or receiving welfare of one sort or another.

Some of you might want to say “Fuzzy Math!! Fuzzy Math!”. Okay, to make my point, I’ll cut the number in half: Lets say the numbers really add up to 31,350,000 receiving unemployment and/or welfare. Fair enough? Great!

Now in order to say that these people are lazy instead of working, there would have to be at least 31,350,000 vacant job openings in the United States, right? Think about it. In order to say people are making a choice there has to be more than one thing to choose from right? If you are saying people are lazy instead of working, working has to be a choice, right?

Lets flip things around. Lets assume for the sake of the discussion that tomorrow morning, all the people on welfare woke up trained in some job skill, ready and willing to work. What then?

Is it reasonable to believe that most will find full time work? part time work?
Is it reasonable to believe that there are 30 million vacant jobs? 15 million vacant jobs?

Isn't reasonable to acknowledge that in our society, we have more people than jobs?

Since it is obvious to any fair minded person that we don't have 60, 30 or even 15 million vacant jobs, does it matter if folks on welfare are motivated or not? Perhaps those on welfare that aren't motivated to get off are happier than those on welfare that can't find a way off, who can say.

Why Welfare Is Necessary

The bottom line is that people need to eat, need shelter, clothing and healthcare. Since our society doesn't provide enough jobs for all people who can work, those that can't find work need to do something to meet their basic needs.

Imagine if we didn't have welfare. Since there aren't enough jobs for everyone, what would people without jobs turn to in order to meet their basic needs? Would crime go up? Would we see an increase in organized crime? Black markets? Prostitution? Isn't possible that we'd also see an increase in rioting, looting and a lose of the rule of law in some areas?

When we think through the alternatives to welfare, we begin to understand the real necessity of it as a socially stabilizing institution.

A Possible Solution: Creating Full Employment

The obvious solution to eliminating the need for welfare is to greatly increase the number of jobs available to Americans.

What if we raised tariffs on imported goods to the point of those goods being as expensive to import as they would be to manufacture here in America? Trade imbalances in manufacturing have accounted for 59% of the decline in manufacturing employment since 1998. In fact, just in the period between 1998 and 2003, America lost 3 million manufacturing jobs due to imports.

Imagine if we brought back our textile industries, our steel production and foundries, our auto parts manufacturing, production of televisions, refrigerators, cell phones, washers and dryers, bicycles -- the list goes on and on.

In 1978, there were approximately 19 million manufacturing jobs in the US. In 2008, there were approximately 10 million manufacturing jobs. We can also expect that if we were to bring back those 9 million lost manufacturing jobs, those jobs would spawn an additional 2 or 3 million more jobs. Working people spend money.

Lets assume, for the sake of our discussion, that tomorrow morning we woke up, the tariffs are in place and all these lost manufacturing jobs, plus those secondary jobs, are back. That would be a job increase of 11 million jobs. Very fuzzy math here, I admit it, but it is the concept, the principle that I'm presenting that is most important.

Lets assume, also, for the sake of our discussion, that the recession is over and that the 14 million folks on unemployment are back to work. So now we have a total of 25 million people working who previously weren't. Remember my initial figure of unemployed, under-employed and those on welfare?

60 million. 60 million people unemployed, under-employed and on welfare. With an additional 25 million jobs, we'd still have 35 million people out of work.

For the sake of our discussion, lets assume that tomorrow morning all the illegal immigrants are back in their country of origin. Lets assume all of them are working (they aren't but lets say they are). 17 million more minimum wage jobs. Still leaves about 18 million folks on welfare.

One more thing we could do if we were interesting in getting folks off of welfare would be to redefine full time employment as 35 hours per week and to make it illegal to work more than 35 hours per week for hourly employees.

If we take all the jobs we've created under this fantasy plan (42 million), reduce a work week to 35 hours, we can create 6 million more jobs (5 hours from every worker, so every 7 workers equals 35 hours, or one additional job).

We sill have 11 million folks on welfare. If we were to apply the 35 work week to all the hourly jobs in America, not just those we created in our fantasy plan, we just might create enough jobs for everyone.

Conclusion

Still think welfare folk would rather be on welfare than working? Even if you're right, what does it matter? There are more people than possible jobs. Unless you are willing to institute these or similar radical ideas to actually give people on welfare a chance to get off, why not leave them alone?

Being on welfare sucks.

Thanks for reading my blog.....

A Letter to the American Public

2009-08-11T10:38:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

I’d like to introduce myself; however, keeping my identity private will allow me to be candid with you. You see, I’m a billionaire and I’d like to have an open and honest discussion with you about my lifestyle, about America and how you fit in.

As I said, I’m a billionaire. Last time I spoke with my accountant, she informed me that I was worth a little over 3.2 billion dollars. Most of that was made on real estate during the past ten years, as well as futures, bonds, gold and stocks – yes, healthcare stocks, oil stocks and pharmaceutical stocks. Last year, I earned just over $287 million dollars from investments, not from a pay check. I don’t get a pay check from a job. Yes, I’m retired. I’ve realized my dream of being retired before age 50.

My income works out to around 24 million dollars a month, or just about $785,000.00 a day, Sunday through Saturday, holidays, weekends – every single day of the year regardless of what I do. And last year, after my deductions, I paid only 18% federal income tax, leaving me a disposable income of around $640,000.00 per day.

Most of my income is re-invested. I acquire more wealth. I would suppose you could say that acquiring more wealth is my job now. The truth is, at a certain point, there just isn’t much I want to buy for myself and family that we don’t all ready have. We have everything we need and much, much more.

I’m not revealing my personal finances to make anyone feel bad, myself feel better or to create negative feelings in any way. My purpose is to let you have a look at something you would otherwise never get to see: the finances of an ultra rich person in American.

There aren’t many billionaires in America. I’m one of only about 350 people. There aren’t really many millionaires as a percentage of population either. In fact, less than 1% of all households in America have an income of a million or more. Another interesting thing: only about 10% of all households have an income of about $200,000 or more, including me and the rest of the billionaires. That percentage is correct if capital gains are included.

Now here is a secret that few people know: the top 10% income earners in America earn 40% of all income. That’s right. About 2.5 million households earn 40% of the income and the other approximately 130 million households split the other 60% of income - 90 million houses earn 50K or less. The average amount of tax paid by the 60% of you that earn less than 200K is around 35%.

For billionaires like me, our average federal income tax is less than 20%.

I tell you this because you may not know the reality here in America.

I will continue to amass wealth. I can’t help it.

After buying all I want and need, there are only two things left for me to do with my money.

The first is own more wealth – income producing possessions which will allow me to make more money. The second is to spend my money in ways that shape the world – on media, on politicians – just to keep things the way they are or to change them in ways I believe they need to change.

If you forced your government to raise my taxes to, say, 50% with no loop holes, do you think I could get by on the $390,000 a day I would be left with?

Would the extra taxes raised help with the deficit? The debt?

I’ll admit, I’d have to make some adjustments – not to my lifestyle, just to how quickly I can amass more wealth and to how hard I influence the world.

Thank you for your time. I hope I’ve given you more information to make more informed decisions about the world you live in.

Anonymous Billionaire

So why aren't those lazy people working?

2009-07-27T13:23:00.000-04:00

I'm Just Thinking Out Loud Here

If anything gets up under my skin, it’s people that say folks aren’t working because they’d rather be on welfare or unemployment. That’s just plain stupid. Yes it is, and if you feel that way, or even if you don’t, read on.

What the Numbers Are

If you don’t like numbers, just skip down to the heading “What the Numbers Mean”. If you don’t mind thinking about numbers, here are some to chew on. Currently in the United States of America, unemployment is just under ten percent: 14,000,000 unemployed people as of June, 2009 (people receiving unemployment benefits). Also, lets consider people who are working part-time but want and need full-time work: 9,000,000 as of May, 2009. There are another 2,200,000 people who want full time work and have looked at some point in the last twelve months.

Now lets look at some poverty rate numbers. The newest information I can find on-line is from 2007. In that year, it was reported that 12.5% of Americans were in poverty. That’s 37,500,000 people.

What The Numbers Mean

These numbers tell us that there are at least 62,700,000 people in the United States that are either receiving unemployment, are under employed or receiving welfare of one sort or another.

Some of you might want to say “Fuzzy Math!! Fuzzy Math!”. Okay, to make my point, I’ll cut the number in half: Lets say the numbers really add up to 31,350,000 receiving unemployment and/or welfare. Fair enough? Great!

Now in order to say that these people are lazy instead of working, there would have to be at least 31,350,000 vacant job openings in the United States, right? Think about it. In order to say people are making a choice there has to be more than one thing to choose from right? If you are saying people are lazy instead of working, working has to be a choice, right?

Now prove to me people are lazy and would rather be poor: show me where the imaginary 31,350,000 job vacancies are.

What?
What do you mean, you can’t?
What do you mean there aren’t that many job vacancies in America?

So why aren’t people working instead of collecting unemployment and welfare subsidies?

For No Good Reason!

2009-04-28T20:09:00.001-04:00

When it comes to allowing same-sex marriage, why are a majority of Americans so willing to openly discriminate against a group of its own citizens?

The list of reasons to ban same-sex marriages looks something like this: the rearing of children in the best possible environment; the opinion that marriage’s purpose is natural procreation; the fear that children raised in same-sex families will be gay or lesbian as a result; that homosexuality isn’t natural; keeping the traditional one man, one woman marriage; religious convictions; and finally, that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to polygamous marriages.

At first glance, these all appear to be good reasons to many people (and some governmental units) to continue discriminating against same-sex couples concerning civil marriage. However, when investigated, none of these arguments are supportable. In other words, the banning of same-sex marriage is done for no good reason. Not convinced? Read on!

To determine whether banning same-sex marriages actually accomplishes any of the goals or desires listed above, several factors need to be looked at. Are there scientific facts done by unbiased, qualified researchers to back up a claim? Is the stated goal a legitimate one for government? Are the groups affected by the ban appropriately included in it? Inclusiveness is a measure as to whether or not banning same sex civil marriages include all of the people who, by being banned, would allow the law to accomplish the intended goal. Does the ban include too many people (over-inclusive) or too few people (under-inclusive) to accomplish the ban’s goals? (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 55)

It is a noble and desirable goal of government to want laws in place that make the raising of children the best it can be, of that there is no doubt. Many people who demand that same-sex marriage be banned claim that allowing it will harm children raised within these households. What do the organizations whose jobs it is to protect children have to say about it? Does the ban actually prevent groups of people who aren’t desirable as parents from having or raising children? Are some groups missed or other groups included who shouldn’t be?

In looking at the emotional and mental health of children from same-sex marriages, studies show teenagers develop normally with same-sex parents (Patterson, C., et al, 2004). The children of same-sex marriages date the same, learn the same, and have the same number of adjustment issues related to the transition to adulthood as do the teenagers of opposite sexed marriages (Patterson, C. et al, 2004). In one way, they tend to be healthier than those in opposite-sex marriages. They are more honest and healthier in terms of their own sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay or lesbian.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America have all come to the same conclusion: gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 10). Ignoring the competent scientific research of these organizations would be required for our government to claim same-sex families aren’t healthy for kids. An ignorant government by default is an incompetent government and clearly not the goal of the ban, just the result of it.

Since the best objective professional and expert research has shown that children are just as healthy in same-sex marriages as they are in opposite-sex marriages, banning same-sex marriages out of care and concern for the health of the children isn’t legitimate.

Additionally, banning same-sex marriages based on the raising of children includes same-sex marriages in situations where the participants have no desire nor intent to raise children at all. The ban unfairly punishes same-sex couples who wish to remain childless (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 55).

The ban does not prevent sex offenders, felons with a history of violence, pedophiles, and people with a history of multiple failed marriages nor other groups that would more than likely provide less than the best environment for raising children from getting married.

Clearly the failure to include all groups known to make bad parents as well as including groups known to make good parents and groups who never want to be parents at all, shows that bans against same-sex marriage are poorly written laws, ineffective at accomplishing their stated goal of insuring the best environment in which to raise children. It also shows that these bans are both under-inclusive and over inclusive by limited the target group to just same-sex couples.

This clearly illustrates the ban’s intent is not the stated goal, but rather it is to deny same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society. In other words, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate, and that is no good reason.

There are those that maintain the purpose of marriage is to have children – more specifically, to naturally procreate (Sokolowski, R. 2004). If the intent of the law were to establish that the purpose of marriage was natural procreation, the ban would need to include all couples who wish to remain childless in order to accomplish the stated goal. It would need to include opposite-sexed couples who fail medical exams to prove they can procreate naturally before being issued a marriage license. After all, according to this argument, if you can’t procreate naturally, what is the point in getting married? It would need to include women who are too old to have children and men who have had vasectomies.

In the extreme (if not all ready there), the ban would need to make medical procedures aimed at the artificial means of getting pregnant illegal. Sperm banks and egg banks aren’t natural and would have no purpose if the government’s goal is to insure natural procreation as the means whereby a woman becomes pregnant. Same-sex marriage bans clearly fail to include all groups of people who lack the ability to procreate naturally or who wish not to procreate at all.

Clearly, bans on same-sex marriages completely fail to insure natural procreation. It is not clear that limiting procreation to natural means is in the best interest of the government and society if it also means outlawing artificial and thereby unnatural, means of procreation. Clearly, these bans are very under-inclusive when considering the attainment of the stated goal of natural procreation. They are so poorly written as to never be able to move American society even one inch closer to natural procreation. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that this is a valid governmental goal.

It is clearly shown that the ban’s intent is not the stated goal of insuring natural procreation via government regulation, but rather to deny same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society. In other words, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate which, again, is no good reason.

Others proclaim the unfounded fear that children raised in such families with become same-sex oriented themselves, that the number of gay and lesbians in our society will increase. There is no research to support these fears. According to considerable recent evidence, sexual orientation may significantly be influenced by inborn hormonal factors which are genetic (Unknown, 2007) as well as by environmental post-birth factors. Additionally, it has to be admitted that the vast and overwhelming majority of gay people in our society come from opposite-sex marriages where natural procreation was practiced.

Having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual is not considered a mental illness (Unknown, 2007). It is very difficult to change a person’s sexual orientation and doing so can be harmful to the person (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 10). Given that the vast majority of gay people come from opposite-sex marriages, not same-sex couples, and that sexual orientation may have biological or genetic factors, it seems doubtful that banning same-sex marriage will have any affect on children’s sexual orientation or that allowing same-sex marriages will result in more gay people.

This clearly illustrates that attempting to protect a child’s sexual orientation (hoping for a heterosexual one) is inadequately and unnecessarily addressed by a ban, and again shows that the ban is really about denying same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society. Again, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate which isn’t a good reason for passing the law in the first place. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, isn’t it?

Other folks claim that homosexuality isn’t natural, that human beings are the only critters on earth that act this way. While homosexual behavior is completely unnatural for heterosexual people, it is equally true that heterosexual behavior is unnatural to homosexual people. However, this does not mean that homosexuality is inherently unnatural.

Additionally, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species. Male tree swallows have been observed in homosexual behavior (Lombardo, et. al. 1994). Penguins, scarab beetles, bonobos (close relatives of the chimpanzee), and black swans have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. In fact, some 1500 species have been observed in homosexual behavior in the wild (Driscoll, E. 2008).

It certainly suggests that for some humans, the behavior may indeed be natural. When the natural world is considered, homosexual behavior is found through out and therefore has the appearance of being a natural behavior not limited to human beings. In this regard, any fair minded person would have to agree that this argument isn’t valid.

In terms of inclusiveness, same-sex marriage bans do not include other unnatural behaviors such as tattooing, piercing, wearing finger nail polish or the cutting or dying of one’s hair. It fails to include breast implants, face lifts and hair transplants. All of these are clearly unnatural behaviors found no where else in nature. The ban is clearly under-inclusive.

Given that banning of same-sex marriage does nothing to attain the stated goal of reducing presumed unnatural behavior amongst humans, one can only conclude that the purpose of these laws is not the stated goal, but rather to discriminate, which is no good reason.

What about the justification for a ban being that it has traditionally been one man, one woman? If we exclude the Mormon Church which legally practiced polygamy for a brief time in our history and Native Americans who practiced polygamy for some 10,000 years on this land, then yes, it has always been one man, one woman. Traditions are a good thing, right? Like the good, fine traditions of Thanksgiving, putting lights up over the holidays and Halloween. These are all good traditions. One man, one woman is a good American tradition indeed. What’s wrong with simply banning same-sex marriages based on tradition? In terms of equal protection under the U.S. constitution, the argument that it is tradition isn’t valid (Varnum v. Brien, 2009).

There was a time not that long ago here in the United States where the marriage of people from different races was outlawed. It was a tradition to not marry a person of another race. Many states actually made the tradition into laws making it illegal for a black person to marry a white person. It was called unnatural. It wasn’t until 1987 that Mississippi repealed the state statute forbidding "the marriage of a white person and a Negro" ( Unknown, 2005). A black man (or woman) could very well be lynched in certain parts of America for even having a sexual or love relationship with a white person, or for simply being innocent yet accused of it.

Other American traditions that have been outlawed include slavery; election laws based on educational level (and other Jim Crow Laws); separate-but-equal laws (segregation); discrimination based on age, sex, race, or religion; women not being allowed to vote; and being able to assault and batter a female spouse or one’s child. In fact, discrimination in the work place based on sexual orientation is illegal in the United States, isn’t it? At one time or another, these were all American traditions. Yet America has a long and justified history of not keeping things the same simply to keep them the same.

When a law is passed that has no other governmental objective other than to maintain the tradition of one man, one woman marriages, it fails to have any legal validity when equal protection under the constitution of the United States is concerned (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 52). If laws passed simply to institutionalize a tradition were constitutional in regard to equal protection, inter-racial marriage bans would be legal, spousal abuse would be legal, child abuse would be legal, racial discrimination would be legal and a whole host of other things that were once American traditions would be legal.

Therefore, it has been clearly shown that for the single reason of maintaining the tradition of one man, one woman, the government has no legitimate reason for the ban. Denying same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society based on their sexual orientation results in denying them equal protection under the constitution. In other words, the effect of these laws is discrimination. Discrimination should never be a reason to pass laws, should it? Discrimination is unconstitutional, is it not?

The most difficult discussion to have related to a reason for banning same-sex marriages is that of religious conviction. Simply put, for the majority of Americans, their religion tells them that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and un-natural and this is perfectly legitimate and legal. These churches will never marry a gay couple, never condone the behavior and are within their rights to do so. Yet, not all religions or churches believe this.

Americans have a right to follow or not follow what ever religion they wish. This right is in the U.S. Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”. Individuals have the right to exercise their own religion, or no religion, and that in so doing, they will remain free from any government influence or compulsion (Washington, et. al., 1791).

From a governmental perspective, the banning of same-sex marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one: each ban makes civil marriage for same-sex couples illegal. Yet, same-sex marriage bans do not protect every American citizen’s religious convictions as is required by the Bill of Rights. On the contrary: for those religions and churches who believe same-sex marriages are as sacred as opposite-sex marriages, the ban infringes on their constitutional right to exercise their own religion. They are neither free from government interference nor from government compulsion. They are forced to follow the religious belief of a different faith, a different religion, and a different church.

In short, the government is showing favor to one religion over another. If the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to protect religious conviction and the result of the ban is the infringement of individual religious freedom, then indeed, the ban has utterly failed at the stated goal and accomplished the opposite of that goal.

On the other hand, allowing same-sex marriages does not require churches or religions that are against them to marry same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex marriage insures the religious freedom of all Americans. By allowing same-sex marriages, the government is preventing one religion or church from forcing their beliefs, via legal means, upon another. This is exactly what our constitution is supposed to do: protect all Americans from an officially endorsed state religion.

Allowing same-sex marriage furthers religious freedom in America while the passing of same-sex marriage bans to protect religious conviction has the opposite effect. Banning it infringes upon the religious freedom of certain groups of Americans. Therefore, the banning of same-sexed marriage based on religious conviction fails to accomplish its goal in the worst possible way: it violates freedom of and from religion.

This clearly illustrates the ban’s effect is to deny same-sex couples not only the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society, but their religious freedoms as well. In other words, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate against individuals, not to protect religious conviction. Discrimination and religious oppression should never be a reason to pass laws and so no good reason is found here, either.

The last common reason people argue for banning same-sex marriage is their belief that this will ultimately result in the legalization of polygamous marriages. The first things that tend to pop into people’s minds when polygamy is mentioned are the Mormon cults of the American southwest. Forced child marriages, teenage male children forced out of those communities to reduce competition for the women, sexual abuse, spousal abuse and child abuse are the most common elements of polygamy mentioned consistently in news reposts.

However, there is another group of Americans that routinely practice polygamy albeit in the shadows. They are the American Islamists. The Islamic religious law allows a man to take a second wife if the first wife can not have children. Additionally, the husband is required by religious law to treat each wife the same. If he buys clothes for the first wife, he must buy clothes for the second. If he buys a car for the second, he must also buy one for the first. Two nights he must sleep with the first wife and two nights he must then sleep with the second (Badawi, Jamal, 1998). Rarely are the types of problems that are found in Mormon cults found within the Islamic religious community. With the Islamic Law being about 1500 years old, almost as old as the Christian Law, should the government favor one religious law over another?

Independent of legalizing same-sex marriages, the question of polygamy with respect to religious freedoms may indeed become an issue in this nation. Banning same-sex marriages fails to prevent religious cults, American Islamists, or even average Americans from practicing polygamous marriage, creating a class of felons not readily seen by the public. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. They are called Polygamy Laws, not same-sex marriage bans.

Again, the stated goal of preventing polygamous marriages in America is not furthered in any way by the passage of bans on same-sex marriages. Laws all ready exist that make polygamous marriage illegal. Redundancy isn’t necessary, especially inept redundancy. Not one of these bans or state constitutional amendments mentions polygamy and is therefore under-inclusive in scope. Once more, this is neither a valid reason nor a good reason for discriminating against a group of our own citizens.

In spite of no good reason being put forth, 29 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages and another 14 states have legislation banning them (Unknown, 2009). As Americans, we would never stand for banning inter-racial marriage or domestic violence or denying voting rights to groups based on sex, sexual orientation or race. To do so would be ignorant, unconstitutional and definitely un-American. We should not stand for banning same-sex marriages for these same reasons.

So then, why are a majority of Americans so willing to openly discriminate against a group of their own mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews?

References:

Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499, Iowa Supreme Court Ruling, (2009) Daily Transcript News. Retrieved on April 3, 2009 from http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/iowa040309.pdf

Patterson, C., Wainright, J., Russell, S., Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents Developing Normally, Study Finds... (2004, November 15). Ascribe Newswire: Health, Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Health Source - Consumer Edition database. Retrieved on March 27, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hxh&AN=15157808&site=ehost-live

Unknown. (2005, August). THE YEAR WE WERE BORN. Smithsonian, Retrieved March 27, 2009, from MAS Ultra - School Edition database. Retrieved on March 27, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=17726263&site=ehost-live

Sokolowski, R. (2004, December 6). The Primacy of Procreation. America, 191(18), 14-15. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Professional Development Collection database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=15174679&site=ehost-live

Huppke, R. (2009, March 23). Two views on what marriage means. Chicago Tribune (IL), Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Newspaper Source database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W62100070859&site=ehost-live

Washington, et. al., 1791. Bill of Rights: A brief History. Cornell University Law School, retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Unknown, 2007. Sexual Orientation. University of South Carolina Counseling and Human Development Center, Retrieved on April 26, 2009 from http://www.sa.sc.edu/shs/chdc/sexualorientation.shtml

Lombardo, Michael P., Bosman, Ruth M., Faro, Christine A., Houtteman, Stephen G., Kluisza, Timothy S. (1994), Homosexual Copulations by Male Tree Swallow., The Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 555-557; Published by: Wilson Ornithological Society. Retrieved on April 26, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4163456

Driscoll, E. (2008, June). Bisexual Species. Scientific American Mind, 19(3), 68-73. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from MasterFILE Premier Database from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=32576078&site=ehost-live

Unknown (2009). Statewide Marriage Prohibitions. Human Rights Campaign; retrieved April 5, 2009 from http://www.hrc.org/documents/marriage_prohibitions.pdf

Badawi, Jamal (1998). Polygamy in Islamic Law. Islam for Today, Retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm

A beautiful Prayer

2009-04-01T10:55:00.000-04:00

Oh Great Spirit
Whose voice I hear in the winds,
and whose breath gives life to all the world,
The voice of my drum
sings a song of peace for all Nations~
Let us all come together at this change in the Seasons.

May we find time to play our drums
and sing our songs and chants of praise and gratitude~
to the Great and Holy Spirit~
Wankan Tanka cewakiyelo~
Anpetu Ki le cewakiya ~Omakiyayo
On this day I am praying~Help me~
This is my song Oh great and Holy Spirit~

A prayer of peace for all the Nations~
a song of peace to fill all the peoples hearts

We come to you to ask for strength, courage and wisdom
as we meet the challenges upon our earth walk~
and we thank you for each new day given to us!

Help us reflect love, honor, and truth in all of our decisions
that we must make!

We give thanks that we can gather together here
within this sacred circle of Life,

We know Grandfather, that you give us a sacred power,
but it seems like we don't know its purpose~~
So now we've learned as we gather together,
The name of that power is love,
Invincible, irresistible, overwhelming power,
This power you give to us~~ we are going to use ~~
and we'll dry the tears of those who cry~~
And heal the hurts of those that are hurting~

Tunkasila Omakiyayo ~
Grandfather help us and guide us on our journey of life~~
Be it known that we are worthy~
to serve you in the light of our Divine and holy Creation~

We ask that you guide our lives
so that the many broken hearts can be restored and rejuvenated~
Where there is sadness, we ask for joy,
where there is hatred~ we ask that you fill our hearts with love,
Where there is addiction for alcohol or drugs~
we ask for guidance to those who have lost their way~
Where there are feelings of hopelessness~
we ask you to fill our hearts with hope~
Hope for a brighter future~
Where there is weakness~ we ask for you to give us strength~
Strength to stand strong within our truths~

Where there are feelings of unworthiness~ we ask for strength~
Where there are feelings of insecurity~ we ask for direction~
Where there are feelings of hatred~ we ask for love to take its
place~
Where there are feelings of injustice~
we ask for compassion to fill our hearts~
For those whose minds are filled with ignorance ~
we ask that their minds be filled with truth~
Where there is separation~ we ask for you to unite our people~
Where there is dis-respect~ we ask for respect of our ancestral ways~

Teach us the ways that bring understanding and co-operation
among those we meet along our journey of life~

We ask that you restore our traditional values
that are held within our ancient ancestral hearts~
United we shall become a strong and proud people~
Let us carry forth all the good that you have created in us~
open our eyes and give us the sight to see and know the truth ~

Anpetu Kina chekiyao~

On this day we are praying~
We ask that the sun always shine light upon our pathway
to protect and guide us upon our Earth walk that we do~

We ask that the sun fill our Spirits with new energy each and every day.

We ask these things in the name of the father mother God~
in fulfilment of God's Holy Will~ so be it aho~

We ask that the Grandmother moon~
restore our sight to see~ even in the darkest of nights~

We ask that the dews of heaven flow freely thru us~
as our physical bodies become transformed
into a universal cup of Divine Creation~

Let our cups overflow with the Divine expression of Gods love~
as we allow the dews of heaven to flow freely thru us~
to bless every man, women and child evolving
upon our Beloved Mother Earth.
We ask that the wind carry our healing prayers
to the four corners of the world~
to create a "Wankan Tankan" kind of place~ a holy place~
within our hearts, and within the hearts of all humanity~
We give thanks for our life, our family, friends and all our
relations~

Wiconi Yawaste Wana ho hay Teshko Oyata
(( We are here to bless of all life
in the eternal presence of our Divine Being))
Ste Ste Nawajin yelo~ Omakiyayo
Kola Lena Cicu Welo Wiconi waste
I gift these words to you my friends-~~
Apeya Wowastelaka~~~( with love~)
so be it~ aho

Blessings be with you my friends~
Written by Redfoxsees

Facebook User Warning: Toon Yourself = Spyware

2009-03-24T18:03:00.000-04:00

Recently, while on Facebook, I saw an ad for Toon Yourself! which asks you to install a program called Zwinky.

There are many downloads included with the installation of this program which are known spyware programs and will gum up your computer some thing terrible.

Here is their "Bonus" blurb:

"Bonus: Also includes Smiley Central™, Cursor Mania™, Popular Screensavers™, the MyWebSearch search box and Search Assistant - relevant search results in response to incorrectly formatted browser address requests."

If you've installed Zwinky (the program that toons you) and you are now stuck with these programs, download Spybot Search and Destroy. This free anti-spyware program has a long and good reputation for removing these (and many other programs) from your system completely and safely.

Vonage Device Hijacks Internet Traffic via Proxy Server

2009-03-07T11:03:00.000-05:00

I have a home computer network. 3 newer computers running Windows XP professional. These are connected to a router (Netgear Prosafe VPN Firewall FVS318). The system has been reliable and functioning perfectly for a few years now.

We added Vonage phone service here about a week ago. We're happy with the service, not having to worry about minutes, love having multiple phones in our home and all in all are glad we made the switch (we dropped one cell phone and added Vonage to save money, control costs and have greater flexibility when at home).

However, after a few days we noticed we weren't getting our emails. Nor could we connect to our domain. I called our web host ( http://www.westhost.net/ - highly recommended web hosting!) and tested our settings. Everything checked out on their end. I could traceroute to the domain from my end, but DNS was jammed (meaning my web browsers wouldn't go to the site). The DNS seemed to be blocked for certain IP addresses.

Next, I called my internet service provider (ISP), which is Charter Communications -- very helpful also. Everything with the ISP was fine -- they could hit the domain, I couldn't. They weren't blocking any IP addresses and had no DNS issues at that time. They couldn't explain why my domain was blocked on my end. We found a few other sites I couldn't hit. They did tell me that I was having either a browser issue or I had been compromised with a virus, rootkit, or trojan.

Not good news. Rebuilding three computers takes hours with backing up files, reinstalling the OS, all the software, program and personal settings, files, etc. Furthermore, internet connection speed tests confirmed something was chewing up my bandwidth: my best rates were around 1000 kbps with a 5000 kbps cable connection (5 meg connection).

Before rebuilding all my systems, I decided to do some more trouble shooting to see if I could narrow down the problem:

With my computer connected directly to my ISP modem I was able to open my domain's home page in IE and Foxfire -- everything worked fine, nothing blocked. (This proved I was not compromised at all and saved me many hours of work.)
With my computer connected to my router and with the router connected to my ISP modem all worked fine as well. (This confirmed my router was not compromised.)

However, putting the Vonage device in between my internet modem and my router resulted in my domain being blocked and an inability to check my email and slower network speeds.

What was causing this you may wonder? Only one explanation: the Vonage device was rerouting all my internet traffic through a proxy server!

With the Vonage device out of the loop, the network connection speeds increased to 4700 kbps, just shy of the max connect speed of 5000 kbps. I could check my email and hit my domain's home page. The problem, without a doubt, had been identified!

To get around having Vonage hijack all my internet traffic via their proxy server, having blocked websites and slower internet speeds, I simple plugged the Vonage device directly into my router and it works fine. Give it a try in your home!!

How Vonage Says To Set Up Their Device

ISP Modem ----> Vonage Device ----> Router ----> Home Computers, Printers

Alternate Setup to Bypass Vonage Proxy Server

ISP Modem ----> Router ----> Home Computers, Printers, Vonage Device

John E. Steele is a Microsoft certified professional, a computer network administrator and network security consultant currently working on a BA in Psychology/Substance Abuse at Kaplan University.

APA Formatting Meets the 21st Century

2009-02-27T00:32:00.000-05:00

APA formating ( shhhh! It's a link to wikipedia!! ; rotfl ) contains certain elements which are antiquated, and deprecated in this electronic age. Certainly the sound reasons for their first appearance in the APA format is understandable, but it is time for the APA format to grow into the online university setting. Hey, I'm all for giving credit where credit is due when quoting or referring to someone else's working. But there are some things about the APA format that simply aren't necessary any longer when electronic documents are concerned. Or, put another way, there are things about the APA format up with which we need no longer put!

For example, why left-aligned? Newspapers, magazines, and books all use justified alignment of text most of the time. Justified alignment looks better, and is more readable given that we are more used to it than the sloppy appearance of left-justified text. Given no difference in paper length using left-aligned or justified alignment of text, it's time to let this requirement pass on into APA history. Given that the APA format was born during the age of the typewriter, I can understand making it clear to students that hours spent attempting to justify align the type written paper is not at all expected. It is time to drop the requirement for left-justified text plain and simple.

Additionally, the requirement of double-spaced papers is confusing in this modern age of computer generated text. I completely understand that when the APA format was developed, we were using (and are probably still using) the printed paper (in traditional classrooms). I understand the need for professors to have room for hand written comments. However; in the online univeristy setting, the use of Microsoft Word’s “Commenting” function (and simular functions in other programs) has eliminated the need for room to comment.

The requirement for a running header is also deprecated by the computer age. In a paper world, where pages can get separated from each other, it makes sense to have the running header on each page. In the online word of study, I would suggest that if a page gets dropped from an electronic copy of a paper, there is a more serious issue at hand and certainly an unreliable staple is not to blame.

Even citations could be advanced in this electronic document age. Why not create a link to the reference? Continue to cite as usual, just make the citation a link to an online resource. Shift click and you've the referenced source in front of you. Spiffy! Oh, the possibilities of leveraging technology! All in all, I do believe that it is time for an Electronic APA Format. (Perhaps it could be referred to as the eAPA format?)

Should such a project exist, I would gladly volunteer my time, my computer software knowledge and my experience to the project.

President Dolt Lifts Executive Ban On Drilling Off Shore

2008-07-14T18:21:00.001-04:00

President George W Bush has lifted an executive ban on drilling for oil in most US coastal waters, and has urged lawmakers to follow suit. He wants Congress to end its separate ban on drilling, in order to reduce US dependence on oil imports. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court," he said, adding that it was "time for action".

It will be at least ten years before any oil from off shore drilling hits the market.

How about setting the National Speed Limit to 55 mph? That will reduce consumption by approx. 15% the day it is in place!

Is America the Greatest Country on Earth?

2008-02-23T10:47:00.000-05:00

During this campaign year, there seems to be a lot of talk about how America is the greatest country on earth. I've been asking my self that question as well. It would seem to me that the greatest country on earth would have several factors true in order to qualify as being the best.

My criteria for Greatest Country In The World:

Best Health Care
Lowest Infant Mortality Rate
Best Educational System
Most Even Distribution of Wealth
Lowest Incarceration Rate
An Adequate Military

Let me also state that I do not know what the standing is for the United States of America when compared to the rest of the world and that this is a learning experience for me as well.

First, the greatest country on earth would have the best health care system for it's people. That would mean everyone in that country would have health care. It would mean that the health care system would be affordable for all, or free for all, and that it's approach would focus on prevention of health issues as well as treatment of health issues. The infant mortality rate would be the lowest as a result. The public health care system would work in conjunction with other governmental agencies such as an FDA type agency, a Surgeon General type position as well as be respected and listened to by the different branches of that country's government.

And not just physical health. The greatest country on earth would have a real mental health system available for all. A system that would provide the population with resources to heal or to teach people how to live with those disabilities that aren't curable but manageable.

So this begs the question: Does the United States of America have the best health care system in the world? In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the world's countries as to who has the best health care system and the United States ranks 37th in the world. 36 counties have better health care system according to the World Health Organization's criteria. The honor of having the best health care system in the world went to France in 2000.

Okay, so we don't have the best health care system in the world. What about #2, lowest infant mortality rate? According to Save The Children's 2007 report "State of the World's Mothers", the United States ranks 10th in the first world nations.According that report, the people of color in the United States of America have a higher infant mortality rate than do white people. The economic division caused by our racism has yet to be abolished.I'm shocked that we rank so low. For me, the Greatest Country on this earth would have the lowest infant mortality rate. That honor goes to Sweden (ranked as having the 23rd best health care system in 2000).

Alright, so we don't have the best health care system, we don't have the lowest infant mortality rate --- what about education? Certainly we must have the best educational system in the world, right? And there has been a lot of talk lately about how our education system is in crisis. Doing a quick Google Search of the best educational system in world is sobering to say the least. Of the first world nations, "South Korea has the most effective education system in the world's richest countries, with Japan in second place and the United States and Germany near the bottom, a United Nations study said Tuesday."

But the results of the report in the linked article are referring to pre-"No Child Left Behind" results.What about post-"No Child Left Behind Results"? Well, NCLB is based the wrong way to teach, imposes sanctions without providing resources and amounts to nothing more that "All Children Left Behind". Our public educational system is underfunded. I can find nothing on the internet other than studies that show our educational system is near the bottom of the list. The best educational system in the world seems to fall to Finland as of the most recent studies.

That brings us to the distribution of wealth. It would seem to me that the greatest country on earth would be measured by not how wealthy their richest citizens are, but on how wealthy their poorest citizens are. What is the economic distance between the richest and the poorest? What is the distance between the richest and the average person?

Doing a Google Search on "Economic Distribution in the United States", shows the largest gap between the top five percent and the lowest five percent in human history. The rich are getting richer, the middle class is disappearing and the poor have had services and resources disappear since 2000 while the richest in the United States have received tax cuts and other legislative changes resulting in a faster, more institutionalized wealth than at any other time in our nations history.

In the United States, the top ten percent of wealthiest people own 69.8% of the wealth, with the top 1% owning 32% of the wealth in 2001. in 2004, the top 1% earned a staggering 16% of all the income produced in that year. The only country in the world where the top 10% own more wealth is Switzerland, where the top 10% own 71.3% of the wealth. Given we have the 2nd largest gap in the world, I'd say that we can't be judged to be the best country, the greatest country in the world by this measure. And I say to hell with making the tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest people permanent.

Lets take a look at the rate of incarceration. Seems to me that the greatest country on this planet would have amongst the lowest rates of incarceration based on a percentage of population, than other nations. After all, the better the country, the more opportunity there is for each citizen. "Crimes of necessity" are eliminated. In other words, people don't need to commit crimes to secure their housing, food, health or to provide for their families. There will always be those folks that will commit crime anyway, but the better the country, the lower the crime, right? The higher the crime, the more folks in prison (at least in the first world nations), right?

The United States of America now has a higher percentage of it's population in prison than any other industrialized nation on earth, including Russia. Japan has the lowest percentage.

As far as our military is concerned, May the Spirit That Moves Through All Things be with our troops.

Maybe we could be the best country on earth. Maybe we used to be the best. Certainly by these measures we are not.

2008-01-09T12:05:00.000-05:00

I received this in an email today and thought it was worth posting for future referance:

I believe - That just because two people argue, it doesn't mean they don't love each other. And just because they don't argue, it doesn'tmean they do.
I believe - That we don't have to change friends if we understand that friends change.
I believe - That no matter how good a friend is, they're going to hurt you every once in a while and you must forgive them for that.
I believe - That true friendship continues to grow, even over the longest distance. Same goes for true love.
I believe - That you can do something in an instant that will give you heartache for life.
I believe - That it's taking me a long time to become the person I want to be.
I believe - That you should always leave loved ones with loving words. It may be the last time you see them.
I believe - That you can keep going long after you think you can't.
I believe - That we are responsible for what we do, no matter how we feel.
I believe - That either you control your attitude or it controls you.
I believe - That heroes are the people who do what has to be done when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
I believe - That money is a lousy way of keeping score.
I believe - That my best friend and I can do anything or nothing and have the best time.
I believe - That sometimes the people you expect to kick you when you're down, will be the ones to help you get back up.
I believe - That sometimes when I'm angry I have the right to be angry, but that doesn't give me the right to be cruel.
I believe - That maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you've had and what you've learned from them and less to do with how many birthdays you've celebrated.
I believe - That it isn't always enough to be forgiven by others. Sometimes you have to learn to forgive yourself.
I believe - That no matter how bad your heart is broken the world doesn't stop for your grief.
I believe - That our background and circumstances may have influenced who we are, but we are responsible for who we become.
I believe - That you shouldn't be so eager to find out a secret. Itcould change your life Forever.
I believe - Two people can look at the exact same thing and see something totally different.
I believe - That your life can be changed in a matter of hours by people who don't even know you.
I believe - That even when you think you have no more to give, when a friend cries out to you - you will find the strength to help.
I believe - That credentials on the wall do not make you a decent human being.
I believe - That the people you care about most in life are taken from you too soon.
I believe - That the happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have. :-)

Attitude is everything!

Anti-Spyware Best Practices Guide

2005-02-08T10:27:00.000-05:00

Best Practices To Keep
Commercial Surveillance Software
Off Your Computer
Or things you can do for free to maintain system integrity.

If you really don't want spyware on your system, never surf the internet while logged into an account that has Administrative or Power User rights.

Spyware can't install if you don't have install rights on the computer!

If you are going to surf the internet with Administrative or Power User rights, there are several things you can do to minimize infecting your system with spyware.

1. "It ain't free for nothing."

Make it a habit not to download free screen savers, free games, free cursor enhancements, free stationary, free time keepers, free password managers, free email programs, free chat enhancement programs, free PC 'accelerators' or any software advertised in a pop-up ad!

2. Read The Fine Print Before Clicking "Yes."

Key in on the 'third party' clauses. Almost all software with third party clauses is spyware or malware. Many of these "free" downloads come with a heavy price: your internet privacy and poor system performance! Be sure to completely read the End User License Agreement for any and all software you install on your machine. Be sure to follow any links included in the End User License Agreement and read those pages completely as well.

3. Close POP Ads with ALT+F4

Close POP-UPS by pressing the Alt+F4 key combination, do NOT click buttons that appear on the window: they don't always do what their label indicates. (like CANCEL, OK, or X ) These may actually be reprogrammed to install the software against your will). Hold an 'Alt' key down while you press the F4 key to close the top window.

4. More Things You Can Do To Improve Your PC's Security

Make sure your virus program is up to date.
Install Ad-Aware from Lavasoft. This anti-spyware software is free and so are the updates. Be sure to update the definitions before each scan of your system. Lavasoft Home Page: http://www.lavasoft.de
Install either Spybot Search and Destroy or Microsoft's Antispyware Program
Do not install both, as they may not run peacefully at the same time.
Spybot Search and Destroy (free)
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html
Microsoft's Antispyware Beta (free)http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx
If you're using Microsoft XP, make sure Service Pack 2 is installed.
Once Service Pack 2 is installed, be sure to set Automatic Updates to "Automatically download recommended updates for my computer and install them:"
If using Internet Explorer, a. click Tools --> Internet Options --> Advanced Tab along the top. Uncheck "Enable Install on Demand (Internet Explorer)" Uncheck "Enable Install On Demand (Other)" option. Check "Automatically check for Internet Explorer Updates." Uncheck "Allow active content from CDs to run on My Computer." Uncheck "Allow active content to run in files on My Computer." Uncheck "Allow software to run or install even if the signature is valid." Click Security Tab --> TRUSTED SITES and make sure that whatever is listed there really ARE sites you completely trust! If you are not sure about a site, remove it. Click Restricted Sites Click "Custom Level" and make sure EVERYTHING is disabled except the following: "Use Pop-up Blocker" set to "enabled" and "User Authentication" should be set to "Prompt for user name and password."

5. Add Nasty Sites To Restricted Zone
Either as you find them, or go and get Eric Howe's IE-SpyAd from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm to add a HUGE list of nasty sites. (Highly Recommended as this utility adds almost 9,000 websites that are known to do "driveby downloads" of spyware, malware and other crapware.

6. FOR OUTLOOK USERS (Any Version)
Spyware doesn't usually result from viewing email, but it can if you're wildly out of date on Windows updates and too open with security settings. To safely use any version of Outlook be sure to turn OFF PREVIEW PANE option.

Spyware Removal Procedure for Windows XP

2005-02-07T23:46:00.000-05:00

This process has only been used on Windows XP.

This process is lengthy, generally takes about an hour and a half to complete and is designed for maximum effectiveness. You might wonder why so many differant tools are used: simply because no one spyware removal tool gets all the spyware.Currently, MS Anti-spyware Beta removes the most (63%) but then again, that isn't the same set of spyware programs that are removed by other tools. Sure there is some redundancy, but from my experience, there are spyware program groups that seem to be better removed by one program or the other, so I use this set of tools. No two companies remove exactly the same set of spyware programs therefore the need exists to use multiple programs to insure maximum results.

If this is the second or third time you've had to remove spyware from your computer, be sure to download these programs from the Internet to insure the latest version is used.

Download AdAware SE (free version), install, update and close program.
(http://www.lavasoftusa.com/support/download/)
Download Spybot Search and Destroy, install, update, run Immunizer, enable all protections and close program.
(http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html)
Download SpywareBlaster, install, update, enable protections for both IE and FireFox and close program.
(http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html)
Download Microsofts Anti-spyware, do not install program.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=321cd7a2-6a57-4c57-a8bd-dbf62eda9671&displaylang=en
Download Webroot's Spysweeper, do not install.
(http://www.webroot.com/downloads/?WRSID=43dbed178f3e04aa56c2043516421464)
Download the stand-alone version of CWShredder, install, run and then close the program. (Deals with Cool WebSearch Variants)
(http://www.intermute.com/spysubtract/cwshredder_download.html)
Download IE-SPYAD2., extract the files and merge the reg file. This moves over 8,000 websites into the Untrusted Zone for IE.
( https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm#IESPYAD )
Turn off System Restore.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/app_system_restore_hss_settings.mspx

System Scans And Spyware Removal

Restart the PC in Safe Mode.
Scan with AdAware SE.
Save a copy of the results to the local hard drive if desired.
Remove all spyware found.
Delete all quarantine files.
Scan with Spybot S&D.
Save a copy of the results to the local hard drive if desired.
Remove all spyware found.
Delete all quarantine files.
Scan with SpywareBlaster
Save a copy of the results to the local hard drive if desired.
Remove all spyware found.
Delete all quarantine files.
Delete Temp. Internet Files
Add the ma-admin account to the System Volume Information folder
permissions
Grant full control to the account
Delete the contents of the folder
Remove the account from the permissions of the folder
RESTART PC to Normal Mode.
Uninstall AdAware
Uninstall Spybot S&D
Uninstall SpywareBlaster
Install Webroot's Spysweeper's 30 day free trial and update.
Reboot to Safe Mode
Scan with Spysweeper
Save a copy of the results to the local hard drive if desired.
Remove all spyware found.
Delete all quarantine files.
Reboot to Normal Mode.
Uninstall Spysweeper
Install MS Anti-spyware, update.
Reboot to Safe Mode.
Scan using MS Anti-spyware Beta
Save a copy of the results to the local hard drive if desired.
Remove all spyware found.
Delete all quarantine files..
Reboot to Normal Mode
Run VirusScan, if you have it.
If it finds anything that it can't delete, take note of those files, reboot into safe mode and delete them manually.

System Clean Up

Boot into Normal Mode if necessary.
Uninstall MS Anti-spyware if you want to -- or leave it running. It's free until June or July, 2005.
Reboot system.
Turn System Restore back on and create a restore point.

If you still have popups or other signs of spyware, search Google for the latest bulletin board postings for additional ideas, tips and tricks.

Good Luck!!

Johnny

For the latest discussions, tools and tips, check out Spyware Management.org