Friday, June 29, 2012

Ignorance is Bliss...


Since the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, I have spent a lot of time debating the issue with some conservatives.  This isn’t another attempt to do that.  This is a discussion of the problems I have with debating these people. 

I have a fairly simple request when I debate people…support your arguments.  It’s not a difficult thing to do if you are using sound, reasoned arguments.  That’s the problem.  While I did have a couple of people actually use sources, the majority of these people just posted the same recycled arguments that they have heard on television, radio, or read on their conservative websites.  After using articles from peer-reviewed journals and trusted sources that included facts and figures, I was met with people who just chose to turn a blind eye.  First, they would try to dispute the validity of the facts and figures.  Unless there is a valid reason to dispute them, such as them coming from an untrustworthy source, they are valid.  For statistics like the population of the United States, the commonly accepted trusted source is the Census Department.  (Yes, I used this and it was questioned.)  Then they would attack the journal articles.  Now, I’m not saying everyone has to agree, but don’t tell me an article from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is invalid if you haven’t even read the research and have a real point of opposition.  Because you don’t like the fact that it totally invalidates most of your argument is not justification for the conclusions being valid.  These kinds of articles are the standard for academic discussion.  Finally, in a last, desperate attempt to have an argument, my citations were completely ignored.  I was first told that I didn’t use any, and when I proved it, I was told all of my information was refuted.  Well, that’s pretty impossible since I know that not one person I was debating can refute the Census Department or a journal article for which they only have access to read the abstract. 

Retrieved from http://www.politicalruminations.com/2010/09/cartoon-of-the-week.html

Now, I have some friends who might read this and say, “Wait a minute!  I don’t do that.”  I do have some conservative friends who can give me a very challenging and worthy debate.  I have even lost debates with a couple of them (I’m looking at you, Josh.)  Not because I think my position was wrong, just because I wasn’t prepared enough to provide reasonable responses.  Obviously, this is not directed at those people.  In fact, none of those people even attempted to debate the issue.  (I wonder why?) 
After two days of repeating myself over and over for two days and having people stare at the face of my arguments and ignore reason, I have grown tired.  I usually enjoy these kinds of debates.  I like proving people wrong.  It’s even easy in most cases.  But, when the only response you get is nonsense, it stops being fun.  I have fully embraced the fact that I am truly a full-blooded liberal at heart.  I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t apologize for the fact that I think conservative philosophy is nonsense founded in stupidity.  All I’m asking is, please, for the love of Pete, have at least some standards when you debate me.  While I love stomping on conservative ideas, it’s becoming too easy.  It’s almost not even fun anymore.  Almost.

© Keith Tucker   

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Ubuntu!


This blog is stepping away from the political realm for a minute (for the most part).  I wanted to discuss a concept many people don’t even know exists.  It is called “ubuntu.”  There have been many champions of the ubuntu philosophy.  One of the most respected people who discussed this issue is Archbishop Desmond Tutu.  Archbishop Tutu explained that -

“Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can't be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality – Ubuntu – you are known for your generosity. We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole World. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.”

I discovered this phrase when my father asked me to prepare a musical slideshow for a sermon.  I do this periodically for him.  In this case, he wanted the content to be centered on this idea of ubuntu.  I had never heard of it, so I did some research.  I watched some video of Archbishop Tutu’s explanation.  I really fell in love with the idea that ubuntu expressed.

It starts with humans being interconnected.  A man named Maslow once created a hierarchy of needs.  Based on his work, Alderfer’s Hierarchy of Motivational Needs was created.  This theory lists three basic categories of needs.  The primary level, existence, has the highest priority.  This is followed by relatedness and finally growth needs.  One organization of Alderfer’s Hierarchy describes existence as including the basic emotional needs and includes connectedness.  I believe that ubuntu describes this very concept.  We have a basic, primal need to for our connection with others.  



As I have been studying this, I have been driving people crazy saying the word ubuntu.  Archbishop Tutu had fun with this word in one of the videos that I watched during my research.  This video probably has, what I consider, the definitive explanation of ubuntu. 

“There is no such thing as a solitary individual.  We say, ‘a person is a person through other persons.’  That we belong in the bundle of life.  And I want you to be all you can be, because that’s the only way I can be all I can be.  I need you, I need you, to be you, so that I can be me.  And that’s why, you see, when you dehumanize another - whether you like it or not – inexorably, you are yourself dehumanized.”

 I see the concept as having two big implications.  First, the personal implication.  I need to be the very best that I can be…so that the world around me continues to improve and be the very best it can be.  This concept can be applied to so many fronts.  The individual front is just the beginning.  Apply the concept to the business front and you can explain the need for corporate social responsibility.  Do we wonder why we get so upset when we see corporations act greedy and under perform?  It is because they are not living up to their potential and it is affecting the world with which they are connected.

The next implication is the connection with others.  To ensure that I can be the best that I can be, I need everyone else to be the best that they can be.  I have a responsibility to myself to support others.  By holding them down, or dehumanizing them, I am actually holding myself back and dehumanizing myself.  What a novel concept.  We must uphold others to ensure that we can continue to stand up ourselves.

Now, what you can’t forget is that these others may not be what you think they should be.  It is not your job to make them into what you want them to be, but to provide them support when they need it.  If you attempt to hold back who they are, you are holding yourself back by extension. 

So, you can see where I’m going with this.  There have been many issues lately that have torn the people of the U.S. apart.  They are fighting about immigration, spending, health care, and even the religion of the President.  In most cases, I believe that the fight comes from the intent to make things better.  The problem is that people are beating each other down to make their point.  Holding with the idea of ubuntu, they are also beating themselves down.  Think about it…have you ever heard anyone say something like, “Obama is a Muslim,” or anything to that effect?  Aside from the fact that he’s not, the question remains – why would it matter?  If he were a Muslim, why would we not hold him up and support him to be the best President and Muslim that he could be?  In turn, that would help us be the very best citizens that we could be.  That’s not saying that you have to agree with everything he says and does, but why not be supportive and constructive?  It can only make you better.

So, back away from the political ideas, I’ll touch on the religious implication of ubuntu.  I can’t write anything better than what Archbishop Tutu said in his sermon:

 
“Jesus did not say, ‘I, if I be lifted up, will draw some.  Jesus said, ‘I, if I be lifted up, will draw all.’  All.  All.  All. All.  Black, white, yellow, rich, poor, clever, not-so-clever, beautiful, not-so-beautiful.  It’s, it’s one of the most radical things.  All!  All.  All belong.  Gay, lesbian, so-called straight.  All, all are meant to be held in this incredible embrace that will not let us go.”
 

This is truly an inspired vision.  I post this simply as a way to play my part in ubuntu.  Think about this for a bit.  Watch some of the videos of Archbishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and many others who speak of ubuntu.  Think about how it can apply to your life, and how you view others.  And, most importantly, pass it on. 

Healthcare Reform Defined for the Conservative Mind

For all of my conservative friends – here’s a way for you to think about the health care reform without being too upset.



First, just assume that the government just levied a 1% tax on everyone. That’s obviously within their power. Now, you don’t have to like it, but there’s nothing unconstitutional about it.


Next, in an effort to help out Americans, they have given us a way to exempt ourselves from the tax. All you have to do it carry health insurance. Since the majority of Americans either already have insurance, are on Medicare or Medicaid, or are under economic hardship and income thresholds that exempt them, they will be exempt from the tax.


With all of this…we get to insure that healthcare costs remain reasonable for the foreseeable future! It doesn’t look so bad when you see it from this perspective does it? I know…you conservatives can’t approve of anything sensible if it is passed by a liberal. Oh well. You can lead a conservative to affordable healthcare, but you can’t make him think.

Copyright © 2009 Universal Press Syndicate
Retrieved from http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Healthcare-Cartoons/GOP-Hearing-Problem.0_aG.htm

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Election 2012: Romney Economics


It’s time. I’m going on the offensive against Romney. It has pretty much been decided that Romney is going to be the Republican candidate. If, for some reason, Ron Paul pulls of his coup at the convention and is able to secure the nomination I’ll move my sights on to him.

For now, we’ll attack Mitt. I’m going to look at Mitt through his record. If you read my other blogs, you will learn that I don’t believe in unsubstantiated claims. I will support my claims with facts. The claims will easily demonstrate why this man has no business becoming the next President of the United States.

Let’s look at one of the major complaints people have about the U.S., and how Mitt’s record is on this subject. While every poll is slightly different based on the wording of the questions, there is one result that seems to be prevailing. The most important issues to the majority of Americans are the economy and jobs. I’m rolling these into one category because they are so closely tied together.

Now I could try to attack every business deal Mitt has made. I’m not interested in doing that. I don’t think it’s necessary. I prefer to look at the overall impact of his involvement with the businesses he has touched. I have noticed two glaringly important facts about his involvement in business.

     1. Executives make a lot of money when he gets involved with a business. Many times right before the company fails miserably.
     2. The average worker suffers when Mitt has a hand in the company. This is a result of everything from job losses to pension cuts.
On the first point, I will say that this is exactly what everyone I know has been screaming about over the last couple of years.

***Here’s a slightly off-topic rant about this.***
 
Executive pay has gotten way out of control. Why? Not because they are so good at their jobs. In fact, Forbes did a study on the highest paid CEO’s and the best performing CEO’s. Here are some interesting results:

 
  • Jeffrey Bezos – Amazon CEO – Ranked #1 in performance; Ranked 470 in pay
  • John Hammergren – McKesson CEO – Ranked #1 in pay; Ranked 121 in performance

     
If only companies were all run by people like Jeffrey Bezos, our economy would probably be much healthier. The average CEO now makes approximately 231 times what the average worker makes. Do they work harder? Not a chance. Do you want to know a secret about executive compensation? It’s rigged. Executive pay is somewhat complicated, but it boils down to the two things. The CEO’s pay has to be approved as “fair” by the board of directors, and it is sometimes determined by outside consulting firms. The fun part is that many CEO’s serve on the boards of the CEO’s that serve on their boards. This means all of these buddies get to approve each other’s compensation packages. If your friend approved a ridiculous increase in your pay, would you turn around and deny his? I doubt it. The companies who use outside consultants are just as fun. The companies who do the consultations are often used by the company in other areas of consultation. So, if they refuse to recommend a generous compensation package for the CEO, they may be looking at the loss of a lucrative contract down the road.

***Getting back on topic.***

 
So how does this relate to Romney? A very significant portion of executive compensation is based on stock and non-salary benefits. (Remember this the next time you praise any CEO for giving up a million dollars of salary for a cause. They are still getting millions in compensation.) This is where Romney and his boys at Bain made their money. They would purchase stock in these companies. They would work very hard to find ways to improve profitability. In most cases that involved reducing the average worker’s benefits, laying off employees, and streamlining costs in any way possible. These companies would incur great amounts of long-term debt, but their short-term results looked great. This drove the price of the stock way up. When the executives felt that their value was at its highest, they could then sell the stock and make hundreds of millions in profits. As they relinquished command of these companies, they could wash their hands of a company that had mountains of debt. Then, in a few years, when the debt became insurmountable, the company would fail or file bankruptcy. The Bain executives would get to claim that they had no hand in this problem because they sold out years ago. They tend to forget that they put the company in the position in the first place. For a man who is making his run for office based on the idea that he will reduce the budget deficit, this doesn’t seem like the best approach. So yes, Mitt, you did make a great deal of profit. However, as President Obama said, as President “your job is not just to maximize profits.” If Romney’s history holds true, he will streamline government by cutting jobs and increasing profitability. Then, right before we fall into a terrible economic downturn, he will cut and run.

How will he do it? Let’s look at his economic and job plans. From his own job plan, I take the following:

“A complementary step would be to align the wages and benefits of federal workers with market rates and then work to reduce the overall size of the federal workforce by 10 percent (pg. 143).”
The current size of the federal workforce is estimated just over 4.4 million people. So this man, who claims that he wants to create jobs, plans to eliminate 440,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Do the American people not have enough problems with the private sector eliminating jobs? Is the federal workforce that large? No. In fact, from 1962 to 1995, the federal workforce was always higher than it is now. The federal workforce declined from 1996 until right before the recession in 2008. At its peak, the federal government employed over 2 million people more than it employs today. But, go ahead Mitt. Cut those jobs. It seems to be what you’re good at…
 
That leads me into my next problem with Mitt Romney’s plan for the economic future of the U.S. He has a history of hurting the average worker. Not only did he work to reduce pensions and benefits for workers in an effort to increase the bottom line, Bain owned companies that were pioneers in the outsourcing trend. This was done while Romney was actively running Bain. Romney recently stated that “[China has] been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs.” Really, sir? And who has been helping them do that? When President Obama remarked about the obvious hypocrisy in his stance compared to his track record, Romney could only reply with “President Obama confirmed today that he will continue his attacks on the free enterprise system…My campaign is offering a positive agenda to help America get back to work."

No, sir. I believe that he was attacking the fact that you are a hypocrite who will say whatever you think people want to hear. While this is not really unusual for a politician, the fact that you are loudly basing your platform on the fact that you are a successful businessman, but your success has been at the expense of the American workers, you lose all credibility. When you tell us that you will create jobs, but plan to eliminate almost half a million jobs when you take office, you are a liar. When you refuse to answer the many questions raised about inconsistencies in your history and platform, you are a coward. A good businessman? No. A profitable businessman for yourself and a few investors? Yes. But, who are the investors in this situation? Romney would have you believe that it’s the American people. Wrong. The PACS are the investors. They are the ones working so hard to get Romney elected. They are the ones who would benefit from his presidency. We are the ones who would pay the price.

You don’t have to like Obama. You don’t have to agree with everything he says or does. Economic recovery and job growth have been slow and agonizing, but it is growth. We are adding jobs and increasing GDP. To put a man with a record of destroying jobs, outsourcing, and creating huge profits on the backs of the American workers in the Oval Office is tantamount to middle class suicide. We know what we will get with Obama. More work towards recovery and growth. What will we get with Romney? Richer executives? A weaker and smaller middle class? Fewer jobs? How can this possibly be a better option than the recovery we’re experiencing now?

Monday, June 25, 2012

Run! Aliens! a.k.a. Entitlement...Part 3: Immigration

Immigration…finally!

I’ve been teasing you with a post about immigration for a while now. Well, the time has come. There have been a few developments in the immigration debate lately.

The President has issued an executive order to remove deportation proceedings from student aliens.

Romney has been incredibly silent on an issue he knows can only hurt him.

And…the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the Arizona “We don’t like Mexicans” law. (Yes, that’s what I call it. You’ll live)

Let’s start with a continuation of the entitlement issue. If you’ve read my previous posts on entitlement, you know how I feel about people feeling that they have rights that others don’t. This applies, in part, to immigration as well. I hear a lot of people use the fact that an alien is unregistered as an excuse for them having no rights. Let me respond to this with a huge, resounding, “YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.” It would appear that those of you who say this have never actually read the Constitution. Let me enlighten you…section one of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

There is not a lot of ambiguity there. The founding fathers wrote this amendment and used the term “citizen” in it five times. They specifically chose not to use the term citizen in this sentence for a reason. They knew that everyone needed protection of the law in the United States. They did not make any exceptions for immigration status, country of origin, or color of skin.

So what are your other arguments? The economic burden? I won’t argue that point with you because I don’t disagree. I do believe that there is an economic burden with unregistered aliens. It’s the same problem I have with anyone working off the books and not paying taxes. There’s just nothing we can do about it at this time. Of course, that healthcare reform so many of you are complaining about will help when they are all required to carry insurance. This will ease the burden on our healthcare system and reduce the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. But that’s another blog entirely.

So the other argument is crime. Let’s look at the actual impact of immigration on crime (which is really an impossible statistic to measure.) To do this, we need to look at the overall crime rate. The FBI reports on the cities with the highest crime rate relative to the national rate to create a list of the most dangerous cities. They have only released the preliminary report for 2011 so we will use the data from 2010 and earlier. Based on an analysis Onboard Informatics did of the last seven years of data the most dangerous cities are:

1. St. Louis (34)
2. Atlanta (7)
3. Birmingham Alabama (tie) (31)
3. Orlando (tie) (5)
5. Detroit (16)
6. Memphis (22)
7. Miami (5)
8. Baltimore (19)
9. Kansas City, Missouri (34)
10. Minneapolis (tie) (18)
10. Cleveland (tie) (26)

Look over that list again. See the numbers in parentheses? Those are the rankings for the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the states. Do you see a glaring and obvious problem with the crime argument yet? Only three of the top 11 dangerous cities are even in the top 10 states for illegal immigrant population. Arizona’s not even on the list! I’m not a statistician, but I have done some statistics study in my educational career, but I don’t even need to use my meager skills to say, with confidence, that there is not a relationship with the overall rate of crime and the number of illegal immigrants in a state. Before you ask – these statistics took into consideration incidents of property crime, such burglary and motor vehicle theft, as well as violent crime, like murder and robbery. So pretty much all areas of criminal activity were with the exception of financial crimes, but that would only make Wall Street number one and Washington D.C. number two on the list.

The fact that people are so upset over this issue is just another facet of the entitlement diamond that so many American’s (meaning U.S. citizens) have been wearing lately. We live in a country with the 12th highest per capita GDP in the world. Our poverty level is higher than the per capita GDP of over 120 nations. Do we really expect that people will not want to come to our country to try to form a life for their family? What would you do if you lived in Mexico, only miles from a land where the per capita GDP was three times your country’s? When you had to feed your family or watch them starve, I’m betting you would run across that border…rules be damned. Am I saying that illegal immigration is okay? No. I don’t agree with it…I don’t like it. However, if we want to live in a country as well off as the United States, then we had damn well better get used to it.

That being said, I do think something should be done about it. I’m actually a proponent of building a huge wall at the Mexican border. I think it would help reduce the illegal immigration into the United States, and put a lot of people to work for a while at a time when people are begging for jobs. You like that idea, don’t you? Here’s the rub…it has to be paid for. It is an expensive concept. The money will have to come from somewhere. In our society, somewhere means taxpayers. So if you want the problem solved, you will have to pony up the dough. I also believe that, since the border states are the ones that will be benefiting from the wall, they should be shouldering the vast majority of the cost. Don’t ask for the government to fix a problem for you if you aren’t willing to pay for the fix. But put this proposal in front of the people of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California and see how quickly their sense of entitlement starts them screaming about raised taxes.

Now on to the political realm…

We’ll start with Obama’s easing of the deportation rules for students who entered the U.S. illegally as children. First, it’s not the child’s fault that their parents entered the U.S. illegally and brought them. They are children. What should they have done, gone to the immigration office and told them that their parents brought them here illegally? Let’s not be stupid. So, when these children grow up and become successful students they are suddenly faced with deportation. Never mind the fact that they are positively contributing to a society that they have become a part of over most of their lives. Many of them were so young when they came that they don’t even remember anything else. Why would we want to send educated people, who are contributing to our society, away? Because of something their parents did? Do you have to answer for the crimes of your parents? So I say, good for Obama. I’m glad he stood and made a statement to a Congress that has actually come out and said that their goal was to do everything in their power to stop the Obama administration from doing anything over the last two years. I hope to see more executive orders over the end of his term (whether that is months or years) to show Congress that their refusal to work together will not be tolerated.

Mitt Romney’s response to the immigration issue….silence. He barely utters a word about immigration. Why? Because he knows that anything he says will hurt him. He is in a party built primarily by, and for, upper class white men. If he supports any immigration leniency, he is going against his party. If he comes out against any leniency, he is going to be blasted by moderates, independents, and minorities. He is doing the only thing a man in a monotone party can do…shutting up. I just wish he would employ this tactic on all of the other issues.

Finally, to the Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. I have three things to say…well done, shame on you, and well done. First, well done on striking down most of the garbage in those laws. Article VI of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, places the laws and treaties of the federal government over the state laws. In this case, the federal government has been the established source of laws, policies, and procedures regarding immigration and deportation. A state cannot interfere with the execution of the federal government’s authority in this area. Basically, Arizona can’t just get pissed about how immigration is being handled and decide to take care of it themselves. As the Opinion of the Court describes, it takes a lot of training for a federal immigration agent to be able to determine who is eligible to be detained for deportation proceedings. (Yes, I did read the Opinion of the Court – I don’t rely on political analysts to tell me about these decisions). Some people are detained while some are simply issued a notice to appear. A state cannot override this protocol by making a law that they can detain anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. This leads to the next problem.

Racial profiling. It is a fact. It can be a problem. Most of us don’t know what that feels like. That’s because the majority of us have never been profiled based on the color of our skin. Unfortunately, many people have. The one part of this law that was not stricken down was the piece that allows officers to verify citizenship for anyone they have a suspicion is here illegally, providing that they have already stopped them for another reason. This law should really read, “Officers can detain any Hispanic so that they can verify their citizenship.” Let’s be honest…officers will look for any reason to stop someone and question them. There is always a reason to stop someone – speeding, a rolling stop, a burned out tail light, jaywalking, suspicious activity, etc. They can now ask people to prove their citizenship. Let’s say that you are a Hispanic person who was born in the U.S. You are a citizen, but you are walking (because you don’t like driving), and you are stopped for jaywalking. While you are issued a warning or a ticket, the officer looks at you and asks you to prove your citizenship. You don’t have your ID because you don’t need it and you don’t have immigration papers because you are a natural born citizen. What happens next? They can’t legally detain you. Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued guidelines along with their ruling that officers can’t detain people for longer than it would reasonably take to handle the original reason for being stopped.

But, why did the officer ask you to prove that you are a citizen? You weren’t committing any action that would lead him to believe that you were in the country illegally. So he just based it on the color of your skin and your appearance. You know, we used to do something similar to people. We looked at them and told them that they didn’t have the same freedoms as the rest of us because they were black. They were harassed and segregated from the rest of us. It took a long long time for us to get over our stupidity concerning civil rights. Oh, wait. We haven’t. We are now just disguising it as immigration policy. The great thing about the ruling is that the Supreme Court specifically said that the only reason they didn’t strike down this part of the legislation was that it had not yet been enforced. They said they couldn’t determine that this is what would happen, but that it would be left open to legal challenges if it did happen. That is a bright, shining star in the future of living without this kind of discrimination and profiling. They left the door open for us to get there; we just have to walk through.

With all of that said, it is very easy to fall into the trap of hate. Our economy is struggling so we want to find someone that is causing the problems. We still have crime so we want someone to be responsible. Who can we blame? It’s no longer okay to blame the Irish, the Italians, or African-Americans. So who is next on the list? How about the fastest growing racial demographic in the country: Hispanics. A number of them are even here illegally so let’s use that as a mask for our anger and fear. Then we can just say that we are being patriotic. We can even make it a political argument because someone hasn’t solved all of the problems that have existed for decades within four years. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d much rather accept people as they are, welcome them to our nation, and increase diversity so that my children can live in a more intelligent, diverse, and prosperous country at my age. Like the man said, “I have a dream…”

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Buzzwords

Earmarks! Conservative! Liberal! Amnesty! Illegals! Taxes! Spending! Obamacare! Jobs! Debt! Job Creators!

Heard enough? Are you ready to walk into the polls and cast your vote for me? No? Why not? Most likely, you will walk into the polls and vote for a candidate this November with little more than a list of buzzwords you heard from their commercials or from some political analyst. I’ve seen a trend in the recent elections that has been disturbing me. Many political ads and commercials have been using buzzwords to entice voters lately. Now I have no problem with the use of buzzwords. I know a little bit about marketing and I know that buzzwords are a part of marketing that is used every day in advertising. This isn’t about the use of buzzwords along with clever marketing…it’s about people voting simply on buzzwords.

Oh, you don’t do that? Well, let’s test that statement. Have you said, “The government can’t just keep spending” anytime recently? Or maybe you’ve talked about how the country is going so far into debt? I doubt that very many can honestly say that they haven’t uttered something along these lines in the last few years. So the next question is, what do you really know about these topics? What is the country’s debt? What was it before the incumbents took office? How does the government spend money? What is the debt ceiling? What does Keynesian economics mean? Does our government practice this? If you can answer these questions accurately, then this post doesn’t apply to you. If not, you may have fallen into the buzzwords trap along with the majority of the country.

Seriously, what do they really tell you when you listen to an analyst or watch a commercial? Let’s take a look at a typical commercial from the recent primaries. This commercial was for Richard Mourdock, a candidate running against 35 year Senator Dick Lugar. This commercial has absolutely nothing to say. There are some checklists though…they have Dick Lugar with the words “Bailouts,” “Tax Hikes,” and “Obama Justices.” Then they have one with Mourdock with the words “Opposes Bailouts,” “Fights Obamacare,” “Balanced Budget,” and “Less Debt.” There is literally no substantial information or justification for voting for this guy except for the fact that he knows how to use buzzwords. Ask yourself…what is his record? What are his qualifications? Don’t know? Maybe because they don’t want to tell you anything if they know they can get the votes by using a few key terms with no real meaning. Here’s the scary thing…he won the primary. A 35-year incumbent lost his seat to buzz words. Now, I’m not saying that I would want Lugar in office. I had a problem with him that had nothing to do with any of the buzzwords. I think that some people had the same problem concerning his residency, which cost him dearly. Regardless…he still lost to a man who campaigned with buzzwords.



This brings me to the use of social hot topics to scare people into voting. While I’m vehemently against political parties (a topic for a later blog), I do recognize that the chances of them going away any time soon is insanely slim to none. Unfortunately, what I have seen many politicians doing lately is using social issues as selling points to scare people away from voting for the other party. Both sides use gay marriage to scare people – immigration has become an issue – and if I hear one more thing about the President’s nationality or religion, I might just snap. First, unless you are gay, why in the hell does it matter to you if marriage between two homosexuals is legally recognized in the U.S.? If you believe marriage is a legal contract, then the government has no right to refuse marriage based on a religious belief. If you believe that it is a religious institution then THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE IT BASED ON A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Here’s the bottom line…it comes up before elections because one side says that if you vote for the other party gays will be able to marry and we’ll all go to hell, turn gay ourselves, or your marriage will mean nothing and your spouse will leave you. This is to scare you into voting how they want you to vote. The other side presents the issue hoping to look like the defenders of the weak riding in on their stallions to defeat the evil oppressors. While I must say that I do support gay marriage, I would really love to see something actually done about the issue so that the political pandering would all just go away.

Immigration – good grief. Everyone is blaming everyone else for the immigration problem. Here’s the fix…build a big ass wall. It will put a crap load of people to work and reduce the amount of illegal immigration. But, wait! Don’t forget that it has to be paid for…so your taxes will have to go up. You can’t have everything you want. To fix this immigration problem the government will have to spend money. Deal with it and stop letting the politicians scare you into thinking that we will lose our sovereignty and become Mexico, Jr. if you don’t vote for them.

The last one that I will briefly address is the nationality and religion of the President. Here’s the thing…stop questioning it. It’s old and boring. The man will not be removed from office. His credentials have been checked, verified, and re-verified so many times that he is probably the most confirmed citizen in United States history. Every court case that has been lost trying to prove he’s not is just adding to the mountain of evidence that there is no justification for this garbage. Oh, and I do believe that this has everything to do with the man’s race. Don’t like being called a racist? Deal with it. If you are still questioning this after this amount of time and all of the evidence that has been put forth, you are doing it for reasons of race. If you say otherwise, you are a liar, sir.

Now his religion. Oh my gosh…he’s a MUSLIM! Well, he’s not…but that’s a great way to scare the hell out of the ignorant rednecks in the U.S. After 9/11, the words Muslim and Islam have almost become profanity. Who gives a crap if the man is a Muslim? Since when did that have any bearing on his Presidency? Oh, I forgot…it’s because bigotry against Muslims is accepted now that a few extremists who called themselves Muslims (which I take issue with) attacked and killed a bunch of Americans. As I have written before…these kinds of views are the most unpatriotic and offensive views that I can imagine coming from citizens of this great country. A few weeks ago, my cousin was interred in Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed in action serving as a Marine. Do me a favor and don’t spit on his grave, the graves of those like him, and the face of those who have served and still serve to protect our freedoms by spreading your hate and fear. This is a nation of acceptance and tolerance. If you are afraid of a Muslim in office then you belong elsewhere. And if you allow this kind of garbage to sway your vote, then you are as bad as those who spew this filth in the first place.

These people think that you are dumb. They think that they can throw a bunch of words with no substance at you and you will run right out and cast your vote for them. The question is: are you going to prove them right? Are you going to vote for buzzwords, or for a representative?

Friday, June 15, 2012

BREAKING NEWS RANT: Regulating the VAGINA! And other nonsense...

Unbelievable! Two representatives in the Michigan legislature have been completely silenced because of what they had to say about a proposed abortion bill. Here are the details from the Detroit News:
House Republicans tried to silence two female Democratic lawmakers Thursday for floor outbursts a day earlier referencing male sterilization and a female sex organ.

The majority party prohibited state Rep. Lisa Brown from speaking on the floor Thursday after she ended a speech the day before against a bill restricting abortions by referencing her female anatomy.

"I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,' " said Brown, D-West Bloomfield.

State Rep. Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, also wasn't recognized to speak Thursday for a disturbance she caused on the House floor Wednesday when the GOP majority wouldn't allow her to propose a ban on men getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life.

Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas, R-Midland, made the decision to prevent Brown and Byrum from speaking on any of the slew of bills the House was racing to pass before adjourning for the summer...

"My concern was the decorum of the House, not of anything she said," Stamas told The Detroit News.

"I ask all members to maintain a decorum of the House, and I felt it went too far yesterday," he said.

Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh, R-Livonia, gaveled Brown out of order for saying "no means no" — because it suggested Brown was comparing the abortion legislation to rape, House GOP spokesman Ari Adler said.

"It has nothing to do with the word vagina," Adler said.

Some male Republican representatives, however, said Brown's comments were vulgar, "inappropriate" and "offensive."

"What she said was offensive," said state Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville.

"It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company," he said.

During a Capitol press conference Thursday, Brown noted "vagina" is the "medically correct term" for the female organ at the center of the Legislature's ongoing abortion restriction debate.

"If I can't say the word vagina, why are we legislating vaginas?" Brown said. "What language should I use?

"We're all adults here."

House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, would not address the controversy that had become a national news story by late Thursday...

"I followed the House rules," said Brown...

"The war on women in Michigan is not fabricated — this is very real — and it comes at the highest levels of state government," said Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing.

From The Detroit News


Okay...where do I start? Let's start with my opinion on the question. I've been very confused about the trend of regulating people's rights to their bodies and beds over the last few years. The problem is that no one can really define when life begins. There are theories, but they can never progress past the theory stage, so we will never know (until we stand face-to-face with God) when life really begins. How can we justify restricting people's rights for a theory? It is not the government's place to decide the issue of when life begins based on the religious beliefs of some. As Rep. Brown said, why do they want the rest of us to adopt their religious beliefs? Is there not a Bill of Rights that specifically forbids the government to create any law respecting the establishment of a particular religion? I don't remember anywhere in the Bill of Rights that said that this doesn't apply when it concerns women's vaginas or other internal organs.

I do think there is a much more pressing issue with abortion - father's rights. In fact, I believe father's rights is a very overlooked and important issue starting at conception and going all the way through a child's life. Men are not given any say in medical procedures such as abortion, men are expected to pay a disproportionate amount of support for a child in regards to the amount of time they are allowed to spend with the child, and are constantly reminded that they are not as important in the lives of the child as the mother in contradiction to what the law actually states. Before anyone tries to argue this point with me you need to know that I am a victim of this problem. I pay two-thirds of the costs to raise my child don't even get to have her half of the time. I had to fight to even get that amount of time. The system rewards mothers for denying the father more time with their child by giving them more money if the father sees the child less. All of the assumptions surrounding father's rights need to be changed.

Anyway...I'm not going to go on about abortion here because it's a useless debate. People hold such strong opinions about it that they will most likely never change their position. So let's talk about the rules of the House. First, take a minute to watch the actual footage of the situation.



I read through the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives for Michigan. Here are the rules that I found to apply to this situation:

Chapter III Conduct in Debate. Rule 28. When any Member is about to speak in debate or present any matter to the House, the Member shall rise and respectfully address the Presiding Officer, confine remarks to the question under debate, and avoid personalities.

Chapter V Amendments to be Germane. Rule 60. No independent or new proposition or new question shall be introduced under color of an amendment. All amendments must be germane to the main question. When the question of germaneness is raised, the Presiding Officer shall rule on the question.


Let's start with Rule 28. I have watched the video of the debate. I heard nothing that violated Rule 28. Until Rep. Brown said the word "vagina" in her remarks, no one raised a concern. After, the Speaker stated that he expected the members to respect the decorum. When watching the video it seemed that he was speaking to the people who were applauding her remarks. Either way, I didn't hear anything that wasn't respectful, not confined to the question under debate, or didn't avoid personality. So, Rep. Bolger, under what rule and grounds did you ban this woman from speaking on other bills? I don't remember reading a "no vagina" clause in the rules.

Now we move on to Rep. Byrum and Rule 60. On the video I saw a woman who was legally and properly elected to represent the people of her state standing and asking to be recognized on the floor of the legislature be completely ignored. Wow. When she stormed off (justifiably angered by the refusal of Bolger to even recognize her) she was told she was out of order. Why? A few seconds before you wouldn't even recognize her existence, now she's out of order? This was a childish game played by a boy who is drunk with his power.

So these are the problems I've seen with this situation in the legislature. Now let's look at how these problems have been caused by the people.

When I listen to political talk today or watch commercials for politics here is what I hear: Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, etc.

People have become so polarized in line with their political parties that they have completely lost their voice. The only things I hear the average person saying are almost direct quotes from politicians and political analysts. There is no original thought or questioning anymore. Our country was founded by people who questioned the government. In fact, they wrote the right to one of the most important documents in our nation's history - The Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


One of these founding fathers, George Washington, even warned the people of the dangers that political parties posed to our rights in his farewell address:

However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


So when was the last time you questioned those who you feel are part of your political party? Would you question them if they silenced those with an opposing viewpoint? Would you question them if they refused to recognize the person you chose to represent you in government? At what point will you question them? When they start to regulate your body? Your bedroom? Your rights? Your freedom? But, at what point is it too late? I know this quote is used entirely too much, but it is very pertinent to this situation:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communist and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionists. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Pastor Niemoeler (victim of the Nazis)


It is time for the people of the United States to speak out. Our freedoms are in jeopardy. I don't care what your philosophy is...you can't tell me you agree with legislators being silenced because the "majority party" doesn't agree with what they have to say or doesn't like the technically correct and medical terms that they use. I have seen so many people since 9/11 stand up and try to say how patriotic they are. They wear their flags and yell their support for the United States and the military. But many of the people that yell the loudest are the most unpatriotic people I have ever seen because they will not only allow this behavior to stand, but will support it because it lets their agenda get passed.

How do you fight this? I'm not saying we need to rise up and overthrow the government. There is only one way the people can voice their disgust with this situation. They need to do their research, find a candidate they can support (regardless of what party that candidate is affiliated with), and place an educated vote that removes the people who are abusing their power from office. Be warned...you will not find a candidate that agrees with everything you want. As another blogger I follow recently stated, "No one will ever be perfect so if you’re holding your breath for a messiah, you’re wasting your time." If you can find an independent candidate who does not bow to a party, even better!

If you will sit idly by and allow this kind of nonsense to continue in our government then I will tell you that, no matter how loud you shout your support for the United States or whether you shake the hands of the military personnel who fight for your freedom, you are no patriot, sir, and are turning your back on those who have fought and died so that you can elect someone to stand up in Congress and fight for your rights. If you let someone silence your voice Congress then you are spitting on the graves of those same men and women. Either stand up and make these people respect your rights or admit that you are no patriot and have the decency to stop shaking the hands of patriots while you spit on the freedoms that they have fought to preserve.