Kill The Noise

The real Texas: what Rick Perry fails to tell America

2011-08-16T11:45:00.007-05:00

After entering the presidential race and effectively overshadowing the all-important/not-at-all-important Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) is starting to be uncovered by progressive writers across America. Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman effectively exposed Texas' job growth during the recession, dubbed by Perry and his supporters as the "Texas Miracle."

"It's true that Texas entered the recession a bit later than the rest of America mainly because the state's still energy-heavy economy was buoyed by high oil prices through the first half of 2008. Also, Texas was spared the worst of the housing crisis, partly because it turns out to have surprisingly strict regulation of mortgage lending.

Despite that, however, from mid-2008 onward unemployment soared in Texas just as it did everywhere else.

In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state's small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the "job-killing" Affordable Care Act."

The numbers Krugman leaves out of his column only support his point. He fails to mention that the housing crisis partially missed Texas because the Lone Star State ranks 45th in home ownership -- put simply, there are just fewer mortgages to default on in Texas. And according to the census bureau, Texas ranks 41st in doctors per capita, with Massachusetts unsurprisingly ranking first. All the bottom ten in this ranking, with the exception of Iowa, are all heavily Republican states and most are in the south. All the top ten, on the other hand are all heavily Democratic states and with the exception of Hawaii, are all in New England. Infant mortality rates in these states closely trend with the doctors-per-capita numbers, with Texas ranking 31st and Massachusetts ranking 49th, meaning only Washington state had a lower infant mortality rate.

This trend is normal in most life-quality statistics.

In the category of "persons over 25 with a bachelors degree," Texas ranks 30th, well above most Southern states, but far behind Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Colorado, and New Jersey which top the list, respectively. With the exception of Colorado, all the top 5 also rank in the top 10 in salaries for elementary and secondary teachers. In this category, Texas ranks 29th.

And statistics support Democrats like Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) when he says "jobs follow brainpower." Personal income, average annual pay, and median household income in Quinn's state, as well as heavily liberal states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey all rank well above Texas. And all these states have far lower percentages of citizens living below poverty level, where Texas ranks a staggering 8th.

This is why Perry chooses to focus on pure numbers of job creation, rather than more telling percentages. But if America wants to walk the road Texas has built since Perry became governor -- in 2000, when he succeeded George W. Bush -- then jobs will be the least of our concerns.

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

More census data on state rankings

Do Millennials really care about the national debt?

2011-07-20T15:36:00.024-05:00

Guitar-player-turned-political-loudmouth, and former DuPage County resident Ted Nugent has made a hobby of writing for the conservative-leaning Washington Times in recent months, and a few weeks ago, he touched on a topic he thinks he still understands: young people.

The 62-year-old musician, generously deemed by the Times to be "an American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political activist icon" took a swing at my generation in late June, claiming my generation (the Millennials, Gen Y, whatever you call us) are not upset enough about being "royally abused" by the government.

"While I personally condemn violence of any kind, I am stunned that they are not participating more in the Tea Party, even rioting in the streets, clashing with the cops, conducting sit-ins at their colleges, interrupting political events and so on. Instead, the young people of this generation appear to be sound asleep, lethargic and seemingly unaware of how badly their generation is being royally abused by the deep-seated corruption and abuse of power in the government. They appear to be terminally stoned on apathy."

What Nugent doesn't seem to understand is that young people are not terribly torn up about the debt. Not because we think it does not exist -- we do, and we will likely never live like our parents because of it -- but because the debt has largely been accrued by giving one gift after another to affluent baby-boomers while repeatedly divesting from young people.

College tuition today costs twice what it did in the decade (the 1980's) in which we were born. The cost of living is continually rising, while wages for our generation are lower than our predecessors, despite being deemed "the most educated generation in American history." We are paying more and getting less. And by the looks of today's political discourse, it would appear that we are being ignored.

According to Pew Research, we are more likely than any living generation to identify ourselves as "liberal," we believe in shrinking the defense department, we want more domestic spending, and we rank "help[ing] others in need" in our top three priorities -- only behind being a "good parent" and "having a successful marriage." In fact, we put helping others above "having lots of free time," "having a high-paying career," and even "owning a home."

This data supports the title of "we generation," but clashes with the politics of the Nuge. From a column titled "Can't buy me love":

"I’ll vote for the gal or guy who says Washington is much too large, spends way too much money, taxes far too much and unfairly, who advocates for a balanced budget, has owned or worked for a successful company (not including law firms), and who believes health care and retirement is an individual’s responsibility."

Code for:

"I want to shrink federal government, slash federal spending, cut taxes (especially for wealthy people like me), balance the budget by cutting services, elect businessmen who help their cronies, and you know what? Poor people deserve less medical treatment than wealthy people like me. And let 'em die in poverty. That ought to teach them responsibility"

The reassuring part of this story is that young people don't give a damn what Ted Nugent says.

The sad part is that some young people don't give a damn what happens in government. That's the only thing Ted Nugent is right about.

Gun rights gone wrong

2011-05-20T00:35:00.013-05:00

A recent story out of Philadelphia has been grabbed by conservative media regarding a man named Mark Fiorino. The 25-year-old IT worker began carrying a pistol as a self-defense measure after some of his friends were reportedly mugged. On a February afternoon, he was stopped by an officer who immediately pulled his gun and asked Fiorino to show his hands. After Fiorino questioned the officer's motives -- a sign of disrespect equal to the officer calling Fiorino "junior" which apparently aggravated the 25-year-old -- the officer, Sgt. Michael Dougherty, started shouting at the man to drop to his knees and called for back up. Fiorino resisted the officer's requests, leading to the officer getting only more aggressive, a natural reaction from any police officer facing resistance. While the officer tells the young man that he cannot carry a firearm openly in the city of Philadelphia, Fiorino arrogantly tells him that "it is kind of disrespectful to ask me to get on my knees" and that under "directive 137" his Pennsylvania concealed carry license gives him the right to carry a firearm in his waist holster.

If you read the full text of Directive 137, it would appear that Fiorino and conservative bloggers like John Stossel stopped reading after the part that made Philly an open carry city again. From article 4 of the directive:

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFETY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.
B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE, BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

It appears as though Fiorino's poor judgment is the only thing that overtakes the officer's excessive aggression in the situation. Fiorino not only resisted the orders of an officer, an action that writers like Stossel would probably consider "combative" if Fiorino were a 25-year-old Hispanic or black man, but he audio-recorded the whole incident. It appears, to me anyway, that Fiorino just carried his gun past an officer for the sole purpose of egging on confrontation only so he could bring attention to an injustice against gun owners.

This feeling of injustice, not only limited to the Fiorino-Dougherty incident, seems to be setting off nation-wide loosening of gun regulations, an effort seemingly meant to make gun-owners feel more comfortable in public, while disregarding the safety of the general public.

In Texas and Arizona, the two state legislatures passed bills allowing guns on college campuses. The motive behind the bills is to prevent Virginia Tech-style mass shootings by allowing teachers and students to pack heat. As Texas State Senator Jeff Wentworth puts it, he wants to "put doubt in the mind of the shooter that 'maybe I shouldn't go on that campus and try to take a bunch of kids out." As the Daily Herald of Utah (a state already allowing guns on campus) said in a recent editorial, "laws banning guns on campuses are like putting signs outside every college and university saying 'Everybody here is defenseless."

Gov. Rick Perry will now have to weigh whether he agrees with such sentiment.

In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill (to the approval of higher education officials and students) for several reasons, including the bill's vague wording on the definition of an "educational institution." Brewer, a vehement defender of gun rights who is rarely on the right side of issues as I see them, was right to veto the bill. She saw what most Americans see when looking at gun rights. Guns on college campuses, grounds where young adults spend entire weekends under the influence of a whole variety of intoxicants, are a danger to more people than they are a savior.

In Ohio, however, sports fans may not be so lucky.

The legislature in the Buckeye State recently passed legislation that would allow concealed carry in bars, restaurants and "open-air arenas." The bill's proponents claim it gives citizens the ability to protect themselves because, as Rep. Danny Bubp said, "you can't always count on law enforcement to be there to protect you."

While this sounds perfectly fair, it is void of logic. The idea that people are somehow safer from violence because more people are allowed to carry guns in the presence of alcohol and testosterone (both prevalent on college campuses and sporting events) is simply ridiculous. I only hope someone tracks the amount of out-of-state students that enroll at Texas institutions from this point on. Because I can assure you if I were a parent I would have a hard time sleeping if my child were in Austin with frat boys carrying Glocks.

OTHER LINKS: See Comedian Stephen Colbert sum up the Ohio guns-in-sporting-events bill perfectly

Anti-union aggression from newly elected officials is simply scapegoating

2011-01-24T17:22:00.009-06:00

Only months after their wave of victories, newly elected Republican governors and legislators are becoming more aggressive against what they consider to be the biggest drain on the economy: public-worker unions. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker put his opinions bluntly shortly after his November victory.

"You're not going to hear me degrade state and local employees in the public sector," Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in December. "But we can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and the taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots."

Walker's anti-union rhetoric likely stems from their attempts to keep him out of the governor's mansion (unions donated $395,629 to Walker's opponent, $83,570 of which came from the public-sector unions) but his assessment that public-sector workers make fortunes off at the expense of taxpayers is simply logic-free. Public-sector unions such as Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) pay their employees considerably less than private workers doing comparable work -- 11 to 12% less according to a report by the National Institute for Retirement Security.

The idea that public unions are a drain on state budgets is not supported only by Walker, however. Republican Governor John Kasich of Ohio told the Columbus Dispatch he opposes prevailing wages (paying state-employed construction firms the same wages they would receive if they performed similar work for private employers) a year after saying he wanted to "break the back of organized labor in schools." Such sentiment is not universally Republican, either.

In the Democrat-run Illinois General Assembly, the turn of the new year meant a push for legislation known as "Performance Counts," which includes a provision which would "all but eliminate teachers right to strike" according to WBEZ Chicago Public Radio. Business interests of Illinois, such as the state's Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois Business roundtable, have lined up behind the proposal; as has a group called Stand for Children, an out-of-state group that donated $600,000 to candidates in hopes of school reforms.

Attacks on public employees are not simply restricted to state-level legislators either. Congressional candidates, especially those in the newly elected Republican majority, decried federal spending as being "bloated" and federal employment as being "on steroids."

"We need to cut federal employment back to 2008 levels," Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN 6) declared on Meet the Press in September 2010. This was shortly after the "Pledge to America" which took shape as legislation in January 2011. The legislation aims to cut $2.5 trillion from the federal budget, which includes eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, massive cuts to railroad subsidies, and of course a repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act which makes prevailing wage a requirement for federal construction projects.

It is quite easy to say public employees need to take a pay-cut in times of budget deficits and economic uncertainty. But it is much more difficult to make it work. As the Associated Press points out, these "cuts would affect millions of people."

Can anybody say with absolute sincerity that their local librarian is overpaid? Does any American actually believe that a firefighter deserves a pay cut? Does anyone truly feel their post office is adequately staffed? Is it fair to tell children that their teachers are, as Scott Walker believes, becoming wealthy at the expense of their parents? Does your village actually need less park district workers? Better yet, does it need less police officers?

Because ultimately this is what politicians are telling us when they say spending cuts need to be made. And this is why public-sector unions don't donate to candidates who say they intend to cut-cut-cut their way out of a budget shortfall. These politicians have dehumanized the public servants which they intend to fire if and when they are elected. To them, the 3% budget cut is a step in balancing the budget. But to police officers, firefighters, mail carriers, librarians, teachers, public health workers, and other public servants, that means pay freezes or pay cuts -- both of which are technically the same when inflation is plugged into wage calculation -- or worse, layoffs. And at a time when the economy is in shambles, is it really smart to cut jobs?

Illinois Tea Party member doesn't know where he lives

2010-09-29T16:16:00.004-05:00

I just had to take a picture of this guy when I noticed the stickers on his tailgate.

I sighted him in my hometown of Bartlett (about 325 miles from the Kentucky border), he clearly has an Illinois license plate, and yet he bears a sticker for Kentucky Senate candidate and tea party darling Rand Paul -- explaining the "don't tread on me" sticker right beside the Rand Paul sticker -- proving that the desire to dismantle the federal government knows no borders.

Young voters need to show up like their future depends on it

2010-09-21T14:13:00.007-05:00

For my generation -- born in 1987, I am told I am considered a member of "generation Y" or a "millennial," for whatever that's worth -- there are hopefully many prosperous years to come. American parents have always promised a brighter future for their children. But today, high school and college graduates have, for the first time, been told that they may not start climbing the economic ladder from the point at which their parents left them. The future looks grim for my generation, and yet it seems we are poised to watch social security go bankrupt, funding for our schools slashed, our jobs shipped overseas, our environmental beauty depleted and our peers sent to fight wars. All of these problems result from decisions are made by elected officials, and yet they are not elected by my generation. For that, I fear the future for Americans under 30.

Current unemployment among teenagers is among the highest of all age groups, and unemployment for college grads is frighteningly high, especially considering the student debt these new workers are burdened with. And the future looks rather bleak, considering any job openings for years to come will likely be filled by those who were laid off during the great recession.

Future economic prosperity depends on one major factor: education. However, for my generation, the path toward success has not only become lackluster in quality, but more and more expensive. The nation has fallen behind many others in literacy and graduation rates, while tuition at both public and private colleges has increased as much as six-fold. One parent compared taking his child to school to "driving a new Corvette to Ohio every September, leaving the keys and taking the bus home." To receive an education that will (on average) earn us 54% more money over our lifetime, we have to pay three-to-six times what our parents paid. As a result, college grads take off their caps and gowns to bear an average debt of $20,200-$33,050. This does not include the money that they or their parents pay throughout their schooling, which in some cases, costs families their homes.

For some students, the military is a viable option for paying for college, resulting in an overwhelming number of young people fighting overseas. Over three-quarters of the military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq have been under the age of 30 -- over half of such soldiers have been under the age of 24. And yet, voters aged 18-24 years old consistently have had the lowest turnout in the nation, even in the 2008 election which saw an uptick in turnout among young voters. (Click the link for downloadable data tables in Excel spreadsheet format)

For my generation, it seems apathy is easier than action. But I fear my generation will find that the consequences of apathy are far more painful than those of action. The highest voter turnout in the nation is for voters between the age of 65 and 74. The next highest turnout is among voters 75 and older. This scares me. For this means the decisions made today that impact the future (funding education, social security, environmental conservation) are being made by officials who are elected by those who will least see the results of those decisions.

In essence, our future is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in making our future bright. This is not to say our grandparents plan on ending the world as we know it; but it seems counterproductive to our own success to let decisions be made by those who will not suffer from an uneducated workforce, an ever-growing government debt, environmental disasters or the bankruptcy of social security -- all problems with bipartisan recognition, but little to no bipartisan results.

This is because politicians have learned to ignore the needs of young people. It's not because they hate us or want us to fail, but because they reap no electoral benefits from meeting our needs. Simple math says that a legislator has an easier path to reelection if he funds a program for the elderly (37 million Americans), even if it buries 18-24 year old voters (28 million Americans) in debt. After all, if only 40% of 18-24 year old voters and 70% of senior citizens -- a larger demographic -- show up at the polls, who gets their way?

More importantly, who has the most to lose as a result of these decisions? Who has the most to gain?

Is Obama hoping to run against a Republican congress in 2012?

2010-09-07T14:13:00.006-05:00

Labor Day weekend is considered by many political circles to be the last "official start" of general election season, preceded by Memorial Day and Independence Day. For Democrats and the President, the season's beginning still seems a procrastination.

For the vast majority of the Obama presidency, Republicans have controlled the message of every issue, with little opposition from the president or Democratic leaders. As a result, every promise that made Obama popular in 2008 has been framed negatively in 2010.

In summer 2008, Obama continued to promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if elected. Today, combat efforts in Iraq have ceased, and Afghanistan is expected to see the same draw-down in the next 16 months. In Spring 2008, Obama debated his future secretary of state on how to reform the health care system. In Spring of 2010, health care reform legislation that was fully expected to be a centerpiece of the Obama/Democratic platform was framed as a method of killing grandmas, a tax-hike, and a bolshevik plot to grow government. After the economic collapse on September 15, 2008, Americans heard John McCain claim "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" and decided instead that Obama's economic principles would better guide the nation back to prosperity. They agreed that the wealthiest 2% need to pay their taxes like the rest of us. Today, the Bush Tax Cuts are a place where Americans seem to agree with Obama.

Polls, however, are unfavorable toward Democrats and the Obama agenda. CBS reports that an overwhelming number of polls are projecting doom for Democrats just 56 days away from election day. Somehow, Republicans have taken an agenda that was supported in the 2008 elections, and turned it into a "government takeover" that "kills jobs."

Obama, and his party leaders in congress, need to remind America what they voted for in 2008. Democrats have actually made attempts to fix the problems that have plagued America for years, while the GOP has been content with the current health care system and the growing disparity among middle America. Republicans have never been on the side of the middle class, and continue to favor tax cuts for those who least need them. Democrats, on the other hand, favor tax cuts for those who need them and actually use them. Click here for a graphic depiction of the opposing tax cuts.

Today, the GOP has no true agenda to offer America other than "we don't agree with Obama." There is little to no elaboration on what Republicans would attempt to achieve if they take over congress. Their gridlocking opposition to every bill proposed by Democrats, as seen in the highest filibuster rate in all of American history, has been their only platform. They have not offered an ounce of new solutions to the problems they created under President Bush. Even the Republican-friendly Chicago Tribune admits that the recovery act has saved or created jobs. Yet, Republicans continue to lambast "the stimulus" while leaning on it anytime they need an excuse to vote against a bill; the common excuse for voting against "spending bills" is that "we should just use unused stimulus money" despite the fact that they voted against funding the stimulus, too.

For 8 years, the Republican party controlled Washington. Over this time, what attempts did they take to fix the health care system? (none) Did they balance the budget? (no, they increased the deficit greatly) How high were gas prices? ($4+ a gallon) How many wars did they start and then stall? (2) Did they find Bin Laden? (no) Did higher education become more affordable? (no, tuition increased by 30%) Who more greatly benefitted from their tax policies? (the wealthy) Did they leave the economy in a stable condition? (no)

So why should we elect them back into power? (...)

The more important question: why isn't our president asking voters these same questions? (he would probably rather run for re-election against a "do-nothing" congress like Truman and Clinton did)

Brady, Giannoulias being asked the wrong questions

2010-07-13T15:12:00.006-05:00

Why aren't we asking them how many jobs they've created or saved with the money from their tax-cut?

Two candidates in Illinois are currently being chided by the media regarding their inability to pay taxes, and yet the conversation seems to be missing the point. State Sen. Bill Brady, Republican candidate for governor and millionaire businessman, was found not to have paid taxes in the last two years, using the tax code to avoid his monetary responsibilities legally. Using the same tax laws, Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, was able to waive every penny of his tax liability.

Up to this point, the conversation has revolved around the idea that Gov. Pat Quinn (Brady's Democratic opponent) and Rep. Mark Kirk (Giannoulias' Republican opponent) have hit their tax-dodging opponents hard in ads and press conferences, despite the fact that while they attack their opponents, they are also attacking their partisan-colleagues. This has stumped the commentary pages of several writers, including Capitol Fax blogger Rich Miller, who only brushed over the true point of this issue in the weekend edition of the Sun Times.

"Brady's businesses had tanked with the economy, and he used various tax laws, including President Obama's stimulus program, to get a complete refund of his state and federal income taxes one year and of his federal taxes the next. Those refunds included all taxes withheld from Brady's legislative paycheck"

Note the part about the "stimulus program." I remember the battle on capitol hill when newly-inaugurated President Obama was pushing for spending programs to reignite a stalling economy.
While Republicans were vague on their solutions to the Bush recession, they were clear about one thing. Rather than spend, we need to cut taxes. Rather than block the bill, they would alter it. So Democrats compromised and put billions of dollars in tax cuts into the recovery act -- billions which are included in the price tag now berated in GOP campaign speech.

When the Republicans did offer an alternative recovery bill, its cost was only slightly cheaper than the Democrats' bill but its foundation was $430 billion in tax cuts, almost $180 billion more in tax cuts than the Democrats' bill that passed. According to CNN, that was even less than Republican leadership wanted, saying "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans appear to want to limit the stimulus to tax cuts and addressing the housing crisis."

Tax cuts, according to supply-side Republicans, are good for the economy because they create jobs. After all, if we cut taxes for wealthy businessmen (i.e. Brady and Giannoulias) then those wealthy businessmen can create jobs. So why aren't we asking them how many jobs they've created or saved with the money from their tax-cut?

Giannoulias, as his opponent claims, is worth $7 million. His family's bank was tanking, and so he was able to avoid his taxes, yet the bank is still going out of business. So did his ability to avoid his taxes save any jobs? According to NBC Chicago, Brady was earning $500,000-a-year for several years prior to the economic downfall. In 2008 and 2009, however, he was down to $116,679 and $119,900 respectively, in annual earnings. NBC says over the recorded period of time, Brady laid off a good portion of his construction employees and more than half of the workforce in his realty business. So how many jobs did Brady create while avoiding his obligations to Uncle Sam's coffers?

This is the question that no one is asking. Why do wealthy businessmen like Brady and Giannoulias get to avoid taxes at the expense of those who can least afford to pay them? After all, Brady's real estate business most likely benefited from government spending when the same recovery act that slashed his taxes offered huge tax credits to new home buyers. And his construction company is very likely to have picked up a few contracts from schools, post offices, or other public buildings. And Giannoulias has admitted himself that his bank received aid from the FDIC.

So why don't these wealthy businessmen have to pay for their services received? Families struggling to pay bills have to make their payments to the government, and its only because they can't claim to create jobs. But apparently, neither can wealthy businessmen.

Advice for the Tea Party: Disband for the sake of the GOP, the nation

2010-05-20T21:10:00.007-05:00

Disclaimer: I am not actually hopeful that a member of the Tea Party will actually heed the warnings I am about to ominously dispense.

After Tuesday's multi-state primary, a few results have shown trends regarding anti-incumbent or supposed anti-Obama sentiment speaking for themselves in the election results in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. However, the silliness of such broad-brushing at the ballot box ("throw 'em all out!") seems to have met the morning sun, and it doesn't look as pretty as it did last night. It looks ugly to everyone.

In Kentucky, a story has emerged and already been drained by pundits, as Tea Party champion Rand Paul (son of libertarian guru/yahoo Ron Paul) captured the Republican nomination for Senate. The morning after his nomination, newspapers and television news coverage shed some light on situations in which Paul dodged questions on civil rights until eventually saying he just thinks private ownership should allow business members to discriminate against anyone they so choose. Quotes have also surfaced saying he wants to repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act and supposedly has said he would eliminate the Department of Agriculture. Even in conservative Kentucky, last night's decision doesn't seem to look so good in daylight.

For Charlie Crist in Florida, the Tea Party struck before results could seal his fate. He will run in November as an independent. Despite his centrist reputation, Crist's chances against Florida House speaker/tea party favorite Marco Rubio, are slim given the amount of RNC money Rubio will have at hand. However, his targeted voters are likely to be more from Republican demographics than the state's Democratic base. Today's averages on RealClearPolitics show Crist and Rubio neck and neck, with both leading the Democratic nominee. In the end, Florida will likely elect a Senator who carries roughly 35-40% of the vote, leaving 60% of the state unsatisfied with their Senator-elect.

As a result, the Republicans could be destroyed by independent-repellent candidates nominated by Tea Party voters in their primaries, creating an energized Democratic base and eliminating the likelihood of a 1994 repeat. Joe Klein of Time put it best today:

"If Democrats play their cards right, by November most Americans will know that Medicare is government health care, that social security is a government pension service, that all the bank bailout money either has been paid back or will be covered by a modest tax on too-big-to-fail banks, that the Obama stimulus package mostly consisted of tax cuts for them and support for necessary local government functions like schools and cops--and that the jobs-creating aspects of the stimulus package have been remarkably free of corruption."

I can only hope the Democrats play their cards right. Because while I enjoy watching the apparent fracturing of the Republican party, I fear the idea of men like Rand Paul even being one of a hundred Senators. With a "one-or-the-other" election system, unfortunately, it is quite likely we will see the junior Paul on Capitol Hill.

Why "Change" Should Still Be the Theme of 2010

2010-03-01T14:07:00.005-06:00

In 2008, America swept a new looking president into office on promises of "change we can believe in," seeking nothing more than to escape the fruit of 8 years of Republican rule. And yet, 10 years after the election of George W. Bush, it seems we are still suffering the consequences of his decisions and a Republican congress that rubber stamped them. So why not continue to ask for "change?"

I'm not enamored with some of Obama's decisions (such as his recent extension of the Patriot Act) or the Senate that was supposed to have a "filibuster-proof" super majority. But I still feel like the ideas of Democrats, however similar they sometimes seem to those of Republicans, are better than those of the GOP. As Republicans continue to proclaim that the handful of elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts carry some meaning, they seem to ignore that the elections of 2008 had a greater meaning -- America does not want what Republicans are selling. And they still don't, according to Newsweek polling:

Obama Approval

48% Approve
40% Disapprove

Approve of Obama's handling of health-care?

39% Approve
52% Disapprove
9% Don't know

Approve of how Democrats in Congress are handling health-care?

27% Approve
61% Disapprove
12% Don't know

Approve of how Republicans in Congress are handling health-care?

21% Approve
63% Disapprove
16% Don't know

Better Approach to:
The Economy

46% Obama
30% GOP

Jobs

49% Obama
26% GOP

The Deficit

42% Obama
33% GOP

Iraq

45% Obama
30% GOP

Afghanistan

46% Obama
27% GOP

So if America is so fed up with Obama, where is the loss of support that we keep hearing about? I have yet to see believable numbers to tell me that America no longer desires health-care reform, withdrawal from Iraq, an end to the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy or heavier regulation on banks, all of which Obama promised in his victorious 2008 campaign.

I do, however, believe in the anti-incumbency sentiments that have shown themselves in polls. However, this "throw the bums out" thing seems silly being that the replacement to "the bums" are slightly older bums, who have already failed in creating progress or prosperity.

So I suggest a slightly less broad-brushing issue to base your vote upon: which candidates will better deliver a change from today's status quo?

Corporations and the wealthiest Americans still enjoy small tax liabilities, we're still in Iraq, we still haven't found Osama Bin Laden, health-care providers can still exponentially raise your premiums or drop you at anytime, banks and creditors are still charging ridiculous fees and interest rates while borrowing money from the government, we're still losing jobs to foreign workers, and the national debt is still increasing.

All of these problems could be traced to 8 years of Republican failures, and few of them can be changed in the 13 short months from the time Obama took office until now. Republicans always cut taxes for the largest earners before anyone else, they offer few solutions beyond "tort reform" when it comes to health care, they always side with banks when it comes to deregulation, they see no threat to free trade and tripled the national debt in 8 years after being handed a budget surplus. What change can you expect from Republicans on any of these problems?

What if every congress was like todays GOP?

2010-02-07T15:58:00.010-06:00

Throughout America's history, minority parties have been forced to accept defeat in narrow numbers. Today's minority, however, has become so obstructionist as to hold the Senate at a stand-still unless they are given their way or until they win back power.

Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina is the most evoked figure of American history when discussing the filibuster, remembered for his 24 hour and 18 minute attempt to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957. However, the word "attempt" seems the most crucial in this rememberance. Unlike today's congressional requirements, Thurmond actually had to talk for an entire 24 hours and 18 minutes in an attempt to bore congress out of voting for the bill, and yet the Senate still listened to his droning readings and rantings only to pass the bill 2 hours after his discussion ended.

This is not only a sentiment of what was then a resilient Democratic Party, unlike today's which seems to whimper at any GOP threats of obstruction after, of course, letting Republicans add amendments to whatever they will ultimately vote against. This is a sentiment to why obstructionism has never been so rampant as it is today.

The most sickening modern example of a minority party stranglehold is that of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). He has put a unilateral hold on confirming more than 70 nominees for homeland security posts. The senators protest not only comes at a time when the nation is fighting 2 wars and piecing together intelligence from a failed suicide bomber, but it comes out of selfish concerns. Says Politico:

"Shelby is frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to the creation of jobs in Mobile, Ala. And spokesman Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement the senator is also “deeply concerned” that the administration “will not release” funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama."

Yes, you read that right. A Republican senator is angry because his state didn't get an earmark project, reportedly worth $40 billion. While his caucus complains that we're driving the federal deficit to dangerous heights, Shelby just wants to make sure his state can get the gravy. Not only does he want his state to get the contract, he wants it awarded to Northrop Grumman/EADs, who coincidentally donated $28,000 to his coffers over the last two election cycles.

And this is why Washington does not work. It is because the Republican powers-that-be refuse to surrender to the belief that elections should have consequences. While they crusaded at the turn of the century that we should be installing democratic governments around the world, the GOP has ignored our nation's democratic foundations.

In fact, the Republican minority in the 111th congress is on path to destroy the previous record of 112 filibusters (set by the GOP minority in the 110th congress) and has done so strictly in efforts to score political points. One can only imagine what our history would look like if every minority party had decided to follow this strategy.

In 1919, the nineteenth amendment (women's suffrage) passed the Senate with the signatures of only 56 senators. Had the minority party of the 66th congress been as politically sadistic as today's Republicans, women would have been denied the democratic rights they enjoy today. In the state of Tennessee, the 36th and therefore final necessary state to ratify the amendment, the ratification passed the general assembly by one vote. Even at the state level, decisions to obstruct American progress were put aside.

**As a side note, the list of states that quickly ratified the 19th amendment can still be viewed today as some of the most progressive states -- Illinois was the first to ratify, followed by Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts -- while the slowest are still today's most conservative -- South Carolina didn't ratify until 1969, followed by Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Mississippi, whose legislature didn't ratify the amendment until 1984).**

The first Gulf War was waged after H.R.J Resolution 77 only narrowly passed the Senate by a vote of 52-47. If the Democrats of 1991 (who actually had the majority) had rallied their 45 dissenting votes to filibuster the bill, the 41st president's greatest (and only) achievement would never have been.

Illinois' budget crisis diagnosed, but cure is ignored

2010-01-05T09:21:00.008-06:00

Like almost every state in the union, Illinois is in debt. Really deep debt. The governor pitched a tax increase last March, in an effort to fix the budget deficit, but cut it from his plans in favor of pension borrowing -- a temporary fix that Quinn hoped would eliminate "tax hiker" from his opponents' attacks in 2010.

And this is the true reality of the problem. We have now reached 2010 and many of those in power have yet to offer more than temporary fixes, in fear of the always impending election cycle. No incumbent wants to risk their seat, even if their inaction means cutting much needed social services, underfunding schools (whether elementary or higher education) or passing debts to future generations.

And what do we, the people of Illinois, do about it? We keep the seats warm with the same hides, and expect new results.

Our state is in need of budget reform, and even conservative groups are starting to realize that a tax increase is a critical piece to a real solution. The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a think-tank whose board hosts Jim Ryan, former Attorney General and current Gubernatorial candidate, stated it several times in a summer brief:

"Illinois has an antiquated revenue system that cannot fund public services in a modern economy. It in fact has a long‐term, structural deficit. It has already cut billions in funding for essential human services over the past decade. It is time the state faced reality and raised the revenue needed to invest in services relied upon by millions."

**Note: Jim Ryan has since distanced himself from this position and others like it, now that he is running for governor**

The idea that Illinois' budget can be balanced strictly by cutting spending is as much a myth as the idea that revenue can be raised by cutting taxes. The facts are plain, but unspoken by anyone in our legislature (or the press). Our state has been funding its services on the backs of the least fortunate among us for the past decade or so.

As Jim Broadway of State School News Service points out, many budget deficit "solutions" are those that take no concern for an individual's income, but rather flat fees (such as recent hikes in drivers license fees, and local government sales tax hikes like that in Cook County) that hit the poor harder than the wealthy. And while Broadway relates these principles to schools, they can be said of almost every government program:

"For example, by over-relying on property taxes and constraining state general revenue (low, flat income tax rate, narrow sales tax base), state policy widens the local revenue gap among school districts even as it chokes off the intended “equalizing” effects of the General State Aid formula.

The GSA was designed to ensure adequate funding even in the poorest school districts. It was based on a 50% state share of total education funding. It does not work at the 30%-33% levels we have seen in the last 15 years or so. The gap in school funding grows."

We need to send our officials a clear message: something needs to be done to preserve a future for our state. If we replace our regressive tax system (one that taxes the wealthy at a significantly lower percent than the lower and middle class) with a progressive tax system (one that taxes the wealthy at a slightly higher percent than lower and middle class and lowers taxes for the latter) our state will not only be more equal morally, but more importantly, it will be more responsible fiscally.

The idea that fiscal responsibility can only mean one thing -- cutting spending and lowering taxes -- as the conservative movement has always claimed, must be reversed. Fiscal responsibility means paying your bills, and little more. While lowering those bills by cutting waste is an essential part of a balanced budget, creating revenue to fund the necessary programs (schools, roads, etc.) is the most essential piece of any balanced budget. In most cases, this can only be done by raising taxes on someone. But we cannot expect our state's current leaders to do this, as they have already quietly announced intentions to ignore the problem. As Broadway concludes:

"The word currently circulating is that the legislative leaders hope they can avoid any general revenue increases until the veto session of November, after the November 2 general elections. If that is the case the state budget for FY 2011 will be a disaster for all who rely on state support – including schools."

We need to make this an issue. We must ask candidates where they stand on this issue. We must ask elected officials why they refuse to act upon it. Most importantly, we need to support the candidates and incumbents who support efforts to fix the budget by raising revenue, rather than those who hope only to cut spending.

Republican gubernatorial candidates like State Senator Kirk Dillard, who promise only to lower taxes and cut spending, offer few solutions, opting rather to pander to Illinois, telling us taxes will stay where they are and all will be fine. Dillard bragged several times on Public Affairs (a local-access show) about his hopes to maintain the status-quo. In one case, Dillard even has the ignorance to claim that tax increases will inhibit school reforms.

"There’s got to be massive school reform, so it’s ridiculous for anybody to talk about a tax increase. I’m not for a tax increase and I believe I’m the best candidate, with my managerial skills, to stop a tax increase.."

The only thing more disgusting than elected officials who do not recognize a problem are those who recognize a problem and choose not to properly fix it.

Catholic church: The less fortunate are less important than stopping gay rights

2009-11-17T14:51:00.011-06:00

I don't like the fact that this is now my second post in a row directed at the Catholic church. As I have stated before, I am a Catholic and, despite disagreeing with the church as an institution, I believe to have constructed my moral foundation in the pews and religious education classrooms of Catholic parishes, and further supported it for 4 years in an active role in a Catholic youth group.

But that is why I find myself so enraged with the Catholic institution as it declares itself today. I was apparently wrong about everything I (thought I) learned about the teachings of Christ. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops signaled last week that the nation's sick and suffering (those people we bless every Sunday) will always come second to the unborn; and now the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. has informed me that their hatred toward gay rights will always be prioritized above helping the poor (those people Jesus told us to help).

The Washington Post reported last week that the archdiocese told the City Council that if a gay-marriage bill passes as expected, the church would kill all their contracts with the city. Though this bill does not require any church to recognize same-sex marriage or accommodate same-sex marriage ceremonies, the church says if the bill passes they would be forced to give employee benefits to same-sex couples -- as if any homosexuals would feel welcome in a Catholic church, let alone working for one.

Ending the agreement between the city and the archdiocese would mean ending services such as health care and adoption services to tens of thousands of people, and shuddering shelters that service a third of Washington's homeless.

It just reinforces to me my premonitions about the church: we don't care about America's poor or sick if gays are given equal legal rights. Notice the italicized word: legal -- governmental and secular -- not religious.

What is most shocking in this case is not only that they are willing to leave a third of Washington's homeless on the street and end healthcare services, but they are also willing to end adoption services. You read that right. The church would rather inhibit adoption, commonly accepted as the most humane substitute to abortion, than do business with a town that allows a two gay men the equal rights of a married heterosexual.

This aspect of the church's attitudes continues with the church's comments on an amendment to the marriage bill. The amendment would have given individuals the rights to decline services for same-sex weddings. The amendment was rejected by a council committee and Susan Gibbs, the archdiocese spokeswoman said the following (paraphrased by the Washington Post):

Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.

Again, the church is not only ignoring the fact that lesbian couples are not likely to feel welcome in a church hall, but they reject the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt a child. It seems as if "Adoption, not abortion" bumper stickers need to be supplemented with adjacent stickers proclaiming "as long as applicants are not gay, do not support gays, and don't support government-run healthcare."

Women and Catholics are in need of true representation

2009-11-05T15:07:00.006-06:00

Though they won both gubernatorial races a week ago, the GOP doesn't appear to be in any better a place than before the "sweep." Muddled polls have shown little animosity toward a president sworn by Republicans to be unpopular; and while Republicans Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell won New Jersey and Virginia (respectively), both congressional special elections were won by Democrats, including the NY-23 race. Portions of that district haven't been represented by a Democrat in more than a century.

I think that race in particular gives us a peek to the future of the Republican party. After being unhappy with Dede Scozzafava, the moderate candidate who won the Republican primary, the 23rd district's conservatives (who apparently didn't vote for a more conservative candidate in that primary) endorsed an independent Conservative party candidate, Doug Hoffman, along with national GOP figure heads like Sarah Palin. After losing the support of Republicans in her district, Scozzafava dropped out of the race, endorsing the Democrat. In Florida, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite has already been threatened by a primary contender for showing support for her fellow Republican. Said Brown-Waite of the attacks on Scozzafava:

"I don't want to see females in the Republican Party saying, 'Wait a minute,they're going to destroy me, they're going to distort every vote I've ever taken,' and that's really why I felt so strongly about going up there."

Is this the future for the Republican party? Are pro-choice candidates (like Tom Ridge) unwelcome regardless of their stances on big government? Are gay-friendly candidates shooed from the party, regardless of their pushes for populist tax-cuts? Most importantly, are women even welcome in the GOP anymore?

Fact: Out of the 217 Republicans in the House and Senate, only 20 are women -- 9 percent. The Democratic party has 346 members in the legislative branch, 63 of which are women -- 18 percent.

The health care debate really proved to me that a woman's legal rights are no more than a device for advancing the Republican agenda and riling up their base. The Pitts-Stupak amendment, though sponsored by a Democrat from Michigan's conservative upper peninsula, was used by Republicans solely to get the religious right involved in their efforts to kill health care reform. The amendment to the Democratic health care bill (H.R. 3962) was meant to restrict women who purchase health coverage from the government or in the public exchange from ever receiving an abortion, even if paid for with 100% of the woman's private funds. This makes an abortion the only legal medical procedure that would not be allowed, even if the procedure is paid for without the assistance of the federal government or a private insurer.

As far as Republicans are concerned, it seems, abortion is the only way to make people of religion care about an issue that should otherwise be supported by my fellow Catholics. The involvement of lobbyists representing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the wording of the Stupak amendment is the only aspect of this ploy more disturbing than the destruction of a woman's rights for political gain. Not only does it bother me that the Catholic church pays lobbyists, but the violation of a constitutional separation between church and state could not be more apparent when you literally have representatives of the Catholic Church in talks with the Speaker of the House.

The following are wishes from the Catholic Bishops' website, regarding health care:

a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants
pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

Note the surprisingly "socialist" language italicized above, before noting that all 4 of these wishes closely resemble what Democrats have proposed, and until the Stupak amendment was involved, not one Catholic could have cared about this bill. So my question is this: now that the Stupak amendment has been approved, will the Catholic church work as hard to pass this bill for the benefit of the living as it did for the benefit of the unborn?

See full video of the 14 hour debate on health care at this link.

Big Buff always says it best

2009-10-21T15:30:00.005-05:00

As the second richest American, Warren Buffett (sorry to mislead Blackhawks fans with my headline) usually makes the best arguments on the side of regulation and greed-capping. An article in today's Chicago Sun-Times (via Bloomberg) reported that Buffett, CEO of investment company Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said failure should be punished on Wall Street, rather than being shrugged off.

"You have to put in something where there is downside to people who really mess up large institutions," Buffett said in an interview conducted by Business Wire, the Berkshire subsidiary that posts corporate press releases. "Too many people have walked away from the troubles they have created for society, not just for their own institution, and they have walked away rich."

Buffett goes on to invite regulation for Wall Street, a sector of America's economy which will likely see a 40% increase in bonuses, according to Johnson Associates Inc., consultants in compensation. Though the bonuses have not yet reached pre-meltdown levels, Buffett says there is little incentive for executives to earn their bonuses.

"What you have to change in Wall Street, is you have to make sure that in addition to carrots, there are sticks," he said. "And it can't be a one-way street where they are making ungodly amounts of money when things are good and then they move on to someplace else for a while when things are bad."

Buffett clarifies that he does not think Wall Street is inherently "evil" but rather that it is "given to huge excess sometimes."

I honestly believe Warren Buffett is the only billionaire whose economic views I respect. Or he is at least the most vocal proponent of social justice in a market that has essentially been built by a government. President Obama summarized Buffett's approach in The Audacity of Hope, describing a conversation he had with Buffett in his modest Omaha office. Said Buffett:

"(The wealthy) have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I am not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner.

But I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing -- and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is pay for it."

Buffett has even walked the walk, agreeing to accept no more than $100,000-a-year for his work as CEO of Berkshire. Not only does he pay a higher percent of taxes this way, but he leaves more for the company, its employees and its stockholders.

Imagine that, folks. A billionaire taking a 99% pay cut so that he can "spread the wealth." My favorite aspect of this is Buffett's innoculation from being called a "socialist," being that he has essentially been the poster child of the successes of capitalism for decades.

**Excerpt from The Audacity of Hope courtesy of Crown Publishing, copyright 2006**

Roskam misleads on Honduras

2009-10-15T10:58:00.009-05:00

In an op-ed in today's Chicago Tribune, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL-6) explained his reasoning for why the Obama administration should support the upcoming elections in Honduras. Roskam's point of view is from one that appears to be centrist, but in reality is in agreement with his far-right Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who claimed there is more chaos in "the Obama administration's policy toward our poor and loyal allies in Honduras," than in the nation itself. Honduras was overturned when a sitting president was ousted by the army over which he was to oversee.

This is what Roskam fails to disclose honestly, when he describes the situation as a "leftist" president, Manuel Zelaya, being removed from office by the Honduran Supreme Court for seeking an abolishment to term limits. He was replaced with the president of the Honduran congress, Roberto Micheletti. Roskam not only fails to mention that Zelaya did not achieve the abolishment, but leaves out the details of Zelaya's "crimes." According to Reuters, Zelaya merely requested an unofficial vote to gauge support for his proposed reelection. Zelaya is right to question whether democracy is really in action in a region with a history of dictatorships and corruption:

"If holding a poll provokes a coup, the abduction of the president and expulsion from his country, then what kind of democracy are we living in?" Zelaya said in Costa Rica.

Roskam, and a few other Republican congressmen, have visited Honduras' interim government, rejecting the stance of the State Dept. and of the European Union, which has also condemned the coup, by meeting with the newly appointed Honduran government, which has not been formally recognized by the United States.

Roskam vails his pride in the fact that an ally of Hugo Chavez was forcefully exiled from his home country by claiming it is integral to support Honduras' upcoming elections.

"There remains a solution that will satisfy American interests, provide stability to a region in short supply of it and, most important, give Hondurans what they deserve -- fair elections. Even if the State Department will not recognize Micheletti's interim government, it should support election monitors to observe the upcoming Honduran elections.

Neither Zelaya nor Micheletti are on the ballot, nor should they be. Micheletti lost his presidential primary and has made no efforts to alter his situation. Zelaya is term-limited and his time as president has come and gone.

The silver lining will be the election of a new, legitimate leader in Honduras who will provide a counterbalance to Chavez's dictatorial regime."

It's hard to argue with Roskam about elections having great power. However, if democracy is to be a solution, what justifies a military coup to overthrow a democratically elected president? If democracy is the true answer to Honduras' problems, why was a referendum considered by Roskam to threaten that democracy?

What is most aggravating in this situation is that we watched right-wing pundits complain when Sean Penn, an actor, visited Hugo Chavez, because Chavez was a dictator and an enemy of America. And yet, Republican legislators visit a government not recognized by the U.S., and publically offer their support, and there is no wrongdoing.

Battle is only starting for health care reform, Maine Republicans

2009-10-15T00:32:00.011-05:00

After the Baucus bill passed by a vote of 14-9 out of the Senate Finance Committee, health care reform looks more alive today than it has at any other time in decades. However, the battle is nowhere near over, as the bill will be open for full Senate debate in coming months. And it will be months, with modest predictions saying the bill will pass by Christmas.

The committee vote was basically along party lines, with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) voting with the Democrats in support of the Baucus bill, which is free of a public option but rather instituting a cooperative non-profit health care insurance provider, to be run by its members.

Snowe has caught a great deal of grief since the election of Barack Obama, from conservatives and even her party's chairman, Michael Steele, who told Fox News he was "disappointed" with the bill's advancement and Snowe's vote. Yesterday, however, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also announced she would be willing to support Democratic health care reform.

What I find ironic about the Snowe-and-Collins shaming from the GOP is that it is coming from the same people who claim blue-dog opposition to progressive health care reform is just "congressmen representing their districts by opposing big government." These same people, however, ignore the fact that both Snowe and Collins are from Maine, and the polls showing that Mainers are in favor of a public option, and heavily in favor of regulating insurance providers. They're representing their constituents, and Republicans won't have it.

Steele has a history of hating on Snowe and Collins, though. He claimed he would run primary challengers against the senators, and Sen. Arlen Specter, after the three of them voted in favor of the stimulus bill. Specter essentially told Steele to "stick it up his trunk," and defected to the Democratic party.

Like I said in a post last week, Obama and the Democrats have done too much to reach across the aisle in the health care battle, in turn watering down the bill to a point that, without a public option, it looks more like a gift to insurance companies than "health care reform." However, the president's unyielding effort to make Congress work for all Americans (or at least look like it does) seem to have made him more favorable as Republicans reject his outreached hand.

I maintain faith as the bill enters the Senate. At this point, the bill has passed the most conservative vote it needed to pass and come Christmas the Baucus bill will, at worst, pass as it is written today, or at best, be merged with House bills to include a public option. The least we can say is that it will provide for a very entertaining holiday season. Hopefully, we can count on Snowe this Christmas.

Olbermann: Health care is a human right

2009-10-08T10:18:00.004-05:00

Say what you will about Keith Olbermann, but his point was clear last night in his hour-long "special comment": health care should be a universal human right.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Jindal: "ideas" but poor "ideals"

2009-10-05T22:59:00.016-05:00

The governor of Louisiana is challenging President Obama again, claiming Republicans have the upper hand on health care in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

Gov. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal starts the article by claiming that health care reform is opposed by America, a statement which is proven wrong by polls he requests that we to read, despite the fact it appears he did not. He then goes on to a pinnacle of hypocrisy.

"First, Democrats have to give up on their grand experiment and get serious about bipartisan solutions. Second, Republicans have to join the battle of ideas."

Funny you should mention bipartisanship, governor. Because for the last 4 months, the president has done, in my opinion, far too much to reach across the aisle for Republican support for a bill that has been proclaimed by GOP senators as the best moment to destroy the Obama presidency. Jindal seems lost on this point, apparently ignoring the lack of health care legislation in the 6 years of Republican rule during the Bush presidency, and the lack of an alternative bill today, which House GOP leader John Boehner claimed just needed "finishing touches" back in July.

More importantly, Jindal ignores the way American independents perceives Republicans. Observe a Pew Research conclusion, as it appeared in the Christian Science Monitor's editorial page.

"The obstructionist label is blazoned on the elephant hide. Forty-two percent of independents blame the GOP for not reaching across the aisle, while only 26 blame President Obama, Pew reports.

Perhaps the GOP calculates that by bucking Mr. Obama's initiatives, it can recapture the House in 2010, just as it did in 1994, during President Clinton's first term. But back then, Republican Newt Gingrich at least presented a "do something" alternative – the "contract with America."
If Republicans keep the "party of no" label, they won't inspire enough of today's independents. The GOP may gain House seats, but not regain control. The better strategy is to look for common ground on popular issues."

In defense of Jindal, he claims the American people "do not want Republicans to offer their own thousand-page plan to overhaul health care, and that is not what the nation needs." At least he's honest there. But Jindal continues to defend his former colleagues in the House for their opposition to health care, saying they've "done the right thing for America." Tell that to anyone who can not afford coverage and need lifesaving surgery, or even antibiotics for a simple virus like bronchitis. Tell them to their face (between their coughs and wheezing) that its better for America if they are not offered affordable, publicly funded insurance.

Jindal then goes on to list ideas that Republicans should embrace. Out of the ten of them, many are repeated from Obama's ideas.

"Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs."

This sounds a lot like the "health care exchanges" that the president pitched. Obama's wording from his speech to congress last month:

"For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need."

The tax credit mention in Obama's speech is reiterated in Jindal's article as well, which says insurance companies shouldn't turn down customers with pre-existing conditions and requests medical records to be made electronic. Again, both are centerpieces of Obama's plan.

The governor also says health care reform should reward healthy lifestyles, by giving "premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health." Oddly enough, this idea probably involves insurance companies asking for daily diets and activity levels. If the government did these things, it would be "big government gone crazy," but when it's private companies, its all good to Jindal.

What readers can conclude from Jindal's article lies in his list of "ideas" is simple: Republicans agree on a majority of the ideas proposed in Democratic health care reform. So why are they trying so hard to kill it entirely?

Easy conclusions say its about ideals. The lobbies that seek well being for citizens (and the doctor-patient relationship!) such as the American Association for Retired People, the American Medical Association, and the American Hospital Association support the bill; the lobbies that seek to increase the profits of business, particularly insurance providers, oppose it. It just seems as if Republicans would rather protect business than insure the well being of Americans.

Lobbying hasn't helped the cause much, either. Blue Cross and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors have increasingly started to donate to Democrats in an effort to sway congressmen from reforming healthcare. Pharmaceutical companies such as Phizer inc. and GlaxoSmithKline have done the same.

**Editors note: The day following this post, the AP released a poll showing another drop in pubic opposition toward health care reform and Fox News interviewed him about "his" plan for health care in which he echoed a lot of what he wrote in the Post**

America's greedy culture must change before progress can happen

2009-09-29T10:56:00.010-05:00

In recent discussions with conservatives, I have been told that liberals (and myself in particular) are asking that America's financial sector be regulated by a government resembling that of the ever-scary "socialism." I not only tell them that they are wrong, but lead into my undying love song for capitalism. However, my definition of "capitalism" is often what separates me from conservatives.

I hate the excesses of unregulated, super-free-market capitalism. Most liberals (and humans) hate the excesses of an entirely free market, despite liking the innovative, motivating factors that accompany every American's strive for financial well-being. However, "strive for financial well-being" has changed in recent years to "strive for more money than anyone can ever need."

Today, CEO's like Robert Nardelli of Home Depot destruction fame, are somehow able to run from one burning building to a house of cards like Chrysler, receiving paychecks exceeding $200 million. And not once does anyone ask "what did Nardelli do to deserve $200 million for leaving the company (Home Depot) he destroyed?" or "what could any one person do to deserve such money even if they increased a company's profit or kept it stable?"

As David Brooks writes in the New York Times, our modern leaders have not only gotten more decadent, but they have fed this decadence to consumers. And we, as the numb society we have become, don't question it.

"Executives and hedge fund managers began bragging about compensation packages that would have been considered shameful a few decades before. Chain restaurants went into supersize mode, offering gigantic portions that would have been considered socially unacceptable to an earlier generation."

Brooks goes on to show more broad examples of America's overflow of personal irresponsibility.

"In 1960, Americans’ personal debt amounted to about 55 percent of national income. By 2007, Americans’ personal debt had surged to 133 percent of national income."

Simply put, American households have spent themselves into oblivion striving for material possessions, but spending money they didn't really have, leaving a false sense of security. And this is what needs to change to prevent deep recession again.

Many historians attribute the decadence of the roarin' 20's for causing the Great Depression, and I think today's deep recession can be traced to similar roots. Actually, greed seems to be the root of almost every economic problem with our society. Observe:

Unemployment? According to the Institute for Policy Studies, today's CEO makes 319 times what an average U.S. worker makes, compared to the 1970's when CEO's rarely made 30-40 times the average worker's salary. Mathematically speaking, this means that in the last 3 decades, for every CEO, nearly 290 workers have been put out of work because their salary is being given to the president of a company. Does this CEO need the extra couple million dollars to support a family? Not unless you count his car collection.

The recession? As the IPS concludes:

"America's executive pay bubble remains un-popped," says Sarah Anderson, lead author on the Institute study. "And these outrageous rewards give executives an incentive to behave outrageously, putting the rest of us at risk."

And that risk ultimately hung us a year ago when the financial sector collapsed as a result of high-risk practices no longer yielding a high reward.

Federal budget deficit? Everyone, especially Democrats in debates over government spending, remembers President Clinton handing George W. Bush a budget surplus in 2001. Rather than leaving taxes alone and helping to fix the national debt, as conservatives promise, he cut taxes for the top tax bracket, therefore making the wealthy super-wealthy and leaving our government in need of revenue.

Did I forget any others? Let me know in comments.

Do Dems face a turning tide in 2010?

2009-09-24T10:15:00.009-05:00

Forget about 2012, it's looking scary for Democrats in 2010. As Michael Barone writes in the Washington Examiner, polls are turning around fast after a summer bogged down by oppositionism and obstructionism from the GOP on healthcare. Barone mentions that the situation is very similar to 1994 and that minority parties often under-perform in early polls.

Unmentioned by Barone, however, are the only two governors races in the nation, in New Jersey and Virginia. In New Jersey, unpopular incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine is trailing in polls against Republican Chris Christie, partially due to the recent organ-trafficking scandal that stretched from mayors to rabbis(!) to state legislators. In Virginia, Democratic state senator Creigh Deeds is lagging behind Republican Bob McDonnell.

While President Obama's approval ratings are on the positive side according to realclearpolitics poll averages, congressional approval is no higher than when Bush left office and wrong track/right direction polls are in the red.

However, I am still optimistic that Americans will be able to straighten this out. After all, it hasn't even been a year since Democrats swept elections for the second time in as many elections. Democrats will likely stump about the Republicans' lack of substantive alternatives to the problems that face voters, let alone alternatives to the problems that got us into a recession caused by Republican policies.

Paraphrasing Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, if Republicans really had ideas for healthcare reform (or anything) why didn't they do it when they had both houses and the White House?

This is essentially the root of why Republicans have lost so much favor since 2000. The Bush years saw deregulation that eventually led to the collapse of the financial sector, tax cuts that favored the rich who benefitted from said deregulation, and defense policy that led 4,000+ Americans to die in a war in which our nation had no real benefit. While they had the power Democrats now enjoy, Republicans did nothing to address the growing costs of healthcare or college. They didn't even keep their own promises regarding fiscal responsibility. Instead they inflated spending while slashing taxes to the wealthiest Americans, cutting a huge portion of government revenue.

Will American voters remember these things in November 2010? I hope the Democrats will make sure of it.

Wilson incident reminds us why Republicans lost badly

2009-09-15T13:22:00.005-05:00

After shouting "you lie!" at President Obama a week ago during the president's healthcare speech to a joint session of congress, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is facing a Resolution of Disapproval against him for threatening what Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) called the "civility and decorum of the House."

Wilson apologized to Obama immediately after the president's speech saying the outburst was "spontaneous." Obama accepted the apology, but House Democrats didn't. Particularly offended were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who saw the outburst as a racial issue.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a leading member of the Black Caucus and the House majority whip, said the outburst was part of a bigger problem with Wilson, saying it was "indicative of the combativeness he displays all the time when it comes to politics."

Clyburn has encountered such "combativeness" with Wilson in the past, most recently noting that Wilson hosted a town hall outside his own district and rather in Clyburn's district, in a school where Clyburn's children attend -- without informing Clyburn.

Wilson has also been identified as a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that has defended actions of the Ku Klux Klan and fought to keep the confederate flag flying over South Carolina's capitol building.

This whole incident has taught us many things but has mostly shown that the Republican party has been minimized to the very thing it claims it is not: a party of a bunch of white guys from the south who will do anything in their own power to destroy the progress of our democratically elected president (who happens to be black) and therefore, destroy the progress of our nation.

Facts speak for themselves

Fact: The GOP does not hold a single House seat in all of New England.

Fact: 75 of the 178 Republicans in the House are from former confederate states. About 2 in 5 Republican congressmen are from former slave-holding states.

Fact: Of the 22 senators in former confederate states, only 7 are Democrats. None of them are black. There have only been 3 black senators in the last 20 years, all of them from Illinois (Carol Moseley Braun, Barack Obama and Roland Burris). In that same period of time, 57 black representatives have been elected to the House, only 2 of them Republicans.

Fact: Out of all the 178 Republicans in the House, none of them are black. Of all the 40 Republicans in the Senate, none of them are black.

With numbers like these, its a miracle the RNC elected Michael Steele to be their first black chairman. Looking at his statements, though, it isn't surprising.

"In another stunning example of hypocrisy, congressional Democrats are wasting taxpayers' time and resources on a legislative measure to censure Congressman Joe Wilson so they don't have to talk about their exceedingly unpopular health care plan," Steele said.

Hypocrisy, Chairman Steele? You want to talk about hypocrisy? Your party's leader led us to war in Iraq, based on lies that he called "facts," all of which were based on "intelligence." Did Joe Wilson call George W. Bush a liar then? No. Did any Democrat call him a liar? Not in the chamber.

Mr. Steele, it seems your Republican party would rather call Obama a liar for trying to pass badly needed healthcare reform than acknowledge your own failures that have resulted in your diminishing support and complete excommunication in a community of which you are a part. If you want to defend the actions of a man who called the president a liar for defending his own efforts to make America a better place to live, you have apparently become blind to the 4000+ soldiers your party's president led to their deaths. That, Mr. Steele, is hypocrisy. And it makes me sick.

Obama to give healthcare speech for congress

2009-09-03T10:45:00.003-05:00

Adding to the number of Clinton's health-failure similarities, President Obama is scheduled to give a speech to a joint session of congress next Wednesday, Sept. 9. Proponents hope to see Obama revert to his campaign successes of clearly addressing the nation and not being knocked off message, as he was with the infamous Skip Gates question at his late July press-conference which was intended to clarify his health care intentions.

Having worked in minimal measures for the Obama campaign, I trust the president who was once so disciplined in message that even the media seemed to agree with him. My hope is simple. I hope the president's speech concludes one way, and only one way. Says President Obama:

"I once sat in the chambers of the Senate, first in Illinois, and then in Washington D.C. I know first-hand the privileges of being a federal legislator. Would anyone in this room who receives health insurance at the dime of American taxpayers please stand?"

Upon the unified rise of the entire congress, Democrats and Republicans, he can merely conclude by saying "If you're happy with you're medical coverage, I would like you to explain to your constituents why they should not receive the same privilege."

Cue applause.

Free-Market Death Panels exist

2009-08-18T01:58:00.002-05:00

Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal writes about her husband who suffered from liver cancer and how his last years were spent fighting the bureaucracy of private insurance just so he could fight the cancer that was taking his life. She describes the fight to have his chemo treatments paid for and the run-around he was given. Harrop ultimately concludes that a private insurance company is much more likely to let patients die because ultimately they'd rather save money; therefore, a public option, which is not looking to profit, would be more likely to efficiently service people like her husband.

"What we wouldn't have done to have traded [United Healthcare's] minions for a government bureaucrat," Harrop writes. "The bureaucrat would have given a simple 'yes' or 'no' based on official guidelines. He or she would have had no personal stake in denying you care."

Read the whole article here

The religious right is lost in healthcare debate

2009-08-13T15:29:00.009-05:00

Come summer of 2010, it is basically set in stone that debates will center on moral issues like abortion or the death penalty. While most discussion will likely involve abortion more than the death penalty (all by people claiming to be pro-"life" while keeping their pro-capital punishment beliefs to themselves) we can rest assured health care will not be considered a "moral issue."

I know I have sung this song before, but it just blows my mind how many members of the religious right, Nixon's "moral majority," have been the leaders in a fight to destroy healthcare reform. In the video below, you'll see a man who shouted (essentially about the mere fact that he wanted to "speak his mind") at Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) that "God will judge" Specter and his "damn cronies on the Hill."

Watch CBS Videos Online

And as democraticunderground.com (which is surely an unbiased website) mentions, conservative christian groups are urging their followers to attend town halls hosted by their representatives and "read them the riot act" on healthcare. A Minnesota Christian group says that President Obama's healthcare reform is putting "trust in Government not in God."

The Christian Coalition of America is reading Republican talking points in an effort to turn senior citizens (who receive sweet socialized Medicare) against immigrants saying that Democratic plans will provide endless care to illegal aliens while rationing care for the elderly. Of course, this is untrue, as well is ignorant, seeing as we already pay in the form of higher healthcare premiums for any illegal immigrant who lands in an emergency room.

But the big point looks beyond such lies and looks at the future. As the man in Pennsylvania said, one day God will judge us (if you believe so, anyway -- and I do) and judge us. I hope this is true, just so the mobs of shouters at town halls can see that the following conversation does not take place at St. Peter's gate.

God: You've got a pretty clean record, so I'll just get this gate opened and...wait...what's this? It appears that in 2009 you supported legislation to provide low cost healthcare to millions of my children. That is unacceptable! You've not done my will!

Specter (or any Democrat): But all I was really trying to do was keep people alive, healthy and prosperous. I thought that was your will. Isn't it?

God: Trust me, buddy, I'm no socialist.

Specter: But didn't Jesus take that fish and that bread and multiply it so others could eat? That is almost the epitome of socialism.

God: He did that with skill though. He didn't make the bread with hours of his own labor, it just happened because he's my Son and I made it happen. If everyone had the skill of Jesus, which they don't, healthcare would be glorious. Everyone would have access to healthcare. Doctors would be cheap and efficient and...

Specter: Like they are in Europe? That's what I mean!

God: Insurance companies aren't as efficient as me, okay? So they have to charge people tons of money and deny coverage to the people who slow them down and cut into their profits.

Specter: So you want insurance giants to be rich?

God: Now you're getting it! That way, the insurance employees can go to their local churches and throw cash in the donation plate, which in turn gets sent to charities that help clothe and shelter homeless people or donated to private Christian hospitals. Government intervention just gets in the way of that, and therefore betrays my will.

Roskam blames criminals for high healthcare costs

2009-08-05T01:05:00.005-05:00

In an op-ed published in the Chicago Sun-Times, my congressman Peter Roskam (Republican - IL Dist. 6) claimed that government-run healthcare would not work if it were modeled after Medicare. He starts by telling the story of a rare and extravagant example of a man who scammed $56 million from taxpayers by defrauding Medicare, and continues to blame waste, fraud and abuse for the woes of liberal plans.

"Waste and fraud occur frequently throughout the federal bureaucracy. Medicare and medicaid, however, are exploited at breathtaking levels," writes Roskam. "Some estimates say 10 percent of all health-care costs are fraudulent --no small potatoes considering Medicare alone will cost $486 billion this year. Fraud permeates our entire country including towns I represent in the western suburbs [of Chicago.] Sometimes law enforcement officials catch these criminals, but they often flee the U.S. or the fraud is simply never discovered."

Roskam then plays the Republican card of showing how the private sector beats the government when it comes to cutting fraud, while not mentioning that the goal of private sector is to profit, not provide quality service. Roskam does not, however, mention that often times the latter can be sacrificed for the former, as is the case with healthcare.

What I find so frustrating about my congressman is his addiction to maintaining the status quo when it comes to healthcare. Below, in italics, is his list of the "5 principles for healthcare reform" which can also be found on his website.

Enhance the Doctor-Patient Relationship

Preserving and strengthening the doctor-patient relationship is critical to healthcare reform. Patients should always have their choice of doctor, hospital and procedure. No bureaucrat – in Washington or at an insurance company – should be able to delay or choose who, where and what patients receive

The next time you meet a veteran, congressman or even medicare patient who gets rejected from a doctor, record their story and slap me in the face with it. Literally. Slap me. The likelihood that you'll find a congressman who was told he couldn't get his annual prostate exam is incredibly low. It would be much easier to find one of the millions of Americans who can't afford such procedures because health insurance premiums are too expensive for their meager income. Which brings us to his next (non-)point

Reduce Skyrocketing Costs

Healthcare costs have ballooned in recent years and are crippling family and small business’ budgets . We must find ways to lower healthcare costs. Substantive ways forward include clamping down on the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, enacting meaningful tort reform and promoting health information technology.

Waste, fraud and abuse: the thing that Republicans only care about when they're not in power or not at war (both of which seemingly go hand-in-hand). As for health information technology, I don't think President Obama could be more clear about his desire to see electronic health records.

Preserve Medical Innovation

Government takeovers of healthcare necessarily mean bureaucrats deciding what procedures are allowed and how many are allowed each year. Without our medical ingenuity, Americans will suffer restricted access to innovative and technology intensive procedures like hip-replacements, heart valve replacements and brain surgery.

I love how he says the government will decide what procedures are allowed and how many are allowed each year, as if private insurance doesn't already tell you that. And I'd like to know how the Democrats' plan will rob American doctors of their ingenuity.

Ensure Every American Can Receive Health Insurance

We need to deconstruct the “bumper sticker” number of 47 million uninsured and identify the real number of Americans who do not qualify for health insurance to ensure their access to coverage and care. For those millions of Americans who want and need health coverage yet can’t afford it or aren’t accepted because of pre-existing conditions, our healthcare system is broken. The status-quo is unacceptable, and any plans moving forward must ensure a path to coverage for those Americans.

I heard no substance in this "principle." Roskam essentially states that he doesn't believe there are 47 million uninsured Americans, by saying we need to "deconstruct" the number. He stated one fact though: "our healthcare system is broken."

Allow “Patients’ Rights to Know”

Americans deserve greater transparency from their providers. Patients should be able to make informed decisions for the good of their own health and the accountability of their provider. Transparency will provide an incentive for hospitals to perform better.

Roskam apparently needed to make his 5:30 departure on the "transparency" train to Clichéville. It seems as if Roskam really believed in creating transparency from healthcare providers, he would clarify what needs to be transparent and how he intends to do so.

Your talking point sucks! America's healthcare is the best in the world

2009-07-29T19:15:00.005-05:00

In a new series titled "Your talking point sucks!" Ian takes talking points, dissects them and explains why the talking point is (or at least should be) ineffective.

Today's talking point: America's healthcare is the best in the world. Even people in socialist countries come here for surgeries.

This has surfaced a few times in the recent talks about healthcare. Rush Limbaugh harped the day after President Obama's most recent press conference saying that Obama never once mentioned the greatness of America's doctors or medical schools. When the president visited the Cleveland Clinic last week, Republicans were quick to point out that the Prime Minister of Italy came to the clinic for heart surgery in 2006, rather than using Italy's socialized healthcare.

What strikes me about this talking point is its skin-deep definition of the word "healthcare." No one is attacking doctors or their effectiveness.

I will agree with Republicans and even Limbaugh in saying that our doctors are the best in the world. The care to our health is the best in the world. The problem is many people can not afford quality healthcare without jumping through hoops and/or paying a fortune for it. The problem is that a wealthy American's health gets great care, while the rest of us are left to bankrupt ourselves should we become ill or hurt ourselves.

If everyone were as rich as the Prime Minister of Italy, we could all visit the best doctors in the best clinics and live long. As it is, I would bet the best doctors and surgeons in Italy end up coming here to become specialists because they can get paid huge amounts of money practicing one fractioned field of medicine in America.

The problem Democrats want to tackle is merely how to pay for these great doctors (or any doctor really) without going bankrupt.

Today's laws could leave you uncovered if your employer changed coverage and the new provider said your diabetes is a "pre-existing condition." So the Democrats want to create laws to prevent insurance giants from rejecting customers for having pre-existing conditions. They want to limit premiums. They want to create a government alternative that would be cheaper than private insurers to create the competition that Republicans always claim drives our economy.

Obama and the Democrats want only to change how patients pay for doctors, not whether we should visit them.

SC Gov. added to the lovers list

2009-06-24T14:12:00.005-05:00

Merely over a week following a confession from Sen. Robert Ensign (R-NV) that he was having an extra-marital affair with a former campaign staffer, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has also caught the Republican love bug. Sanford, 49, admitted today that he has had an extra-marital affair with a "dear, dear friend" in Argentina. The affair came to light after the two-term governor went missing, his whereabouts unknown to his leutenant governor, his staff and even his wife.

"I've been unfaithful to my wife," Sanford said, bluntly.

Like Ensign, Sanford is (was) considered a possible candidate to run for president in 2012. But also like Ensign, it seems Sanford has narrowed the field yet again. The Sanford/Ensign saga comes in a 3-year-long wave of Republicans being found in extra-marital affairs.

In September 2006, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) was found to be sending sexually explicit text messages and internet messages to teenage office pages. He admitted to being gay after the story broke, and later checked into rehab, saying he was intoxicated at the time of the indecencies. Oddly enough

In June 2007, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested for his famous "wide-stance" proposal to an undercover cop in a Minnesota airport. Despite demanding he is not gay, Craig is believed to have been seeking sex in the male bathroom.

In May 2008, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) admitted to fathering a child in an extra-marital affair with a retired Air Force leutenant colonel. The scandal was discovered after Fossella was arrested for a DUI on his way to pick up his sick child, and his mistress was his first call and picked him up from custody.

While I don't personally believe personal matters to be reason for a politician to be removed from office, it seems hypocritical for the same party that curses Bill Clinton for escaping his impeachment trial to turn the other cheek when its own philandering flagbearers seem to be unable to resist sexual encounters. It seems especially hypocritical in the cases of Foley and Craig, who voted consistently against gay rights.

However, hypocrisy isn't limited in this story to sexual affairs. Gov. Sanford's first alibi was that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. The trail was recently awarded a grant for renovation thanks to stimulus money Sanford swore he would never accept.

Populism will doom us all: Part 2

2009-03-31T14:54:00.004-05:00

Ultimately, my least favorite embodiment of populism involves taxes. Every executive candidate lives by the principle of lowering taxes, whether it be for the rich (Republicans like Bush) or for the lower and middle class (Democrats like Obama), and dies by the principle of raising taxes, even if it is slightly. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will likely learn this come 2010, and then-vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was scathed by Republicans during the 2008 election for claiming that paying taxes was patriotic, despite the fact that these same Republicans would be the first to say that avoiding taxes is unpatriotic.

Republicans consistently promise lower taxes for all, whether they really mean “for all” or not. While it appeals to many voters, a promise of lower taxes never really reveals the real Republican intent –which is to shrink the government – a conservative’s dream.

And while conservatives promise to shrink government, they never reveal just what they’ll cut. This is because they know that shrinking the government is not really desired by most voters.
Does anyone really want to give up federal funding for highways? Probably not; especially people who work in construction or drive to work.

Do farmers want to vote for a candidate who would likely to cut farm subsidies? Not if they want to put food on their table, and the table of their fellow citizens.

Do voters want to stop federally funding public schools? I doubt it; especially those who have seen family members lose their jobs in economic downturns, like those in my school district, Elgin Unit District 46.

Does anyone want to see a cut in Republican-inflated military spending? I would love to see military spending cut by at least 20 percent, but most conservative voters would likely oppose such cuts.

This is because the Republican mantra of cutting taxes and shrinking government is skin deep. They promise to shrink government, but are extremely vague in how to do so, because they don’t want to upset voters when they promise cuts to the very programs that employ voters and provide them assistance.

The “gas-tax holiday” was a prime example of conservatives restricting access to the consequences of their plans. The idea was to suspend the twenty-something cent tax on gasoline for the summer. A grand idea, with the exception of the fact that these tax dollars ($0.20 multiplied by gallons purchased = lots of money) is used to fund highway and bridge repair. If you were to read any recent report on bridge deficiency, you’d probably conclude that suspending funding for bridge repair is simply idiotic.

Republicans’ desire for tax cuts ultimately boils down to the concept that they want all the rights of big government, such as schools, highways, and national defense, without any of the responsibilities, in this case paying taxes. An example is George W. Bush’s tax cut for the rich, which coincided with a massive increase in military spending on the war on terror. Looking at any tax history, you will see that war usually drives taxes up, especially for the rich. It must in order to keep a nation from bankrupting itself. And yet, Republicans claim that liberal Democrats want to expand America’s national deficit, despite the fact that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all grew the national debt by cutting taxes, while the Clinton administration left the White House with a surplus.

On the other end of anti-big-government hypocrisy is the religious right’s involvement with the Republican party. It would seem that while they claim to stand true to the Goldwater concept that “a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have,” and similar creeds that ask government to keep its nose out of everyone’s business, they are more than willing to barge into the home of a gay couple to tell them they can not marry. They claim to desire less government intervention in personal issues, but demand that abortion be made illegal.

But what causes most voters to over look the hypocrisy of these stances? Populist rhetoric, in the form of promised tax cuts. Not just any tax cuts, but tax cuts for the rich -- the same rich Americans whose collective greed has enraged the rest of us while we watch them collect massive severance packages upon departure from companies they ran into the ground: i.e. Rick Wagoner, who will receive $20 million for leaving General Motors, and Robert Nardelli, who received $210 million for leaving Home Depot, only to get a job as the CEO of Chrysler, which is now getting government bailout money.

Do you think an average Home Depot could work below standards, which wouldn’t run the whole corporation into the ground as it does with a CEO, and still receive five years pay for leaving the company, as Nardelli did?

No, because the world of corporate board rooms has become an incestuous place where the CEO of one company can sit on the boards of 4 other corporations, and feed his fellow CEO’s giant bonuses and premier severance packages, regardless of performance.

But this isn’t addressed by Republicans who desire to further aid capitalist greed with deregulation and corporate handouts. No, just tax cuts. Old, reliable tax cuts.

Populism will doom us all: Part 1

2009-03-30T17:52:00.001-05:00

In the age of poorly planned bailouts and an economy that appears to be at it’s lowest point of a recession, populism is…well, popular. The AIG bonuses enraged the nation, leaving every federal (and New York) politician demanding that the insurance giant give the bonus money back to the very government that kept the firm from folding. It makes sense. It is unfair that people who would be unemployed without the government’s help would get exorbitant amounts of money (some people got in excess of $4 million, and that’s probably less than their annual salary) just for staying with the company they helped to destroy. And we’re fucking angry!
It feels good, doesn’t it? In the words of Jon Stewart, populist outrage is “oddly arousing.” However, populism has, at times, lead us to disaster at the expense of feeling good in the short run.

The best example of this type of disaster is the government’s actions in the months and years following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Americans were angry. We were looking for the people who dared attack us, out of revenge for our global policing, and we wanted to respond…with revenge. If getting that revenge were made easier by giving the government the authority to wiretap international phone calls, so be it. And hell, if it means they can look through library and bookstore records of suspected terrorists, fine. This is basically the logic that was used by Bush and Cheney when they pushed the Patriot Act through Congress at a rate that was essentially too fast for legislators to read the bill entirely.

Today, most of those who signed the bill would tell you it was the single biggest mistake they ever made, aside from possibly going to war in Iraq, another then-populist mistake. Iraq was a matter of life and death, said Bush. Saddam Hussein conspired with Osama Bin Laden to attack America, and he would do it again, according to Bush. Patience would kill us according to Bush.

“We cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” Bush told a Cincinnati crowd in 2002.

And so began the single biggest blunder of post-9/11 America. In the name of anger and revenge, we sold out our nations ideals. We shredded the constitution with warrantless wiretaps, unnecessary imprisonment and torture at Guantanamo and a war which to this day still has no declaration of war.

Quigley in position to replace Rahm Emanuel

2009-03-04T15:37:00.004-06:00

In yesterday's primary election, Illinois district 5 essentially elected it's new representative. The heavily Democratic district, previously represented by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, elected Cook County comm. Mike Quigley to be the Democratic nominee in the special general election on April 7.

Quigley carried 22% of the vote, followed by state Rep. John Fritchey with 18%, and state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz with 17%. Another 9 candidates all followed with 12% or less. Quigley is likely to win the seat, being that it hasn't voted Democrat in *** years. Emanuel called Quigley to advise him on his next steps.

"Rahm told me, 'A lot of people come to Congress, and they want to save the world,'" Quigley told the Sun-Times. "He told me to focus on serving the constituents. That’s what I’m going to do. I learned that a long time ago."

The Republican nominee for the April 7 election is hispanic-yet-illegal-immigration-condemner Rosanna Pulido, who's chance of winning the seat is as slim as Bobby Jindal's chances of becoming a speech teacher. If Pulido sounds familiar to KTN readers (all 2 of you), its because she was mentioned in a June 2008 post about John McCain flip-flopping on immigration reform. Being the head of the Illinois Minutemen, she was being interviewed by Lou Dobbs and expressing anger at McCain for his lack of consistency on immigration. She said he was one person in public and another behind closed doors. Her quote?

"He offended me," Pulido said. "As a conservative, a Republican, I wish he would pander to me."

Give us this day our daily meds: how the religious-right ignores healthcare as a Christian issue

2009-03-03T14:04:00.008-06:00

This year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has done a pretty good job of advertising the two main objectives of Republicans, which are apparently to oppose the Democrats and try to find a leader. But the biggest whiff came on the issue Republicans are not well known for dominating: healthcare reform.

The intriguing lack of support for healthcare reform among Republicans seems to be a rejection of the Christian beliefs that they claim to hold so close to their governance. At CPAC, there was little mention, outside of mocking SCHIP and President Obama, of healthcare reform. As Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones discussed in his Feb. 27 post, conservatives not only mocked healthcare reform, but failed to offer "a clear alternative to the universal health plan President Obama has promised to deliver."

The conservative movement, like on every other issue, is telling Americans, and especially those in healthcare debt or those struggling to keep themselves healthy at the mercy of shrinking paychecks, that our healthcare system needs no fixing. The only keynote speaker that mentioned healthcare was Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-1), who offered a solution that sounded very familiar to Americans who voted against it by voting Democrat.

"The answer is a market-based health care plan that will make health care more affordable, more transparent, more portable and universally accessible," Ryan said. "Start by giving individuals the same tax benefits for buying health care we gave companies back in World War II. Provide a refundable tax credit so buyers can purchase coverage in any state and keep it no matter where they move. Unleash the power of information technology on health care - by disposing of antiquated pen-and-paper files that result in medical errors and duplicative tests. Allow providers to put transparent health care prices and data about quality at our fingertips."

Well, the last part, America voted for. But that is because Obama and the Democrats championed the idea of making health records electronic.

Also in the eyes of Republicans, we don't need to research health issues. In the words of Ryan, Obama's stimulus plan didn't get a single Republican vote in the House because it included wasteful spending on medical research, like "$400 million to research sexually transmitted diseases."

This statement really provides an insight as to why Republicans can't win the healthcare argument.

According to the CDC, the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas (not in that order).

Chlamydia rates are the highest in Mississippi, Alaska, South Carolina and Alabama.

Gonorrhea rates are highest in Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.

Syphilus rates are highest in Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee.

Notice a pattern here?* These Southern states not only have the highest rate of STD transmission and teen pregnancy, but also vote consistantly for Republicans, for people who laugh at the idea of researching the diseases that infect their constituents, and oppose the idea of contraception and birth control, on the ground that it is against "God's will."

*This pattern of southern conservative states having high STD/Teen pregnancy rates is also consistent with poor performance at both elementary school and middle school. Follow the links and notice the consistency of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama being in the bottom 5.

Which brings me to my ultimate point. And I'll start by denouncing the idea that God is a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative. I actually believe that "God's will" should be left out of politics. But Republicans don't agree with me on that, and it may explain their inability to connect with voters.

For years we've heard Republicans say they would appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade because religious beliefs demand it. Yet, 7 out of 9 of our highest court's justices were Republican-appointed, and abortion is still legal. We have heard Republicans demand that "under God" must remain in our pledge, and "In God We Trust" must stand firm on our coins and that our nation is a "Christian nation." They have opposed gay rights for years because the gay lifestyle is "against the will of God."

And yet, "God's will" seems to slip from the Republican brain when talking about healthcare, among other things like national defense/imperialism, helping the poor and ending genocide. Again, I will never say God demands anything in politics, but it seems counter-Christian to scoff at the idea of helping unfortunate families send their children to decent schools in fear of appearing to give out "welfare," while demanding we leave the wealthiest Americans' tax rate ridiculously low because raising their taxes would be seen as punishment for prosperity. And worse yet, it seems uncompassionate for the GOP to mock the idea of universal healthcare as being "socialist," being that the last Republican president left office having bailed out, essentially having nationalized, several banks.

What I would like to know is this: would Christian Republicans throw less-fortunate Americans under the bus in front of their congregation? After all, where do they think their money goes after they drop it in the collection plate?

I suppose it looks a lot better when the money is being given in the name of God, and not in the name of "big government."

Put up or shut up: How Nadya Suleman is a test for pro-lifers

2009-02-26T13:09:00.003-06:00

Nadya Suleman is in trouble. Serious trouble. It's no secret that the mother-of-14 needs financial help to feed 15 mouths, pay her already-foreclosed mortgage and finish the education she thinks she can acquire while having the time to raise a dozen-plus kids.

But apparently the adult film industry has reached out to Suleman. Vivid Entertainment has reportedly offered Suleman $1 million for appearing in 8 different sex scenes with 8 different men. While Suleman had considered the deal at first, she reportedly told Radar Online that she won't accept, calling the Vivid Entertainment people "nuts."

"Who wants to see me naked? Maybe in a year when the baby fat goes away," Suleman said. Whether she is joking is far beyond me, but I sure hope so.

So this is what it has come to for a mother who eneptly decided to have 14 kids that she most likely can not support. The adult film industry offered her a million dollars and health/dental care for her children, and yet pro-lifers such as World Net Daily's Jill Stanek, who preach for the rights of embryos are not only leaving Suleman in the cold, they are laughing at her situation. In Stanek's case, she calls Suleman's story a "gift" to the pro-life movement. Why? Because pro-lifers like Stanek are also opposed to invetro fertilization (IVF), saying it contradicts God's will.

"In one fell swoop Suleman has spotlighted problems with unregulated IVF and turned public opinion against unregulated IVF," Stanek said. This is only one of many things Stanek says that made me cringe.

Suleman herself has given her own thoughts on the idea of abortion, or what in IVF cases would be called "selective reduction," terminating some fetuses to save the remaining.

"You know, what gives any human being a right to – to pick and choose which embryo – which fetus is more valuable than another? You know, that's not up to human beings," Suleman told Ann Curry.

So Suleman herself is essentially speaking from the pro-life side of the birth rights discussion. But are the religious fundamentalists coming to her aid? No. Many of them are, like Stanek, simply happy that she is turning public opinion against IVF and, in turn, science.

This is the classic conservative case of "love the fetus, hate the child." This is the idea: if you have kids that you don't want, then dammit you'd better carry them to birth! But when those kids are born, you're on your own! Welfare ain't coming! And forget about funding education! And you're mistaken if you think we're going to help you pay for healthcare! But seriously, we're really happy you gave birth to that lovely child.

I'd like to believe that bible-toting pro-lifers would feel for this woman, regardless of her stupidity, just to make a statement about women who decide to carry a baby to full term even when it isn't easy. Sadly, it appears the porn industry is displaying a bit more compassion.

A star is burned! Jindal responds to Obama

2009-02-25T16:50:00.004-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Louisiana Gov. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal was handed the privilege of delivering the Republican response to Obama’s speech to congress, a privilege he used to reiterate the failing policies to which his party has attached itself.

In a tone resembling an elementary school teacher, Jindal opened by acknowledging the historic moment of watching Obama preside over a nation that once enslaved Africans, and compared his life story to that of Obama.

Then, in the usual conservative fashion, Jindal claimed that Democratic governance would be nothing more than government growth, telling an anecdote about Hurricane Katrina. Oddly enough, though, he ignored the part about FEMA’s abandonment of New Orleans, or the part where America discovered that FEMA’s director had no experience in disaster management. Rather, the story was about how government “bureaucrats” kept boat-owning volunteers from rescuing people from rooftops. Jindal’s message was that America’s strength is in the compassion of its citizens and in private enterprise.

Jindal also claimed the Democrats’ economic plan was “larded” with pork, saying the recovery bill would grow the government, saying the spending bill will “saddle future generations with debt.” Apparently, Jindal didn’t mind “saddling” us with deficits under the Bush administration, and didn’t mind digging even deeper in Iraq, but thinks the badly-needed recovery bill is wasteful.

Jindal even had the nerve to address energy reform, as if Republicans were pioneers who paved the way to lower energy costs with two former oil men in the White House.

“We need urgent action to keep energy prices down,” Jindal said. “All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump - and unless we act now, those prices will return.”

Again, he apparently ignored the last eight years, which saw gas prices rise at the beginning of the millennium and magically drop when Bush left Washington D.C. I would tend to say the most directly painful thing about the Bush presidency was the high gas prices that were inescapable. Prices on everything went up as a result of the high fuel cost, especially food, public transit, neither of which have gotten cheaper with lower fuel costs.

The governor also repeated the claims of John McCain’s presidential campaign by saying that Obama and the Democrats will “raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians,” something that Obama himself rebutted even before Jindal said it.

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime,” Obama said. “I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families.”

Jindal also kept revisiting a phrase he coined from his Indian-born father, “Americans can do anything,” at many points to say that Americans don’t need government. Jindal’s implication in this phrase seemed to indicate that Obama and the Democrats will ruin America with the ever-worrisome “big government,” something Obama rebutted before Congress.

“In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history,” Obama said. “And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

“In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive”

So it seems that’s why Jindal’s party has lost badly in the last two election cycles. The GOP is simply deciding to oppose everything Obama and the Democrats attempt to do, and is doing so in the hopes that the Democrats solutions will fail, making them look smart. However, the Republican position on nearly every issue seems contradictory to the positions of our last Republican president, the one who put us into every problem from which we are now attempting to recover.

Obama to America: ‘We will recover’

2009-02-25T16:42:00.003-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

President Barack Obama addressed America last night in an address to a joint session of Congress, one resembling a State of the Union address. Returning to his best election-season punch, attaching the economy’s failures to George W. Bush, Obama described how the recession he was handed was due to his predecessor’s negligence.

“We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election,” said Obama. “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.”

Obama’s speech centered around his plan for the economy, which was outlined for the first half of his 53-minute speech. Much of the economic discussion echoed campaign promises, such as an end to tax-cuts for businesses that ship jobs overseas.

“I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders - and I know you don't either,” Obama said. “It is time for America to lead again.”

Obama also touched on healthcare, saying his administration has already done more to reform healthcare in its 35-day duration than the Bush administration did in eight years, adding that his campaign prophecies will become reality under the economic recovery plan.

“Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives,” Obama said. “It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time.”

Education reform was also addressed; Obama, again reverberating campaign rhetoric, said his administration will open more doors to America’s prospective students.

Then Obama not only addressed his foreign policy, but put a cork in the mouths of Republicans who claim that Democrats don’t respect America’s troops.

“To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines,” Obama said. “And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.”

What is so striking about veterans affairs is that Democrats (especially Virginia Sen. Jim Webb) have been pushing for these measures for years, and Republicans claimed it was waste. Some Republicans, like Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.) even went as far as to say that Americans would approve of shooting down measures like the modernization of the G.I. Bill, saying that opponents to the bill would be “rewarded” come election time.

Obama closed the address by demanding bipartisanship.

“I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed,” Obama said. “That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done.”

Blagojevich's house-front press conference: A little bit weird?

2009-01-30T16:41:00.009-06:00

I don't know how many people saw Rod Blagojevich's "I love the people of Illinois today, now, more than I ever did before" press conference, but it kind of gave me the willies. The ousted gov did it all: asked kids to take pictures with him, accepted a kids invitation to play basketball, and shouted cliches in Spanish.

First of all, if Blago loved us more today than ever before, he really must have hated us!

Secondly, The Rachel Maddow Show caught a few of my favorite moments, listed below with their tracking time:

2:09 - Blagojevich: "So if I like asked you guys to come and cover me if I wanna say something, will you do it?"

2:18 - Little kid: "Will you play hoops with me in the summer?"
Blagojevich: "Oh absolutely, man, absolutely."
Little kid: "YES!"
Blagojevich: "You know I can spin a basketball on all five fingers on my right hand, you know that!
Little kid: "Awesome..."

2:25 - Blagojevich: "To the latino community: Gracias por su pollo...Si se puede!" (I don't speak Spanish really, but I'm pretty sure he said "thanks for chicken.")

***Editors note: Thanks to Ian's sister, a Spanish teacher, her translation of Blagojevich's Spanish proclamation is: "Thank you for your support. Together we'll make our state much better. Yes we can!"

I also love the way Mary Mitchell likens Blagojevich's situation with the Illinois legislature to a thug bringing attention to a gang. It's accurate, but humorous.

3:02 min - Mitchell: "As long as nobody's bringin' heat, the thugs are doin' fine, but as soon as one other thug starts bringin' heat, that thug has to to go!"

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A few other awesome quotes regarding Blagojevich's neighborhood press-conference came from a Sun-Times article today. The best?

One teen posed for a photo with Blagojevich to capture the history.

"He doesn't seem like a total douche,'' the teen remarked after the former governor passed.

Good Riddance: Illinois' post-Blagojevich chapter begins

2009-01-29T16:44:00.004-06:00

It has just happened, Rod Blagojevich has been removed from office by a vote of 59-0. So begins a new chapter for Illinois... Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn will be sworn in as governor soon, but according to Illinois' constitution, he is formally already Governor of Illinois.

Congressman apologizes to Limbaugh for comments

2009-01-28T17:52:00.006-06:00

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R - GA 11th) has apologized to talk radio buffoon Rush Limbaugh after he made comments to Politico implying that Rush Limbaugh is in no place to criticize Minority Leaders John Boehner (House) or Mitch McConnell (Senate) because Limbaugh has no constituents to hold him responsible, the way a congressman does.

“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party.You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell,” Gingrey said.

Now Gingrey is begging Limbaugh for forgiveness saying "I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments."

Gingrey then went even further to clarify his Limbaugh love.

“As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh.”

So not only does Gingrey vow to oppose every attempt at fixing the economy, he also claims that he sees eye-to-eye with the man to whom the following quotes can be attributed to. Enjoy:

"She sounds like a screeching ex-wife." -- referring to then-Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?" -- referring to Abu Ghraib prison abuse

"And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." --referring to an article about the 2006 Ohio Senate primary race involving then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D), who is actually white

"The phony soldiers" -- a name Limbaugh has given to soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq

Seeing eye-to-eye with thoughts like this, it's amazing Republicans haven't come out ahead in an election in 4 years...

Sarah Palin hints further at presidential bid, sets up PAC

2009-01-27T18:18:00.004-06:00

In his blog at realclearpolitics, Jay Cost reveals that Sarah Palin has set up her own political action committee, SarahPAC.

*Pondering a side note, why do the same female politicians who insist they are being discriminated against continue to choose their first name as their primary identity in campaign material and slogans? i.e. Hillary Clinton, and now Sarah Palin.

As Cost explains in his post (linked above), PAC's play a crucial role in presidential campaigns prior to primary elections. Much like Hillary Clinton's HillPAC and Barack Obama's Hope Fund, SarahPAC will most likely be used to box out competitors in the 2012 primaries by raising large sums of money that will then be donated, essentially in Palin's name but without the restrictions of an individual's donation, to politicians and groups that endorse her, campaign with her or otherwise help her candidacy.

The committee claims to be "dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation." Respectable enough, and I am no one to question these intentions.

However, the most confusing part of the PAC's page is the following statement: "SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals"

Yes, you read that correctly. Sarah Palin believes that the GOP, which slowly tore apart the progress of the Clinton era can "build a better future for all" by focussing on two fields that they have always sworn to privatize, healthcare and education; and reform government under the leadership of the woman who made the term "troopergate" known outside Alaska.

KTN will keep an eye on SarahPAC and bring updates as they come.

A plea to Obama maniacs

2009-01-22T14:09:00.006-06:00

With the inauguration of America's first African-American president 2 days in our past, and his administration wrist deep in post-Bush recovery, I am hopeful.

Not only hopeful for our country's future; that our seemingly endless conflicts in the middle east may be resolved responsibly, and with more allies; that our economy can be rebuilt with new domestic investments and middle-class tax-relief, rather than reckless free-trade and Wall Street regulation-relief; that our education system can become the base of a strong nation once again, rather than leaving failing children in the dust. While these prospective aspects of an Obama presidency give me national pride, I am equally hopeful that Obama's appeal becomes a matter of responsible governance, and less a matter of marketable charisma.

While I credit Obama's charisma for helping him win over voters that may have been bored or overwhelmed by his intelligence-laden speeches, I shudder at the amount of money being made by t-shirt vendors, doll makers, plaque engravers, and even Hennessy cognac company (see photo below). While I'd like to think this money should be stimulative to our drowning economy, I can't help but feel this money could be better invested. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens, for example, in need of volunteers and capital, would gladly accept a fraction of the money earned by these Obama opportunists.

If people want to show their Obama pride, they could even buy shirts, buttons, hats, etc. from his campaign store (which is currently clearancing '08 merch). At least that way the profit is being given to his campaign coffers. But I would challenge Obama maniacs to go further. Make a dollar-for-dollar donation for every Obama purchase you make. This is what Hennessy has decided to do (I'm not clear on the profit percentage donated) for the Thurgood Marshall College Fund. Even if you donate to his campaign, you are at least funding a cause that backs your political billboarding. Simply said, there are many, many pennies to be made on marketing a historic moment (as we learned with flag swag after 9/11) so why not give the same thought to worthy charities?

This case of Hennessy found its way into the backroom of the grocery store I work for, and I found this to be quite interesting. Racial marketing aside, the exploitation of the consumer's perception (or lack thereof) is really sad. There is no difference from Hennessy V.S., but minor tweaks to the bottle (a black label and the "44" circle)

"Joe" the "Plumber" asks Obama to help Israel, criticizes war coverage

2009-01-12T17:42:00.003-06:00

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as "Joe the Plumber" has been tapped by conservative website pjtv.com to be a war correspondent in Israel, a nation he once swore would be destroyed if Barack Obama became president.

However, today, Wurzelbacher is plumbing a different pipe, not only asking Obama to support Israel as president, but also taking time to criticize the media for covering war.

"To be honest with ya, I don't think journalists should be anywhere near war...You guys report where our troops are at, what's happening day-to-day, you make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine. I like back in World War One and World War Two when you go to the theatre and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone be really excited and happy for them. Now, everyone's got an opinion," said Wurzelbacher. "War is hell and if you're going to sit there and say, 'Look at this atrocity,' well, you don't know the full story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

Does this man have identity issues? He calls himself Joe, but his name is Samuel; he claims to be a plumber but is not licensed to be a plumber; he claimed his business would make more than $250K in an effort to thwart Obama's tax plan, however 98% of small businesses make less than $250K; he later claimed that John McCain made him feel used and "dirty," despite endorsing the Arizona senator's presidential bid; and now he is claiming the "media should have no business in" war while he reports on the Gaza conflict.

Rev. Warren outrage is unnecessary

2008-12-18T21:05:00.005-06:00

News talkers are all discussing Pres.-elect Barack Obama's invocation invitation to Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren and those talkers on the left seem damned angry about it. While I understand the disdain that liberals have toward Rick Warren personally, I don't get why these people are angry that the Reverand has been invited to make a 2-minute prayer at before Obama is sworn in.

Don't get me wrong, I deeply resent the things Warren has said about gay-rights, such as his comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia or incest. However, we as liberals, claim that Obama is betraying us; saying he has gone back on his left-driven promises. But these same liberals are apparently ignoring his promise to unite the country. For years, we have been shouting about the Bush administration dividing this nation, and yet liberal soapboxers (namely Rachel Maddow, for whom I have deep seeded respect) are dividing the same people who voted Obama into office.

I understand that we need to hold the President-elect accountable for his governance -- but prayer is not governance. Warren has not been appointed to Obama's cabinet, and he will never be appointed to the Supreme Court by Obama. Warren will not be drafting legislation, nor will he be advising Obama. One prayer is not going to cause Obama to run to his newly-acquired seat in the Oval Office and pass anti-abortion or anti-gay executive orders.

It just feels like liberals are finding the Obama/Democrat victory to be too good to be true. Sometimes it feels like Democrats love to be losers, and if Obama's liberal supporters continue getting angry over symbolic measures like the Warren invitation, we will return to the divisions that helped to deliver victory to President Bush.

Ah, right, that guy! About him:
Apparently, today he put into effect the "Right of Conscience" rule, which gives healthcare workers the liberty to deny patients healthcare that they feel is ethically wrong. Be it abortion, contraception, antibiotics or even life-support, this rule (which causes $44 million to implement amid our recession) gives any vaguely-defined "healthcare worker" the right to deny services they believe violates their morals.

President-elect Obama, however, has promised to review and irradicate this rule upon his inauguration.

But dammit, that inauguration is going to be tainted by that Pastor Warren! We liberals don't have time to care about healthcare!

So keep your Gov. locked down

2008-12-10T12:50:00.005-06:00

Continuing on last night's thoughts:
A lot has been said about the Gov's arrest, so in an effort to kill the noise of the reverb lab that is the blogosphere (blagosphere?), I'll simply voice the thoughts I haven't heard from louder voices.

I find it ironic that a man who promised to end "business as usual" in his 2002 campaign has turned to corruption that conflicted with government operations. Even if Blagojevich's gubernatorial prostitution wasn't fatal as was George Ryan's license-for-bribes scandal, it was definitely more cynically arrogant and more civically counter-productive.

Also to be noted is the fact that while people consider Blagojevich a "corrupt Chicago politician," he was carried to a narrow victory in the 2002 primary only by districts outside of Chicagoland. In fact, Blagojevich didn't carry a single county closer to the Loop than Kendall County. He came in 3rd place in Cook County, the most heavily Democratic county in Illinois.

Finally, it's funny to see pictures like the one below, seeing as Blagojevich essentially held the Cubs as ransom to the Tribune.

See these intriguing articles for more on the Blagojevich indictment.
New York Times: Obama's Ethics Bill effort had role in Blagojevich's arrest
Wall Street Journal: Axelrod, Obama ties to Blagojevich come out
The Hill: Illinois congressional delegation reacts to Blagojevich indictment

Buck Flagojevich

2008-12-09T18:58:00.003-06:00

So, I have plenty of thoughts on the Blagojevich arrest, but very little time to say it all.

First, I agree with Michael Madigan's idea to hold a special election to replace President-elect Obama. The special election would give Democrats a chance to vote for their choice of candidate (don't kid yourself, a Dem will win the seat), without Blagojevich being tied to that person and therefore losing re-election in 2010.

Second, Senate candidate 5 (who agreed to play ball with the governor) is probably Jesse Jackson Jr. or Emil Jones Jr. That being said, either way, Obama might come out looking really bad. Both have their ties to Obama, but particularly Jones. He is described famously as Obama's "political Godfather," as I stated in an earlier post on Blagojevich's choice.

**Funny factor: In that post, I called the governor's opportunity to replace Obama "a gem," while Blago chose the slightly more vulgar "fucking golden."

More to come...

Senate appointment could be a shot in Blagojevich's arm (or foot)

2008-11-17T16:53:00.005-06:00

Gazing at an approval rating in the mid-teens, Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been handed a gem with his new responsibility of appointing President-elect Obama's replacement. However, as residents of Illinois know, Blago can always ruin something.

So let's look at pros and cons of prospective Obama replacements.

Emil Jones - Illinois state senator since 1983, Senate President since 2003, Jones is considered Obama's political godfather.
Pro: With three-and-a-half decades of legislative experience, Jones has dealt with representatives from every corner of Illinois, Republicans and Democrats.
Con: Has been part of Illinois' Democratic leadership during the dubious Blago years and his appointment could be seen as a political favor.

Jesse Jackson Jr. - Congressman from Illinois district 2 since 1994, and an early Obama supporter in the primaries, Jackson has been working his way up the ranks in the House.
Pro: Despite being a fairly liberal congressman, Jackson voted against the infamous bailout bill, and therefore, against Democratic leadership, calling it "a band-aid, not a cure." Polls would show that Jackson's decision is supported by many Americans.
Con: Carries his father's name which, as ignorant as this is, could hurt his appeal to white voters, particularly those downstate, especially those in central Illinois who remember the senior Jackson's protests at Eisenhower High School in Decatur.

Tammy Duckworth - Director of Illinois' Department of Veteran's Affairs, and Democratic candidate for congress in 2006, Duckworth is an Iraq veteran, and lost both legs after her helicopter was hit by a Rocket Propelled Grenade in Nov. 2004.
Pros: Duckworth has a PhD. in political science and a masters in International Affairs, and was in some form of military for 14 years (R.O.T.C., U.S. Army Reserve and Illinois National Guard from 1990-2004)
Cons: Her Thai heritage would leave the Senate African-American-free, and that could hurt Blagojevich's chances in 2010, should he choose to run for re-election (ugh)

Lisa Madigan - Illinois' first female Attorney General since 2002, and daughter of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, Lisa Madigan has been a hawk on online predators and, in 2004, successfully argued a case in the Supreme Court.
Pros: For Blagojevich, it could mean eliminating an opponent in 2010. Having been a state senator before being elected Attorney General, Madigan would bring diverse experience to Washington on behalf of the people of Illinois.
Cons: See Tammy Duckworth, cons. Replace the word "Thai," with the word "caucasian."

The Right is Wrong: Hateful homophobic agenda is discriminatory, counter-productive

2008-11-14T15:20:00.004-06:00

The following is an excerpt of the November staff editorial from ECC's Observer. The editorial will appear on The Observer's site, in its full form, on November 24th.

At the national level, on November 4, ballot initiatives eliminated civil rights for homosexual couples in four states. California’s proposition 8, Florida’s proposition 2 and Arizona’s proposition 102 were all passed to amend state constitutions to eliminate gay marriage.

While it is wrong to insist that homophobic people, no matter how bigoted or hateful they may be, should support gay rights, it seems necessary to question the intent behind their beliefs.

The main argument against gay marriage (or homosexuality period), is that the definition of “marriage” should be a bond between a man and a woman, “as God intended it.” However, throughout mankind’s existence, the definition of marriage has changed several times. In medieval ages, a man had to basically buy his wife from her family, and she was then given away many times against her will, to produce children, as long as the King approved. Early in our nation’s history, interracial marriages were illegal (and they still are in Tennessee). Traditions and definitions change over time, most of them for the common good.

Furthermore, there is no intent in any state to kick down church doors and insist that the religious definition of marriage be changed to include homosexual couples. Being that we live in a secular nation as our constitution demands, no one can do that, nor is that the intent of gay rights activists. Gay and lesbian couples are simply asking for the legal marital rights of straight couples: hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, etc.

The most puzzling ballot measure, however, is Arkansas’ proposition 1. This eliminated adoption rights to unmarried couples, but was aimed at the gay/lesbian community. This seems a counteractive mission for religious right-wingers, who insist that abortion should be outlawed because it can simply be replaced with adoption. So rather than support the spread of adoption, they have cut out a segment of society that could provide a large number of adoption clients. This is, at skin-depth, blatantly counter-productive, and at its heart, narrow-mindedly unfair.

Barack Obama faces a steeper climb in 2012

2008-11-07T16:19:00.003-06:00

The challenges Barack Obama faces in 2012
After his 2008 victory, Barack Obama has certainly made history and created in himself a transformational figure for my generation to lavish praise upon for the rest of our lives.

Those like me will be able to tell our children and grandchildren things like: “I saw him speak at my sister’s college graduation when he was the 99th ranking senator. He was the first president I voted for. I donated ten dollars to him out of a few of my paychecks from the grocery store. My friends and I talked about him; other friends debated me about him. He got me involved in politics. I sat on my phone in front of my computer and called strangers in Ohio to get them to vote for him, some people cursed at me or slammed the phone. My brother took a 6 hour bus ride to Iowa with a group of students to campaign for the caucuses. I was in Grant Park when he was announced the winner.”

His election is incredible, and will forever be remembered as such. But it will be how the next four years roll by that will decide which side of history the 44th president will land on. Importantly to his admirers, these four years will also decide whether he is granted a second term by the American electorate. However, Obama will face a much harder fight in 2012 than he did this year.

Obama (and the Democratic Party) will have almost complete control over anything that happens in the next four years. This could be a good thing if the all-Democrat government fixes the economy, ends the Iraq occupation; stabilizes the Middle East; captures or kills Osama Bin Laden; and/or reforms healthcare. However, if these promises are not fulfilled, Democrats will carry a broken oath into November 2012. Despite a filibuster-prone majority, voters will perceive Democratic ownership of the next four years.

Obama will not be able to tie his opponent to George W. Bush, unless his opponent is Dick Cheney or Condoleeza Rice, neither of which are very likely to make a 2012 run. While Bush holds record levels of negative ratings, a progressive candidate would seem out-of-touch if he continued referring to a president who has been golfing and ranching for four years.

Obama will be facing a different Republican Party, one that is most likely going to see some sweeping change after the calamitous Bush Administration and the poorly crafted McCain/Palin campaign. GOP leadership already has a meeting planned, only days after the election, believed to be a re-branding meeting. Furthermore, it is not very likely that the Republicans will be as scandal-stricken as it has been in 2008, such as Sarah Palin’s Troopergate, Mark Foley’s dirty messages, Vito Fossella’s DUI/mistress and Ted Steven’s seven convictions. The GOP probably won’t have defectors supporting Obama, such as Colin Powell or Scott McClellan; or condemning the Republican Party, such as Shays’ Rebellion.

Democrats will inevitably anger liberals if they don’t do all the things these liberals elected them to do, on top of the conservatives that already don’t like them. This is where Democrats face a disadvantage in reelection. Conservatives just want their guy in office. They will vote for a Republican even if nothing changes, after all that’s why they vote Republican: they fear change. Liberals, on the other hand, will not vote for a candidate that abandons leftist ideals or gives in to a Republican agenda.

Obama's "historic" factor will be worn off. Having already been elected the first black president, no one will consider a reelection to be "historic." The only way 2012 will be considered "an historic election" is if his opponent is Sarah Palin, or more likely, Gov. "Bobby" Jindal. Won't it be interesting to see if conservatives that questioned whether Barack Obama was Muslim will embrace a man of middle-eastern heritage without questioning the legitimacy of his conversion to Catholicism or what happened to his birth name, Piyush?

Election night rally to host unread blogger

2008-11-02T16:32:00.004-06:00

I am officially going to the Obama election night rally at Grant Park. Stay tuned for pictures and possibly live updates from my cell phone. Pictures will probably be posted the day after. VOTE!

Woman lies about being cut by Obama supporter

2008-10-24T17:14:00.003-05:00

So if it wasn’t considered racist for McCain supporters to shout threats about him at rallies, it must be considered racist for a supporter to tell a tall tale about a tall black man robbing her at knife-point and carving a “B” (for Barack) in her cheek just for being a McCain supporter.
Apparently, that’s what McCain volunteer Ashley Todd of Texas did in Pittsburgh this week. The woman was not only never robbed at knife point, but she cut her own face with a knife.
A lie detector test proved the inconsistencies in her story, inconsistencies detectives found early in the investigation.

I would assume that Todd is mentally ill, so I'll shrug this case off, but the question is after discussing this on Hannity and Colmes last night, do you think that Sean Hannity will mention the fact that this woman created the entire story?

I'm positive that if this was a member of ACORN, this fib would create an entire news cycle's material for Murdoch’s crew.

Obama in new ad: I'm not John Kerry!

2008-10-14T22:16:00.003-05:00

Embedded below is a video of Sen. Barack Obama's newest ad airing in the states that viewed Sen. John McCain's ad about Bill Ayers. This ad doesn't only debunk myths about Ayers, but it doesn't mention Ayers so to cause previously Ayers-ignorant voters to question who Ayers is. It also tells Republicans that they can't push him around with lies and exaggerations the way Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry.

Polls sway toward Obama, way toward Obama

2008-10-03T23:22:00.004-05:00

Between the debates and the current economic crisis, Barack Obama is running away with polls right now. RealClearPolitics shows the map looking something like this today:

Obama wins 353-185 if this holds true. Looks a bit different from the map as of Sept. 21, which looked like this:

Obama would've won 273-265 if this were election day. Meaning that New Hampshire or New Mexico could easily sway the election. In fact had this map held true, with the exception of New Hampshire, we would have seen a 269-269 tie. What would have happened then?

You might need to get the dust off the section of your brain holding your 8th grade History class to remember, but Congress would have decided the victor. That would be a circus. Knowing the House Democrats, January 20th would be the day John McCain became president, because the House Dems are spineless (see Economic Rescue Package)

Luckily, it appears we're in a different boat today.

McCain gets blasted on 'View'

2008-09-12T16:21:00.003-05:00

It looks like someone actually felt up to the task of giving Sen. John McCain tough questions for once. The hardball questions were dealt not by journalists, as they should be, but rather by the hosts of ABC's The View. It apparently takes a group of TV personalities and a comedian to actually ask for answers to difficult questions. See the video at this link.

Sarah Palin refuses to release 1100 e-mails

2008-09-09T11:24:00.004-05:00

A 9/7/08 article on Mother Jones proves to us that the more we learn about Sarah Palin, the more we question whether John McCain's campaign vetted her at all. Apparently, a 53-year-old registered Republican, and self-described independent watchdog, filed a FOIA request to see e-mails sent between Palin and two of her aides, Ivy Frye and Frank Bailey. The watchdog, Andrée McLeod, received four boxes of emails, none of which proved wrongdoing by Frye or Bailey. However, the e-mails did seem to show that Palin used her power to reward a former Palin fundraiser with a state job.
McLeod filed a complaint against the governor's office, claiming they had violated ethics laws. Palin denies wrongdoing, as she has in Troopergate, saying "there were no favors done for anybody." *note: Palin has praised McLeod in the past for her work*
Here's where we get sticky. Along with the four boxes of emails, Palin's office provided McLeod a 73-page long list of e-mails (click the link to read) that were withheld, citing "executive privilege." This would be true if the e-mails regarded policy decisions.
However, many of the e-mails have the subject line "re: Andrew Halcro," presumably about the same former Republican Andrew Halcro that ran as an independent candidate against Palin in the 2006 gubernatorial election. These e-mails were sent to Frye, Bailey, and Todd Palin, Sarah's husband and a member of the public.
So unless Palin planned on crafting an Alaskan law regarding her former opponent, her office is withholding information for reasons unknown. What we need to find out is this: why is the info able to be sent to Palin's husband, but not to the rest of the public?
Next time you hear John McCain preach about bringing transparency to government, think about his running mate, who prefers to keep her e-mails executively-opaque.

McCain by the Numbers

2008-09-05T17:29:00.009-05:00

How many times did John McCain say...?
Fight? 33 Attack? 3 Peace? 2

How many times did McCain mention conflict in/with...?
Al Qaeda? 1. Iraq? 1. Afghanistan? 0. Iran? 1. Yes, he mentioned a war we have not yet begun without mentioning the one that started the "war on terror."

How many times did McCain pause for...?
Applause? 108. Boos at Obama? 6. Laughter? 2. Protesters? 4. McCain paused more for protesters (one holding a sign reading "McCain votes against vets" on one side, and "You can't win an occupation," on the other) than he did for laughter. In some crowd shots after the protesters were silenced by "USA!" chants, the podium looked like the opening to a mafia gambling hall; men in coats, wearing red "McCain/Palin" hats stood in the aisles leading to the podium, hands folded, looking around for suspicious activity.

How much time did McCain spend talking about...?
His family? 2 min 10 sec. Specific American families he "fights" for? 1 min 36 sec.

How many references to...
Obama's alleged tax "increases?" 2. His own tax "cuts?" 2. His plan to continue the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest 5%? 0.

How many times did the GOP make John McCain out to be God-like?
2 off the top of my head.
One was Fred Thompson's culture-war-catalyst, "We need a president who doesn’t think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade." This was in reference to Obama saying that answering a question regarding when "life begins," is "above [his] paygrade." Obama's point? The only being who knows when life begins is God. No human knows what God truly believes. What I take the senator-turned-actor (who apparently isn't part of the "Hollywood celebrities" crowd that Mike Huckabee spoke out against) as saying is that we need God as our president, and the closest thing we have to God is a Republican, dammit!

The other was the intro to his speech. To the words, "JOHN MCCAIN" booming from a deep voice (which I later learned was also Fred Thompson), in a dark room, the Republican's savior walked to the podium. It looked like this:

No symbolism there at all, folks. Credit to my girlfriend Alyssa on noticing that McCain may be standing like that because he doesn't know whether to walk towards or away from the light...

New State Polls

2008-09-04T11:45:00.003-05:00

New state polls released today by CNN/Time show Barack Obama widening leads in some states, and gaining a lead in a crucial swing state.
Minnesota: Obama 53% McCain 41% Even having a republican Governor, and holding the GOP convention in Minn. didn't help Sen. McCain in this state. The poll even showed white voters in Minn. supporting Sen. Obama. 742 Registered Voters were polled in Minn.

Iowa: Obama 55% McCain 40% This is a lead that Obama has had, and is now widening. Again, white voters turned for Obama in this state. 828 Registered Voters were polled in Iowa.

Ohio: Obama 47% McCain 45% Ohio is going to be the same state that it was in 2004. It will be tight, and this poll just reinforces that. 685 Registered Voters were polled in Ohio.

GOP Strategist: Palin pick is 'bullshit'

2008-09-04T01:29:00.003-05:00

In their coverage of the Republican National Convention, MSNBC left for commercial break a bit too early, and a duo of GOP strategists were at the business end of open microphones.
The victims, former Reagan speechwriter and WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan, and Mike Murphy, campaign strategist and former aide to John McCain, were caught giving McCain's chances in November a gloomy forecast.
"I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives," said Noonan, with a shot of St. Paul scenery on screen.
"You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical," said Murphy, a senior advisor to McCain in his 2000 run for the presidency.
At least they speak the truth, I just wish they'd do it on air.
Video is posted below.

The Palin problem

2008-09-03T12:19:00.003-05:00

So, my friends, here we stand 2 poorly staged days into the RNC. And amid all of the convention hullabaloo, the media is talking about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter.

An article in the Associated Press shows that the media is playing right into the trap that the McCain campaign was hoping for every time the media attacked Palin. The McCain camp decided that they would pick a woman and ride on the success of Hillary Clinton's "blame the media" scheme. You take every single question about a female candidate, and turn it into an attack, claiming it to be "the boy's club" just lashing out to keep women down. Steve Schmidt even went as far as to say that the campaign "will have no further comment about our long and thorough process."

News for you, Steve. You represent a presidential campaign! You represent a man who wants to become president, and a woman who wants to become vice president. You can't plead the fifth when answering questions about your candidates' backgrounds. You can't deem a subject out of bounds. Steve, you know that if Chelsea Clinton had become pregnant in the 90's, your GOP attack dogs would have called for impeachment and said that Bill Clinton wasn't fit to be president.

Furthermore, what the media is also ignoring is that the pregnant daughter, who I believe should just be left alone, is the least of Palin's problems. Other things that cable news should be talking about? Let's see:
-She has less experience than Obama, no matter how much "Executive" experience she has.
-She has hired a private attorney for $95,000 to defend her in the Troopergate scandal.
-Her husband has a DUI on his record, works for BP, and was once part of a political group that sought Alaska's secession from the U.S. Can you imagine if Michelle Obama had been part of a group to seek secession? Sean Hannity would have a week of material for his plethora of FOX News hours.
-She sought the earmark to build the Gravina Island Bridge, the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," even though she now claims to have been against it.
-She founded a 527 group to defend now-indicted Sen. Ted Stevens, even though she claims to call him out.
-She has received $4500 in campaign donations from VECO corp., the same company that showered gifts on Sen. Stevens.

Pregnant daughter aside, it seems that Palin has enough to worry about.

McCain picks Palin

2008-08-29T11:56:00.003-05:00

John McCain picked Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as his VP. She is a lifetime member of the NRA, a fiscal conservative, her husband is a union member (who looked unenthusiastic to be there), and her son is in the Army. She was introduced today in Ohio.
A few points about Palin:
- Her selection (and her speech, which mentioned Hillary several times, and dreaded Gerraldine Ferraro) proves that McCain cares more about reaching out to Hillary voters than to the conservatives that doubted him in spring.
- She is 44 years old, 3 years younger than Barack Obama, with less experience than Obama. So that essentially kills the argument about Obama having "too little experience." In the words of the Obama campaign, Palin's selection "put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." With McCain being 72-years-old, is she really ready for the Oval Office?
-She comes from the home state of Ted Stevens, who is under investigation for receiving gifts from an oil company. Teddy's son, Ben Stevens, is the next biggest gift-receiver from that oil company. Alaska's GOP is well-known for being "in the pocket" of big-oil. Alaska has also never had a politician on a presidential ticket.
-She is under investigation for allegedly having a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law, who was a state trooper. She then fired the Commissioner of Public Safety for accusing her of such an act. That gives her some baggage.
-Having a youthful running mate may remind voters that John McCain was born 72 years ago today. She makes him look more like Old Man River. She makes his messed up arm look like an old man's cripple; and yes, I know its a torture-dirived injury, but if he can use his stay in the Hanoi Hilton as a response to his housing gaffe, I can use it to skewer him. Even further, if its that bad, then why does he support the torture of "enemy combatants" at Guantanimo Bay?!

DNC: Final day recap

2008-08-29T01:43:00.003-05:00

The setting: Mile High Stadium
The date: Aug. 28, 2008. The 45th anniversary of MLK announcing his "dream."
The audience: 30 million TV viewers. 80,000 delegates and spectators.

Today may have just put John McCain on the defensive for the first time since he captured his party's nomination. The offensive wasn't from the typical attack dogs, such as VP nominees or fellow senators, but from the presidential nominee himself, Sen. Barack Obama. The speech was precise, promise-filled, historically sound, and skewered the GOP ("John McCain likes to say he'll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he won't even follow him to the where he lives"). Video is embedded below along with other great moments of Day 3.

Barack Obama's acceptance speech. Let's see John McCain fill 80,000 seats of cheering, energized Americans.

Al Gore rushing through his speech. Great message, but it probably didn't land on excited ears, other than left ears anyway. Either way, again, let's see McCain invite a Nobel Prize winning environmentalist to speak on his behalf.

Barney Smith, of Indiana, who was invited by the Obama campaign to speak to the roaring stadium. A former proud Republican, Barney obviously isn't the orator for whom he will vote, but he sure ended on a kick-ass one-liner: "We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney." The stadium started chanting his name, even the politicians loved it, and he really brought the message home. Too bad most networks probably didn't show it.

Final Day Grade: A+. This day couldn't have gone better. A sea of 80,000 passionate, energized, flag-waving, supporters, some teary-eyed, cheering for a once-in-a-generation candidate. Obama actually took the gloves off and stuck McCain in the ribs, while still staying on message about his future administration. Obama looked evenly presidential and political.

DNC: Day 3 Recap

2008-08-28T11:32:00.003-05:00

A much better night for the Dems on day three of the convention. Here are the high points.

Big Daddy Clinton talking about Obama, burning any doubt of Clinton-Obama unity. I think he was convincing enough, but polls will tell us whether Clinton supporters bought it.

Joe Biden accepting the vice-presidential nomination, and the job of attack-dog. He does a great job of making himself known as a "normal guy."

John Kerry speaking on behalf of Barack Obama, better than he ever did for himself. He may look a bit like Frankenstein and talk a bit like a zombie, but he really stuck it to John McCain here. He points out a handful of McCain's flip-flops, and he does a good job of it. I was waiting for him to say, "trust me, I know flip-flopping!"

Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, longtime Obama supporter, speaks to NBC. He is the only Iraq war veteran in Congress, the youngest representative, and in the words of my father, "this kid knows his shit." My dad said that when Murphy was on Colbert Report, and "this kid" proves himself here.

Day 3 grade: A+. Clinton, Biden, and Kerry finally made the message clear: John McCain is Bush III. They even mistakenly said "Bush" when they meant to say "McCain" a few times.

DNC: Day 2 Recap

2008-08-27T15:28:00.004-05:00

Not a lot happened today, but the big moment at the end made up for a rather event-less convention.
Hillary Clinton's knockout speech. Best moment: "No way. No how. No McCain."

Grade: A. Uneventful day, but Hillary's unity speech rallied the troops. She hit McCain hard, unlike day 1's speakers. Looking forward to Biden and Pres. Clinton tonight

DNC: Day 1 Recap

2008-08-26T11:59:00.004-05:00

Today, the Democratic National Convention started. Below are videos of the best moments as I see them.

Ted Kennedy giving his speech, sometimes obviously lacking voice. You can't say he isn't fighting for what he loves. Nothing was going to stop Teddy Kennedy from speaking. He gave his all for this, and it shows.

Michelle Obama's incredibly heartfelt speech.

Michelle and Barack Obama's children being cute as hell.

Day One Grade: B+. No attacks at McCain, little political message, purely biographic. Damn good biographic, but a politics-free biographic. You can bet your bottom dollar that on day one of the RNC, you'll hear Sen. Obama's name at least 25 times, mostly at the business end of an attack, personal or political.

One Cubs Fan to Another: Why I don't fear the Brewers

2008-08-19T01:10:00.006-05:00

In late July, I was looking forward to a 4-game series between my Chicago Cubs and the Milwaukee Brewers. Going into the series, the Cubs had a mere 1-game lead over the Brewers and newly-acquired C.C. Sabathia was on fire (and continues to knock 'em down 3 weeks later).
Today, I sing a different tune. My reasons for this change of heart are as follows:

Ned Yost is quite possibly the second coming of Dusty Baker. Yost doesn't seem to understand how pitch counts work, much like Baker. Cubs fans watched two pitchers, both seemingly future phenoms, in Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, overworked one game after another, under Baker. For example, in 2003, Mark Prior only pitched 4 games for less than 100 pitches, only one game less than 90 pitches. In nine of those games, Prior delivered more than 120 pitches. In 2006, a season in which Prior was battling with injuries, Baker had him pitch 5 out of his 9 games for more than 100 pitches. Kerry Wood received similar abuse, pitching only seven games for less than 100 pitches. In 12 games, Wood pitched more than 120 pitches, throwing as many 141 pitches in one start. We've seen how things turned out for Wood and Prior and their arms.
Ned Yost has pitched Ben Sheets (a common DL appearance) for 4 complete games and is putting this same strain on his new work-horse (who he might actually believe is a horse) C.C. Sabathia. C.C. has pitched 5 complete games since coming to the Brewers, throwing 8 consecutive 100+ pitch appearances. Sadly, the game in which he pitched the highest pitch count was his game against the Cubs, which resulted in his only no-decision since joining Milwaukee. I'd like to know why no one is reminding Yost of 2007. Much like Yost's own team in September, Sabathia collapsed in the ALCS losing both appearances and complaining of arm pain. I do, however, understand why Yost strains his aces, which brings me to my next point...

Milwaukee's bullpen is miserable. This was very evident in the Cubs series, but the stats speak for themselves. 26 losses for Brewers relievers, meaning nearly half of Milwaukee's losses have been taken by the bullpen. 62 HRs allowed. 5.45 collective ERA.

New Poll Numbers

2008-07-30T17:05:00.004-05:00

New poll numbers are out in various forms today, all showing Sen. Barack Obama ahead of rival Sen. John McCain.
Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 48% McCain 46%. 3000 likely voters were surveyed from 7/27 to 7/29.
Interesting facts from this poll - there are nearly twice as many uncommitted voters in July of this year than in July 2004.
-Both candidates are viewed favorably by 55% of those surveyed.

Gallup Tracking: Obama 46% McCain 42%. 2682 registered voters were surveyed from 7/27 to 7/29.
Interesting facts from this poll - while Obama was overseas, he received higher support, and McCain received lower support. Upon Obama's stateside return, both candidates went back to almost the same levels as before Obama's Middle-East/Europe trip.

CNN Polling: Obama 51% McCain 45%. 914 registered voters were surveyed from 7/27 to 7/29.
Interesting facts from this poll - one third of those surveyed said Obama is arrogant, and another third said the same of McCain.
-40% of those surveyed said McCain has attacked Obama unfairly in commercials, while only 22% dubbed Obama's attacks on McCain to be fair.
-McCain leads in every foreign policy and national security issue, while Obama leads by double digits in every domestic issue (healthcare, gas prices, economy, etc)

All these poll results come only days after a poorly executed poll showed Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by 4%. That particular USA Today/Gallup poll was conducted among registered voters, but McCain only won the poll when 791 voters who were "most likely to go to the polls in November" were counted.
Basically, the poll was designed to make headlines. The poll was taken among a larger number of registered voters, and Obama won. The numbers were then doctored by weeding out the registered voters they believed to be "unlikely" to vote. Anyone who's taken a Statistics 101 class will tell you that is not proper polling procedure. Most of all, larger sample sizes usually mean more accurate results, if conducted the right way. "The right way" means, in this case, having a sample representative of the American electorate. Polling registered voters, then weeding many of them out will most likely lead to inaccurate results.
The USA Today/Gallup poll has since been statistically proven to truly be an "outlying" result. Again, anyone who knows stats would know what that means. I'm thinking most McCain supporters don't.

McCain the Waffler: Affirmative Action

2008-07-28T16:27:00.004-05:00

In recent days, Sen. John McCain has come out in support of a proposed Arizona bill to eliminate affirmative action in his home state.

In 1998, when Arizona proposed a similar bill, the Senator sang a different tune: ''Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations.''

Would you like bacon or sausage on the side, Senator?

Highways losing money, McCain proposes further deficits

2008-07-28T16:11:00.004-05:00

I don't usually read the Wall Street Journal by choice, but an article on the front page of today's WSJ caught my eye. The article was about how high gas prices, and therefore lower consumption of gas, have caused highway funding to recede. For the first time since the inception of the Highway Trust Fund, set up by Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, the fund has seen a deficit. Americans have actually driven less from January to May of '08 than from January to May of '07. This represents the first time that Americans' travel mileage has actually decreased.

And what is John McCain's solution to your pain at the pump? Remove the taxes that go to our highways! Cut funding of our roads, despite rising construction costs; cut funding our bridges, much like Minnesota did, leading up to the moment I-35 collapsed into the Mississippi River, killing 13 motorists. Interestingly enough, the Governor who made that decision, Tim Pawlenty, is rumored to be on McCain's VP short list.

Despite the fact that 25% of America's bridges are "structurally deficient," in layman's terms, "unsafe," Sen. McCain would rather let you keep the thirty-cent-per-gallon in taxes. After all, keeping Americans safe domestically doesn't matter to Sen. McCain, as long as he can pander to your financial needs.

Olbermann on "The Soup"

2008-07-27T00:42:00.003-05:00

So E! Network decided they would put my favorite news commentator and my favorite pop culture roaster in front of one camera. The video below is what prevails: Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's "Countdown" appearing on Joel McHale's "The Soup" Enjoy!

Republicans still coming out for Dems, Obama

2008-07-14T17:06:00.005-05:00

Today, I've seen some interesting stories, both of which continue to solidify the idea that Republicans are losing faith in the party. Read them at their links.
The first, out of today's Daily Herald (I don't prefer the DH, but this article was on the cover) talks about a McCain delegate who has decided to support a Democrat running for the House in Illinois' 16th Congressional district. The delegate, retired Gen. John Borling, was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam with Sen. John McCain, and has decided to endorse Robert Abboud.
Borling, however, is not the first McCain delegate to support a Democrat; state Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) appeared in a campaign ad for Sen. Barack Obama that was aired in Iowa shortly after Obama announced his intention to run for president.
The second, from The Sun (New York), talks about the "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance on ABC's "This Week." In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Gov. Schwarzenegger discusses the importance of reaching out to independents and reaching even further, across party lines. Schwarzenegger, who received votes from a majority of independent voters, as well as a quarter of Democratic voters, in his Gubernatorial election, also said that he would be open to a position on Obama's cabinet, should the Illinois Dem be elected.
This seems to be further proof that moderates are starting to come out for Democrats like they did in the 90's. The "independulum," as I call it, is swinging to the left, once again. If Obama, and his party, are politically wise, they will at least keep hold of it until 2012. Actions like those from Gen. Borling, State Sen. Dillard, and Gov. Schwarzenegger, should give hope to Democrats that they might enjoy the support of moderates. That is, until a new Republican scares them into swinging back to the right.

McCain Economic Adviser: America is a 'nation of whiners'

2008-07-10T21:53:00.004-05:00

In an unsurprising display of thoughtlessness, McCain economic adviser, former Sen. Phil Gramm told the Washington Times that America's current recession is not real, but mental, and news-media driven.

"Misery sells newspapers. Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day," Gramm said. "We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline"
Gramm went on to claim "we have benefited greatly" from the Republican-driven globalization of America's economy over the last three decades.

It must be easier to say these things to a Washington D.C. journalist, than it is to the rustbelt voters who have lost their jobs to free trade.

Sen. Gramm also said that Sen. McCain's economic plan may include raising the retirement age to 70 years-old over the next 30 years. Again, this seems much easier to tell a journalist than to the physically-disabled senior citizen who not only wants to retire before 70, but will probably work well into his 70's in order to keep up with medication costs; costs that McCain claims will be lower under his economic plan due to "compitition."

George W. Bush has shown us what a "competition-driven" pharmaceutical industry can do. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, average medical costs have risen faster over the past few years than ever in our history. In 2007, health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9%, twice the rate of inflation. Last year, total health care spending represented 16% of our gross domestic product; comparing to 10.9% GDP in Switzerland, 10.7% in Germany, 9.7% in Canada, and 9.5% in France.

Whining? Complaining? We should be, Senator Gramm.

FEMA knowingly purchased toxic trailers

2008-07-10T16:32:00.002-05:00

In another showing of FEMA’s blatant disregard for victims of Hurricane Katrina, an investigation, led by House Democrats, has revealed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency knew the recovery trailers contained high levels of formaldehyde.

While Democrats blame the toxic exposure on FEMA’s poor handling, and, therefore, President Bush, House Republicans claim the problem was the government’s fault for not having set standards for safe levels of the building preservative.

Initially I agreed with both sides of this argument, until I read a bit further.

“Democrats say their staff interviewed employees from one of the manufacturers - Gulf Stream Coach - who said they, too, were suffering effects from formaldehyde exposure, including nose bleeds, shortness of breath, dizziness and bleeding ears.”

Bleeding from the ears!? If you bought a car and you found out that, during the vehicle’s production, several assembly workers suffered from dizziness, or bleeding from facial cavities, would you really want to buy that car? Not only would you not buy it, but it would probably be pulled from distribution like a lead-laden Chinese-made toy.

The article (which is scarce in American print media) ends with the note that Gulf Stream Coach has doubled their lobbying costs since the trailers were found to have unsafe levels of formaldehyde. In the first quarter of 2008, GSC has already spent half of what they spent in 2007 on lobbying congress.

Who’s lobbying on behalf of the people who lost their homes in 2005 and still require these trailers?

Newest Poll Numbers

2008-07-07T17:28:00.004-05:00

Gallup Poll: Obama 47%, McCain 43% (2650 Registered Voters)
Rasmussen: Obama 49%, McCain 44% (3000 Likely Voters)
Both polls were taken over Independence Day weekend.

The Rasmussen poll also surveyed favorable and unfavorable ratings. Obama was viewed by more likely voters than McCain as "favorable."

Obama's support among Hispanic voters stood at 61% to McCain's 30%, support among African-American's was strong as usual, 94% to McCain's 3%.

One conclusion that stood out to me more than any other was that Rasmussen stated that "Libertarians favor Obama over McCain."

This quote was translated, by me, to mean "Attention all Ron Paul voters: you may vote for Barack Obama!"

These pocketbooks were made for walkin'

2008-07-07T17:04:00.008-05:00

Conservative Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak wrote an interesting article today about the unrest of Republican donors and the GOP in general. He mentions one group in California, the Lincoln Club of Orange County that sent a statement to Republican leaders in the legislature. The Lincoln Club donates a total of about $1.5 M to Republican candidates and "federal causes," a conservative code word for 527 groups.
Typically, I disagree with Novak, but it's hard to argue with some of his (or the Lincoln Club's) points.

"Come Nov. 5, should the current GOP leadership in either
house survive to lead in a new Congress, the Lincoln Club of Orange County will
review the financial backing of all congressional Republicans, and we urge
others to do likewise. A GOP caucus that would re-elect such leaders is not one
we would likely continue to support." (This was a message to GOP leaders from
the L.C.)

"The Republican leaders congratulated themselves that they were winning the debate over whether boosting production or curbing speculation is the proper response to runaway gasoline prices.
Unfortunately, say Republican reformers, it looked like the operation was a great success but the patient died. Popular though expanded drilling may be, Republicans are blamed for four-dollar gasoline. Away from the party leadership table, members blame a negative Republican image created by leaders."

"The club is spreading its message to angry Republicans throughout California and around the nation. The ultimatum finds responsive members of the House (if not the Senate), who even now are preparing a housecleaning after the additional loss of seats in this year's election."

This last quote stood out to me, showing how defeated Republicans already feel, 4 months from Election Day. Give the article a read.

Penn: ‘Obama’s support like Facebook.’ Obama camp: ‘Thanks!’

2008-07-07T16:46:00.004-05:00

An article in today’s New York Times discusses how Barack Obama has been helped by his campaign's volunteer-networking site, my.barackobama.com, which was designed by Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook. Give it a read.

A few things to be noted: anytime Obama and technology are mentioned, so is Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, and rightly so. Dean and Obama are almost identical in their policies, but Obama has wide support (outside of young voters) that Dean could not reach. Obama also won the Iowa caucuses, making him a more serious contender than Dean.

The Obama political prowess is displayed in one quote in particular.

“The point is not to have a million people” signed up, said Joe Rospars, the campaign’s new-media director, although he does expect to have well over a million signed up on MyBo by November. “The point is to be able to chop up that million-person list into manageable chunks and organize them.”

In some primary and caucus states, volunteers used the Internet to start organizing themselves months before the campaign staff arrived. In Texas on March 4, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote, but Mr. Obama came away with a lead of five delegates, thanks to a caucus win. Caucuses are a test of organizational strength, and Mr. Obama’s team used database technology to track 100,000 Texas volunteers and put them to work. This permitted campaign staff members to “skip Steps 1, 2 and 3,” Mr. Hughes said.

If the GOP isn’t scared of this, they should be.

Also mentioned: John McCain has made late, poorly crafted attempts to duplicate Obama’s success with social networking much like Hillary Clinton struggled to do. Social networking blogger, Adam Ostrow, is quoted as saying the Republican Nominee’s McCainSpace is “virtually impossible to use and appears largely abandoned.”

So, we can now confirm that the Iraq war isn’t the only “virtually impossible” and “largely abandoned,” endeavor the GOP has taken on.

They "Report," You Decide

2008-07-03T12:51:00.004-05:00

So, Richard Roeper had a great piece about FOX News in his column last week, but I was really busy with my sister's wedding and didn't get it in here, but the video below gave me a shot to put it in context. Roeper was talking about his appearance on "FOX and Friends," to plug his new book Debunked, which attacks the war on Christmas, and some of the right-wing lunatic fringe.
His column states:

You routinely get about five
minutes for these things. A few days earlier, I had done the standard
pre-interview with a very nice producer who gushed about the book and ran
through about six or seven entries that would be brought up on air.
On the show, the first
question was about Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of The Secret. Next, we
talked about about Rosie O'Donnell's theories on 9/11.
Third question, and I'm
paraphrasing here, was: You take a lot of shots at organized religion in your
book, including the Catholic League, and you say you don't believe in miracles.
Are you worried about the reaction from Catholics?
Funny, we
hadn't covered THAT one in the pre-interview.
My response: I'm Catholic. I
don't take shots at organized religion. And I believe in the possibility of
miracles. What I don't believe is that someone claiming to see an image of the
Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich constitutes a miracle. In fact, it's an
insult to people of true faith.
I jammed that answer into
about a 15-second window, and the host responded by saying something like, "You
know how television works, we have a hard break coming up, thanks for joining
us."
I wasn't offended by the
skewed question. It kinda cracked me up. You throw me a curve ball, I'm going to
try to smack it up the middle on you.
I just wish the fine folks
at FNC would stop already with the "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You
Decide" ruse, and just call it like it is.
How about "Fair and Balanced
is For Sissies and CNN." Or "We're Right -- in More Ways Than One."

This is just classic. Dan Abrams is the man, if you haven't figured it out by now.

White privilege at its best

2008-06-26T03:17:00.006-05:00

At about 2:40 AM today, I was pulled over in Roselle for having a headlight out. This was a routine traffic stop in every sense of the term. I opened my window, was informed of my luminary problem, and was then asked for my license and insurance. I was driving my dad's car, so after digging for my wallet (with no flashlight on my hands), I searched the glove compartment, the armrest, under and in between both front seats, for the insurance card, to no avail. With every envelope and manual I found, I let out a few "dammit"'s and "where the hell is it?"'s and told the officer I had "no idea where my dad put it." The officer said he'd go to the car with my license and be back in a bit.
At this point, I obviously have no idea what he was doing, but what I was wondering while (I presume) he was entering me into his dash computer was this: if I had been a 21 year-old black man, rather than a 21 year-old blonde-haired, green-eyed white guy, do you think my hands would be on the hood of the car while the officer called for back-up to search my car? Would I have been allowed to dig through every storage space in the car without having to move slowly? Would my lack of proof of insurance been let go the way it was? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy the officer had mercy, being that the car is, in fact, insured. I just honestly don't know where my dad put the damned card to prove it.
White folks like myself get this treatment on a regular basis. I'm not trying to say I know the plights of African-American's, but if you don't believe racial profiling happens, take a look at your town's police blotter and read how many Hispanic- and African-Americans are ticketed for "failure to provide proof of insurance." For every Juan Lopez, Luis Gonzalez, or Devon Johnson that is ticketed for tack-on traffic-violations, there are probably a few Ian Neitzke's getting off. But thank you, officer.

McCain 'didn't love America' until he was a POW

2008-06-22T23:51:00.008-05:00

Thanks to my friend, Peter Ricci, for the heads-up on this one.

This speaks for itself.

Pay attention to right-wing windbag, Lars Larson. The following comments from Jonathon Alter and Katrina Vanden Heuvel couldn't be more true.

What no one mentions about Lars' comment is that he claims "Michelle Obama is an amazingly fortunate individual. She's well educated, well compensated. She's married to a presidential candidate. Thats about as high as you get in America."

This is completely false. Michelle Obama grew up on the south side of Chicago to a middle-class family and worked relentlessly to go to Princeton. Well educated, yes. Amazingly fortunate, well compensated, and married to a presidential candidate? Sounds like someone is talking about a beer-fortune heiress named Cindy McCain.

The Greatest Political Resource Ever

2008-06-19T01:14:00.002-05:00

This blog being a young one, I'd like to establish one of my common resources for readers' sake. Not that many people read this, but if you find it interesting, you will find it easier to keep up with Kill the Noise conversation if you visit Real Clear Politics.

For my fellow statisticians, Real Clear Politics has polls from every source imaginable, all from respectable polling agencies. Whether it be a battleground state poll taken by an in-state newspaper, or a general-election poll taken by a national pollster, RCP takes the most recent poll results and averages them to show a poll-of-polls average for more resourceful stats.
If you're a visual learner, or just envy CNN's John King and his interactive map, RCP even has an electoral map combining their polls and results of past elections to show what election results might be if voting were today.
For my fellow journalism students/news junkies, RCP collects articles from newspapers all over the U.S. and their own staff-writers to create a broad database for '08 election perspective.

You should see this 6-year old's FICO score!

2008-06-18T17:25:00.003-05:00

A 6 year-old boy in Aurora, Illinois was given a credit card after his mom decided to stick it to Bank of America, for sending credit card offers addressed to her children. The shocking part isn't just that the kid actually got the card, but that he got a credit limit of $600! That's twice the credit limit on my Capital One card!

Thats not all: his mother didn't lie on the application at all, including his birthday and annual income ($0).

Future Headline: 6 year-olds become a new target for identity theft

You heard it here first.

Full article:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1011458,CST-NWS-charge18.article