DADT is done

Mark your calendars, on December 18, 2010, the United States Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to allow for openly gay people to serve in the armed forces. Today should be celebrated as one of those days that we have formed a more perfect union. The final vote was 65-31 in favor of repeal.

Every military commander said that they could implement the repeal if it became law. This includes the Marine Commandant who is vehemently opposed to repeal. Why did they say this? Because they all believe in the professionalism of their soldiers. They follow orders. As of today, Don't ask/Don't tell is replaced by Don't care.

Every member of our armed services will soon be directly ordered not to give a damn whether anyone in their unit is gay or straight. How will they respond? They will respond as professional soldiers and not care.

When Johnny comes marching home

The army's Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) policy lives another day as the Supreme Court rejected a request to prevent the armed forces from enforcing it pending the outcome of an appeal. Now, I think the policy needs to end. It is wrong. It is discrimination. Nothing would make me happier than if President Obama announced that while he is Commander and Chief we will not prosecute violations.

Okay, winning the lottery would make me happier. My Christmas bonus is going to make me happier. Angelina Jolie dumping Brad for me would make me happier. So, lots of things would make me happier, but that's not the pint!(Get it?) Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is a fundamentally American value. I'm a big fan of equal protection under the law.

I'm old enough to have been a political junkie when President Clinton made DADT a part of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). I was performing as a stand-up comic at the time (not very successfully). I talked about homosexuals serving openly in my routine. I asked what people were afraid of- that they'd find an interrogator having sex with a terrorist? (Oh, he's from Libya? I thought you said he was a Libra- we're compatible.) Did I mention I wasn't successful as a comic?

The other reason I supported allowing them to serve, was that for each gay person who enlisted, it was one more reason they didn't need me. There is no draft, but when I was 17 registration for a potential restored draft went into effect. I thought I was going to be drafted, and knowing people who were in the lottery for Vietnam's draft, it hit home.

This brings me back to the question of what people opposed to homosexuals serving are so afraid. It seems to me the answer they would give is the "Homosexual Agenda." I must have the wrong gay friends, because they are unaware of this agenda. Perhaps it is a figment of the anti-homosexual mindset. It seems to me that the perception of the homosexual agenda is that gay people are going to try to have sex with straight people and turn them gay.

That is not going to happen. The rule, and by definition there are exceptions, is that we are all the same. Black people are no different than white people, brown people, yellow people, pick your color. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, in America we are all the same. Not being gay, I can't say for certain, but I am going to assert that gay people generally are not going to make any attempt at picking someone up unless they believe that person might be interested.

I should point out that having sex, straight sex, is prohibited by the UCMJ. The other thing that bothers anti-homosexuals is that when they think of gay, they think of the flamboyant displays at gay pride parades and cross dressers, and they think, "You're not going to turn my son into that!" They don't realize that their sons either are or aren't already- "that."

Gay is not contagious. Soldiers follow orders. When you combine those two facts, the army demonstrates unequivocally that gay and straight people can function together. Suddenly, fear of the "Homosexual Agenda" becomes absurd. We won't all be GAY when Johnny comes marching home.

Government creates jobs- call the News!

Republicans often say that government cannot create jobs. Job creation is the province of the private sector, and small businesses create the most jobs in America. We cannot raise taxes on small business. This, to use Rachel Maddow's words is "Bulpuckey."

The government absolutely does create jobs. When there is a pothole in a road, they say, "hire someone to fill it." When a bridge needs repairs, it's, get somebody to fix this before it falls into the river." Conservatives must think that it is better for the free market to determine who dies when a bridge collapses.

Of course, these jobs are government jobs, and in order to be free, we need to be less reliant on government, not more. Okay, I can deal with a philosophy of only as much government as necessary not not an ounce more. Then too, government costs money. The more we have the more i costs. This means higher taxes.

We've got a bunch of people out of work right now. They are so out of work that they are in danger of becoming unemployable. The private sector is not hiring. The government must. Not to mention the fact that there are many bridges in this country perilously close to collapsing like the one in Minnesota. Think about that the next time you cross one.

More on this later. . .

Democrats think you're stupid!

They don't, actually.

My boss was lamenting his inability to figure out aspects of his credit card bill the other day. He could read the list of charges well enough, but he was trying to find out how much cash back he was entitled to, and how to collect. On page one of his bill there was a clear indication of "Reward Dollars." However, this was not the cash back rebate he was looking for.

Indeed, later in the literature accompanying the bill, there was language about his ability to apply his rebate against his balance. Notice, it mentioned rebate and not "Reward Dollars." He said he felt so stupid. I told him that he shouldn't. Credit card companies spend millions of dollars a year on lawyers to intentionally create this kind of confusion.

The Democrats were writing legislation to clear this stuff up. The Republican objection to clarity was that Americans are free to sign the credit card application or not, and making things more customer friendly was just "Democrats think you're stupid!"

Election Post Mort em

If you believe the polls, voters like Republicans less than Democrats and by a 59% margin fully expect to be disappointed by them in the next 2 years. Despite that they still won. The important question is not "How"- it is "Why."

Historically speaking, the vote against has polled far better than the vote for. In sales seminars, they tell us that a negative customer experience gets circulated 10 times more than a positive one. Well the electorate is ticked off. Even though they don't blame the Democrats for the most part, the Democrats are the ones who held most of the seats that they could vent their anger against.

Americans want politicians to work together. 2 years of gridlock will lead to a Democratic reversal of 11/2/10

2nd Amendment Remedies

For starters let me state quite simply that THERE ARE NO 2ND AMENDMENT REMEDIES!

Was that subtle enough? In America we have the rule of law. As the Constitution tells us, the first step in setting up a government is to establish justice. If you have been wronged in some way, there are non-violent remedies you can pursue. If the wrong was criminal, you press charges. If it was civil you sue. What you do NOT do is grab a gun.

You have a right to be heard. You have a right to justice. You do not have a right to win. If a judge rules against you you can appeal. Just because you feel you have been wronged does not mean that you have been. You can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. If you lose, you lose. You do NOT pick up a gun.

Just like you have a right to a fair trial, you have a right to vote. You do not have a right to win. If you had a right to win, it would infringe on the right to win of someone who disagreed with you. Losing is NOT tyranny, it's losing. When your choice loses an election you take comfort in the fact that there will be another one in a couple of years, and you'll be able to correct it then.

By the way, an election is not what defines a democracy. What defines a democracy is knowing that there will be another one. The fact that there is always another election is what keeps our government accountable. If you do not like the outcome at the ballot box, you have one and only one course of action- work harder. anything else is Un-American.

Demand Side Economics

30 years ago, the Republican candidate for President, the sainted Ronald Reagan, was touting his supply-side economics plan. During the primaries earlier that year, the man who would become his Vice President called it Voodoo Economics. Today, virtually all Republicans and even some Democrats embrace Voodoo Economics. I don't know whether Voodoo is an appropriate metaphor or not, but it doesn't work.

We learn in Economics 101 that supply and demand are the invisible hands that guide the markets of capitalism. What is apparently not obvious is that it is demand that drives supply and not the other way around. There is an old expression that says, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." What if you lived in a world with no mice?

Does anybody think for a second that the automobile industry would have built all those gas-guzzling SUV's in the '90's if nobody was buying them? Imagine if President Bush had told the American People after September 11th that the most patriotic thing they could do was help reduce our addiction to oil. The demand for fuel efficient cars would have driven the market.

For 30 years, our economic policies have increasingly favored the supply side of markets. During that time, the deficit has gone from under $1 trillion to $13.6 trillion. Median income has fallen, and we've suffered the worst collapse in our economy since the Great Depression. It is time to switch to policies that encourage the demand side.

Invest in America (re-thinking taxes)

So here is the situation: We are muddling along in an economy that could generously be called sluggish, and nobody is feeling generous right now. We are over 13 trillion dollars in debt. Civil Engineers tell us that it will take 2.2 trillion dollars to repair our basic infrastructure. The first boomers are retiring. Uncle Sam needs a boatload of money, and btw, we're gonna need a bigger boat.

What do we do? We raise revenue. Yes, that means raising taxes. Not too much, and not on most Americans. They are already scheduled to rise back to Clinton era levels. But during these tough economic times, we should keep the lower rates on incomes below $250,000. Why tax the rich? As Willie Sutton said, "That's where the money is." But let us not think about it as taxes. It is an investment. True, the government won't be paying them the return on the investment, but they will benefit by our having a stronger economy.

9/11

I really hate the phrase, "nine-eleven" It is september 11. How many people refer to Pearl Harbor as 12/7? So, here we are, nine years later. I was roughly 2 miles north of the World Trade Center when the planes flew through the towers. My great fear was that we would all somehow be afraid after that day. The targets of terrorist attacks are not the victims of the attacks. The targets are those who survive.

Terrorism is defined as acts that cause us to chamge our behavior through fear. If you are afraid the terrorists win. I live in New York City. I'm not afraid of another terror attack, I expect one! OOOOHHH Islam-- be afraid- OOOOHHH a mosque be afraid-- please! To quote Sean Connery from the movie Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight, only fools and priests go through life with thoughts of death.

I'm going to die- I may get hit by a bus tomorrow. So what! I will not worry about a terrorist attack. In Israel, when Hamas blows up a Sbarro's on Tuesday, they re-open on Wednesday. That is the ultimate weapon against terrorism. They may succeed in killing people, but their actual goal is making you afraid that you are next. The greatest weapon we have against terrorism is our middle finger. In honor of September 11, let us raise our twin middle fingers towards those who think we can be cowed by hateful acts.

The Obama Conundrum

President Obama is getting hit by both sides. The right calls him a Marxist, a socialist, a fascist, and a communist. The left is angry that he tries too hard to make legislation palatable to Republicans. He ran on the idea that he was going to transform politics and bring people together. He has failed miserably at that. The question is whether or not he deserves to own that failure?

In a word, no. The simple fact is that he has made more than a good faith effort to reach out to the Republican party. They have refused to play along, and yet he has not given up hope that they will come on board. Additionally, he has gotten involved in political games. Republicans try to paint this as scandal and Democrats get disappointed.

There is nothing illegal about a party trying to prevent a primary challenge to an incumbent. It happens all the time. So why is this paragon of post-partisanship engaging in that activity? In a word, pragmatism. During the primaries, New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman wrote time and again that then Senator Obama was a centrist, and if we wanted a true champion of liberal causes we should vote for then Senator Clinton.

The first 20 months of this administration has borne that out. All the outreach to the Republicans, his endorsement of Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln, why would he do that? He needs the votes. Period. Senator Lincoln can vote in the Senate (until January, at least). President Obama feels the need to woo as many legislators as he can to vote for his agenda. If Senator Lincoln were not an incumbent, I doubt the President would have chosen sides in the primary.

For all his rhetoric eschewing politics, the requirements of his job force him to be political. When the people lead, the leaders will follow. When enough people demand a more progressive agenda, President Obama will deliver it. And by that time, he will deliver it in 30 minutes or less or it will be free.

Class Warfare

President Bush passed a tax cut in 2001 that is set to expire. It is expiring for two reasons. First, it is expiring because it was passed under reconciliation, and reconciliation rules prevented it from lasting longer than 10 years. The other reason it is expiring is so that they could say that it only cost $1.35 trillion. Oh, and by the way, the reason it was passed under reconciliation was because even some Republicans balked at the cost.



Senator Jon McCain was on a Sunday talk show today and he was asked about the Obama Administration's plan to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, but extend them for everyone else. He responded by saying that this is letting class warfare begin. To borrow from Rachel Maddow, this is Bullpucky (I like the word but would use a different one).



Over the last 30 years, our deficit has grown from under $1 Trillion to more than $14 Trillion. Most of this deficit growth has occurred during the Preisdencies of supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans. In fact, the last Democratic President left us with a surplus. Three other things have happened during this time that are both significant and relevant when discussing the deficit. The wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth grow exponentially, middle class wages have been stagnant, and the top marginal tax rate has gone from around 70% to about 35% today.


Letting the upper class tax breaks expire is not class warfare. Their taxes have been cut in half as the deficit has exploded. Republicans are railing against the deficit. What do we do? Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that's where the money is. We need to let the taxes increases on the richest 2% because that is where the money is. They benefited the most as our deficit exploded, they can aford to plug the hole.

Being Sarah Palin

For Mature Audiences only:

By Mature, I refer only to the age of the audience, because I'm pretty that I could go into immature college frat-boy mode in this post quite easily. Also, I wish to state for the record that I do not hate Sarah Palin. I want to bang her! (see what I mean about immature?)

Sarah Palin is an attractive woman, and acknowledging that is not sexist by the way. I wouldn't talk politics with her, and not just because we would disagree, which would probably end my chances of sex with her. I don't talk politics with my girlfriend with whom I mostly agree. Some may wonder how I know that I agree politically with my girlfriend if we don't talk about it. Very simply, life happens and we talk about things that happen and occasionally opine in the discourse.

As Keith Olbermann has often said about Governor Palin, "This woman is an idiot." Let me be clear, I do not think she is an idiot for disagreeing with me. Nor is it because she is a Conservative, a Christian, a woman, pro-life, Republican. I say she is an idiot because I believe I am simply stating a fact. This is not a matter of education, it is a matter of common sense (which really isn't all that common).

Let me present my evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2gE-VVjBI

The link shows a clip of the Saturday Night Live version of the first Palin/Couric interview followed by the actual interview. Notice that Tina Fey's words are almost exactly the ones uttered by the former Governor. When asked about the TARP bailout, she rambles on about all sorts of topics as if after speaking long enough the question is presumed to be answered.

People fixate on the question about what she reads (and by people I mean media). Like there could be a right answer to that question. People mention her not knowing the "Bush Doctrine". I wouldn't have associated the question by Charles Gibson to the policy of preventive war. However, when she answers a question on what to do by saying that there are "common sense conservative solutions" to problems, do you get the sense that she knows what they might be?

I don't think she cares enough to learn what policy proscriptions might be good for our country. That's fine. People go crazy over her. I'm fine with that, too. But is thinking she'd be a disaster as President, is availing myself of my First Amendment right to free speech, a right she claims to hold dear, hatred?

A Center-Right Nation- the Myth

This may have originally been posted by Worldnewstrust.com

Many people in the punditocracy are cautioning President-elect Obama not to pursue a liberal agenda aggressively because the people will turn on him. They say that despite the largest margin of victory in twenty years tilting left, we are still a “center-right” nation. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth!

Those who promote the “center-right” nonsense also make the absurd claim that President Bush has been governing from this “center-right” position. Somehow, the two-thirds of the country that want universal health care and out of Iraq are out of the mainstream, and even though the wrong track numbers are as high as the Dow is low, we don’t want to make a major change in direction. This is patently absurd.

Those who would have you buy into the notion of “center-right” America are the exact same ones who would have you believe that we have always been a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that one of the oldest international treaties this nation entered into says quite specifically that we are NOT a Christian nation. The treaty was with Libya, and dates back to our 2nd President(It is left to the reader to look this up but it is easily googled).

Let me state for the record that a “center-right” America would never have elected Senator Obama to the Presidency for the simple fact that Barack Hussein Obama would not have been a Senator to run in the first place. The people who use the term “center-right” today have been gutting the EPA and fighting the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act signed into law by the great leftist pinko Richard Milhouse Nixon!

Center-Rightists still hate Medicare and Medicaid. A “center-right” America would never have supported the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s uppity movement which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Brown V Board of Ed would never have been brought to court in the first place let alone Brown winning in the Supreme Court.

Women’s suffrage, the end of slavery, equal protection, union’s, and anti-trust laws would not exist in a “center-right” America. Why would “Original Constructionists” need to amend The Constitution? At this point, it occurs to me that we would have had a more peaceful past as a “center-right” nation. There would have been no Civil War because we all know that Center-Righter’s are all for States Rights (except when the state in question takes a center-left position).

Likewise, there would never have been a War of 1812. On what do I base this claim, you ask. Well, and I mean no offense to the current residents of the parent company, a “center-right” America would still be England.

String theory

Physics has a theory called string theory to explain the nature of time and space which can be read about on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory.

Now, I don't possess the scientific chops to argue the physicists string theory, I have my own theory which unfortunately carries the same name. Mine is a behavioral, or psychological string theory which can be summarized by the phrase, "Oh, look! String." What I mean by that is that we, as Americans, can be easily distracted.

In the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression, what are we focused on? I'll give you a hint, it's not the economy. The President wants o impose Islamic law. Some guy wants to build a Mosque near Ground Zero. Sarah Palin is defending a talk radio host using the n-word. Does any of this really matter? This is string and we are cats. As a dog person, that is not easy for me to say.

Bloody nose

We now return to our regularly scheduled blog already in progress. Previously, I compared threats to our rights to being punched in the nose. To be honest, I think our collective nose is redder than Bozo the Clown's.

Here's why:

• The government believes (and we let them) that they can listen to our phone calls without a warrant.
• The Chief Executive has sole authority to declare someone an enemy combatant.
• Old energy plants have upgraded capacity without improving emissions in violation of the EPA's New Source Review requirements
• Mountain Top Removal mining waste is dumped into our rivers and streams.
• Financial reform regulation exempts used car loans from oversight.
• There is still nearly 4 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico
• Oil companies are not paying market value for their drilling royalties.
• Wall Street is using government loans to buy govenment bonds and pocketing the profits.
• Egg companies are selling salmonella contaminated eggs
• Phone companies are using our cell phone signals to tell police where we are.

This is just to name a few. If the flow from our noses were rain, Noah would be building a boat.

Scaria tactics

As defenders of the Constitution protest religious freedom for Muslims across this nation, one of the claims being made is that Muslims want to bring Sharia Law to this country. Ooohh, Scary! My mother keeps a Kosher home.You may be wondering what that's got to do with the price of Tea in China. Well, nothing and yet, everything.

Everything because when the protestors mention Sharia, they want you to think of the people who were stoned to death in Iran for comitting adultery. Nothing, on the other hand, because stoning also happens to be part of Biblical Law, and as a Christian Nation (which we're not) we uphold that, too. Or not. I claim that American Muslims adhere to Sharia Law in much the same way that Christians adhere to Biblical Law, and Jews adhere to Talmudic Law.

People of faith use that faith to guide them through life. As Americans, though, we recognize the difference between the laws of man and the Laws of G-d. As citizens, we recognize the importance of dispensing civil justice through the courts which give primacy to the Constitution over the Bible, the Old Testament, or the Quran. The social contract that is the great experiment of America means we agree to let government ensure justice here on earth and whatever G-d exists out there handlesthe spiritual justice.

The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate whethera restaurant can be called Halal or Kosher. We allow the religious institutions make those determinations. Likewise, our police do not now, and never will, enforce Sharia Law. Fel free to turn off the night light.

Mideast Piece: The Return of King David

I first visited Israel in 1983. At the time, the West Bank was very much a part of Israel. In contrast, during my last visit in 1998, we passed a checkpoint very similar to a border when we entered the West Bank to visit Rachel's Tomb. I mention this because my own thinking has gone through a similar change. I used to believe that Israel should have just annexed territories seized in war. Now, I think the two state solution is a foregone conclusion.

Now back to the history. I don't know how exactly the British decided to divide territories under its control. I imagine most people would say, "poorly." As far as we're concerned here, the land east of the Jordan River became Jordan. For the land to the west of the river, they came up with a partition plan, with a nation called Palestine and a Jewish State.

The Jews decided not to call their state Judea- been there done that. The United Nations, established after World War II, approved of this plan. Now, being Jewish, I heard the story thusly, "The other Arab Nations in the region told the Palestinians to leave because they were going to attack." Palestinians say they were kicked out by the Israelis. After 45 years of life experience, there is no doubt in my mind that both stories have some truth to them.

Regardless of whether they left voluntarily or were forced out, the simple fact remains that Palestinians have been homeless since 1948. They are living in refugee camps in almost every nation in the middle east. This is a tragedy, and nobody mentions that these nations do not accept the Palestinians as being eligible for citizenship- 62 years and they keep them in refuee camps. Also unmentioned is that many of these nations had Jewish communities that they simply kicked out.

The Palestinians often talk about their 62 years of oppression, but what they do not mention is that for the first 19 years, the Israelis were not the oppressors. From 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was not considered occupied, it was Jordan. Likewise Gaza was part of Egypt. With the exception of the Palestinians, the Arab world had no problem with Palestine being occupied as long as it was occupied by other Arabs.

In Hebrew school, I learned that G-d promised Abraham that his children would become a "nation great and mighty." He had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Hence, two nations. In Islam, the Patriarch is called Ibrahim. He is the same person. The time has come for the children of brothers to come together and end this dispute.

Mideast Piece: The Two States

When last we left our intrepid blogger, we were discussing the history of the Israel/Palestine problem. Let's start with a little more history. The word Palestine came from the Roman Empire. Judea was a Roman Province with a Rome supported King and Roman garrison's. In the middle of the first century A.D. (C.E. in Jewish parlance), there was an uprising against the empire. By the year 70, any remnants of this uprising had effectively been squelched and the Second Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. Begin search for the lost Ark here.

The Romans were so angry about the uprising that they decided to rename the land after one of the Judean people's long vanquished enemies, the Philistines. The Jews who had not engaged directly in battle and succumbed to defeat scattered to the winds in a second Diaspora. Towards the end of the 19th century, eastern European Jews decided to return to what they considered their ancestral homeland and establish a Jewish state there.

Over the next several decades many Jews emigrated to what was then called "Palestine-TransJordan." During this time, a World War broke out. The English reached out to the Arab Community because the Ottoman Empire had sided with the other guys. You may have heard of the chief English Emissary, T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia). After the war and the subsequent establishment of the League of Nations, lesser nations (by European standards) were divied up and the League was tasked to modernize and democratize these countries.

This is how the distinct nations of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia came about, and why Saddam thought he had a right to re-unify them. Palestine-TransJordan was another of these British protectorates. In the 1930's a "white paper" circulated in which Great Britain committed to creating a Jewish state in this protectorate. The Holocaust enabled the British to use their "control" of the territories to create the Jewish state.

This has been a pretty big pill to swallow- I'll continue later. . .

Mideast Piece: The Fellowship of Jews

I know you're heartbroken- expecting to hear more about nose punching. However, yesterday it was announced that the Israelis and Palestinians are going to resume direct negotiations next month and my Heebness (Jewish Identity) took over. In the interests of disclosure, yes I am Jewish and I support Israel. That support is not unconditional.

A little history first. The nation of Israel is an idea more than it is a geographical location. In Hebrew, Am Yisrael, is a description of the Jewish People- descendants of Jacob, who was given the name Israel after wrestling and Angel to a draw. Um, er if you believe such things. The word Jews, from the hebrew yehudim, dates to the Babylonian conquest where in exile we were "Judeans."

Flash forward to modern day Israel. It is a line drawn on a map by the British. So was Iraq, Indai/Pakistan and Northern Ireland. Let's face it, we should not let the English anywhere near a map with writing tools. But the past is the past. We need to decide what the future holds.

The simple truth is that most serious negotiators know what the endgame looks like: A Palestinian state approximating the 1967 borders, a shared capital of Jerusalem, Palestinians compensated for no right of return. This is the what. I'll get into the why shortly.

Punch Drunk

There is an old story of a man on trial for assault. He had been punching people in the nose. His defense was that he had an unalienable right to pursue happiness and punching people in the nose made him happy. In sentencing the man, the Judge told him that his right to pursue happiness ended at the tip of the next person's nose. I'm not inclined to believe this story ever actually happened, but as an allegory it is very useful.

I don't know if I've posted it here before but I often write that the primary purpose of our government, and indeed the argument in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens. Apparently, I have an unalienable right to not get punched in the nose. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson felt it would have sounded clunky along with "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". That's probably why he wrote the phrase that precedes it, to wit, "that among these are."

I often look at the Preamble to The Constitution as a general set of instructions on how best to secure these rights, to use the construction of the Declaration. Take my nose, please. How does The Constitution help the government protect my right to not get hit in the nose?

• Step 1: Establish justice. Should someone actually punch me in the nose I can seek redress in court. No need to resort to 2nd Amendment remedies (apologies to Sharron Angle)
• Step 2: Ensure domestic tranquility. Ironically, this should come first. If the police are keeping the peace my nose won't get punched.
• Step 3: Provide for the common defense. This means that they should protect us all from a foreign power that would overthrow our government and allow us to get punched in the nose.
• Step 4: Promote the General Welfare. When people are doing better in general they are less likely to want to punch my nose.
• Step 5: Secure the blessings of Liberty. Repeat steps 1 thru 4.
• Step 6: To ourselves and our Posterity. Now and forever.

Now, let's consider anything that might infringe upon my rights as a punch in the nose. Our Constitution not only charges the government with protecting my nose from being punched, it prohibits the government from doing the punching. Who else, aside from our neighbor in the first paragraph, might try to punch us in the nose? Corporations.

When government, through regulation, seeks to protect our noses (and mom spent a lot on mine), that is not tyranny. That is simply government doing its job. We need to separate the concept of pro-citizen from anti-business. More to come. . .

Beware of dog

The anti-immigrant crowd, who will swear up and down that they are not anti-immigrant, "what part of illegal do you not understand?" has been foaming at the mouth lately that the reason Arizona had to pas SB1070 is that this President hasn't been doing enough to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the New York Times has documented on August 18th, this administration is deporting "illegals" at a far greater pace than any time during the previous administration.

Now, the right has gotten its dander up about "anchor babies" and "terror babies". You could hear the anguish in Representative Louie Gohmert's voice on Anderson Cooper. Despite the lack of evidence he was truly afraid of the consequences of terror babies. The border is effectively sealed. It is not perfect. There is no Ziploc technology for a nation's border. Right now, however, if anything immigrants are going the other way- crossing back into Mexico. There aren't the jobs here.

Somebody alert the Republicans! the most effective tool we have to combat illegal immigration is called "Recession." During normal economic times we created a bastion of freedom, with the possible exception of the land near Ground Zero, that people want to experience. From the days the settlers landed in Jamestown and the Pilgrims hit Plymouth Rock, those who've made it here have been trying to keep it to themselves.

They have put up all the signs- Keep out! No Trespassing! Beware of Dog! Everybody that has made it here has an obligation to ask themselves this question about these newcomers, these so-called "illegals": How would I feel if I had just arrived and they wanted to get rid of me? Don't dismiss it. Spend some quality time with that thought, because it has been true of all of us.

Do as I say not as I say

I want to start out today by stating for the record that when I use the word "Republicans," I am referring specifically to the Washington variety. This includes both elected officials and the pundits we see on television. I do not wish to besmirch any individual citizen. When party labels and liberal versus consertive are removed from a conversation, and Americans are asked simply if they believe government should do this or that, consensus levels are around 60-70% on the concept.

Let's stipulate that neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party is mentioned in The Constitution. In fact, the current Democratic party was originally known as the Democratic Republicans. The Republican party came into existence in the 1850's. Neither party today resembles their founding principles.

Thomas Jefferson, a small government Democratic-Republican expanded government auhority in making the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from the French. Republicans proudly call themselves the "Party of Lincoln and (Teddy) Roosevelt, and yet they talk about states rights, seceding from the Union, and rail against the environment and campaign finance reform.

To be fair, things change over time, so it is not unreasonable for people to change as well. However, today's Republicans are inconsistent on an almost daily basis. During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan, they asked what role international law might play in any case before the court- intimating that as Americans we don't cater to international thought. At the same time, justifying the privatization of Social Security and demonizing the Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan, they cite Chile, and the lack of churches in Saudi Arabia.

Rebpublicans talk about the importance of "States Rights" except when a state decides to enact a policy that doesn't jibe with their culturally conservative narrative. Roe V Wade was a federal violation of states rights to restrict abortion, but Oregon doesn't have the right to pass a law voted on by statewide referendum allowing for assisted suicide for the terminally ill. California does not have the right to pass, also by statewide vote, a law allowing for cancer patients to use marijuana to enhance their appetites to counter the effects of chemotherapy.

Republicans rail against the huge deficit, and they insist that spending to aid the poor must be paid for but cutting taxes on the wealthy which also increases the debt need not be offset. The First Amendment guarantees us all the right to believe what we want to believe. Republicans want to believe what they don't believe. That's called hypocrisy.

Sticks and Stones

There has been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about Press Secretary Robert Gibbs having a meltdown, ranting against the "professional left." The story is about political silliness. Hey, Bob, if you're not happy with the criticism, I've got one word for you, tough. It comes with the job. During the campaign, many Clinton supporters were critical of then Senator Obama as being too centrist. Now the left that backed him has realized the truth of that criticism. The President is governing as a moderate. The left is unhappy, the right calls him a Marxist/Socialist and your complaint is about the left? Really?

Robert, man up! The left's displeasure is the best thing that could happen to you. Bernie Sanders tells a story about how he apologized to President Clinton for his Health Care plan. The President told him that he'd been very helpful. Senator Sanders responded that that was precisely the problem. Because he liked the bill, Republicans could paint it as Socialist. You also need to pay more attention to your boss. He is the one who continues to challenge the left to force his hand. Don't whine that they take him at his word.

There's an old adage that says if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. The President did. Maybe that's what you need to do.

A short post

If the problem with the Ground Zero Mosque, which is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero, is merely its proximity and not evidence of anti-Muslim bigotry, then why are similar structures being protested in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and Petaluma, California?

Let me know when you've got an answer.

Nothing's changed

Watching the cable news shows in the wake of Judge Walker's overturning of Proposition 8 in California, the thing that occurs to me is the right talking about this activist judge establishing a new right to same sex marriage. Judge Walker did no such thing. Much like the California Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court before it, all judge Walker did was determine that denying the right to marriage to people of the same sex was unconstitutional. This does not "establish" a new right.

Ted Olson was on Fox being grilled by Chris Wallace about this being an activist decision. Ted Olson was the attorney who argued for then-Governor Bush in Bush V Gore that led to the Bush 43 presidency. He served as Solicitor General under President Bush. His partisan bona fides are firmly established. Wallace constantly tried to get him to admit the decision was activism.

Mr. Olson agreed that there is no new civil right to same sex marriage. However, the court has continually ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. Some would deny people that right based on the gender of the people seeking to avail themselves of the fundamental right to marry. If marriage is a fundamental right, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled it is over more than 100 years, than every citizen is entitled to that right. Judge Walker did not establish a new right, he merely affirmed that one applied to all people.

Look for the Union Label

There was an ad where they would sing a song with this title. I only remember a parody version of it. The idea was to convey the notion that products made by unionized companies were better. That was a good message, and unions did their members a service by spreading it.

Union membership has been in decline for several decades, and I would argue that the decline in the middle class has coincided with it. There seems to be a lot of antipathy towards unions by average Americans at the same time that union members are average Americans. In the recent government bailout of GM and Chrysler, unions were forced to restucture contracts as a condition of receiving the funding. At the same time, Wall Street firms received 100 cents on the dollar on their derivative defaults, and not one executive was forced to reduce his contractually obligated bonus.

I'd lay odds that the Tea Party contingent would be angry about union members getting a 3% increase in their pensions if it cost CEO's 3% of their bonuses. Why are unions demonized so much? The very concept of a union is an American value. The workers getting together and telling the owner of a company that they demand rights is exactly what we did to King George III.

We have no problems when a CEO saves his company $11 million by cutting several thousand jobs and getting a bonus of $12 million. General Motors adds $4,000* to the cost of each car for the health insurance of the employees which makes it hard to compete with BMW because the government pays for their health insurance. We complain about the union rather than demanding our government level the playing field with Germany. Does this make any sense?

One of President Obama's campaign issues was the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), also known as card check. I'll address why it hasn't passed in a later post, but one reason is the unpopularity of unions. As much as the right has demonized unions, union leadership must share in the liability.

I think many unions have forgotten their mission, or have misinterpreted it. Let me cite a few of examples of what I mean. The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) fought for years to prevent drug testing for steroids in baseball. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) makes it nearly impossible to fire teachers. Actors Equity Association (AEA) has prevented thousands of members from working.

The MLBPA protected the members who were cheating (using steroids) at the expense of the members who were not. If the New York City school system were able to rid itself of incompetent and sometimes criminal teachers in a timely manner, there would be more money to pay the good teachers. There are a lot more non-union acting jobs out there than union, yet AEA spends more resources policing members who work at non-union jobs than they do on policies that would encourage the non-union theaters to hire their members.

Union membership should convey a level of professionalism. Unions should defend that idea. Rather than universally protecting members, they should be protecting the notion of professionalism that membership carries. This way, they can say the reason you want to hire union members is that you get better results. These days, the union seems more interested in collecting the dues and having the numbers of membership.

You serve memberships interests better by rooting out the bad apples, than by defending them.

An End to Illegal Immigration

Many people who are against illegal immigration point out that their problem is NOT with the immigrants it's with the ones who come here "illegally". The phrase, "what part of 'illegal' do you not understand?" tends to be uttered a lot. The problem is that we do not have enough resources to allow for the amount of immigration our economy needs. Instead of thinking about how these people came here, take a moment to think about why they came and where they came from.

Pandagon has a wonderful post about the term "illegals" on their site. It allows us to not think about these people as people- they're "illegals". When I think about the people who are not here legally today, I think of my family. My grandparents on my father's side escaped pogroms in Lithuania. When my grandmother ran through forests and stowed away on a boat, she wasn't thinking if her papers were in order for arrival in New York.

Back then, we had Ellis Island, and people would be sent there to be processed. We need Ellis Islands along the border. The way to end illegal immigration is to create more ways for immigrants to enter legally. There is no way to prove this, but I believe that if you let more people in legally, there will not be more immigration, but there will be less illegal immigration. Don Pardo says, "Come on down! You're the next contestant on Welcome to America!" Set up welcome centers, do background checks and then give these people ID's.

We've had a Beware of Dog sign up since Jamestown in 1607. We have established a beacon of freedom. We put up a statue with a torch to light the way that says you are welcome here. It is long past time to live up to the message on that ladies pedestal.

You are cordially invited

I wonder how many wedding invitations went out this afternoon in California from same-sex couples. Judge Walker has just struck down Proposition 8 which had amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court had ruled that nothing in the constitution prevented it, effectively legalizing it. Already, the right is is signaling their displeasure saying that this is a slap in the face to the millions who voted in favor of Prop 8. In this case they are correct.

That being said, supporters of prop 8 deserved to have their faces slapped. When a majority of the people agree with the right's ideas, they are more than happy to live in a democracy. When they are in the minority, they remind us all that we are a republic. Technically speaking, we are still a republic in that the President and Vice-President are not directly elected officials. Today, all other elected officials hold office as a result of a democratic election. We are not, however, simply a republic. There is a condition. That is called the Constitution of the United States.

The primary purpose of government, as I've written before is to secure the unalienable rights of all its citizens. In California, a majority sought to impose their will to deny the unalienable right to get married to a minority. The Constitution does not allow this. Indeed, if 99% of the country wanted to denounce same-sex marriage as a purely legal matter, they should not be allowed to do so. The idea that unalienable rights are endowed by a Creator and not a government proscribes the government from taking them away. Unalienable means that these rights cannot be made alien to (apart from) you.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently held a press conference where he called for a law to prevent a presumably liberal judge from considering Shariah (Islamic) law in making decisions. This is a purely political position. The law already exists. It is called The Constitution.

Debunking the Ground Zero Mosque

There is a lot of anger out there because a group of Muslims is planning to build a Mosque at Ground Zero. There are a couple of problems with that sentence: There is no Mosque and it is not at Ground Zero. The Cordoba House is a Muslim Cultural center based on the model of the 92nd Street Y. Yes, it will have a prayer room. It will not have minarets.

Even if it were to be a Mosque I would support it. Many on the right, who oppose this building, talk about being for liberty and The Constitution. Yet they are seeking to deny Muslims the liberty to practice their faith which is Constitutionally guaranteed. Individual citizens have every right to express their opinion that this location should not house a building whose religion they perceive as an enemy of America. That is, however, and Un-American viewpoint.

There is perhaps no more fundamental American Value than the freedom of religion. The right talks about us being a Christian nation. They are either lying or misinformed. For evidence, I point you to the Treaty with Tripoli, dated 1797, signed by President Jon Adams. From Wikipedia:

• Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

Jon Adams, in addition to being the second President of this nation was both a Founding Father, and a devout Christian. As such, I think he can reasonably be considered an authority on the subject.

Muslims may have perpetrated the September 11th terrorist attacks, but that doesn't make Islam an enemy religion. Terrorism wins when it gets us to change our behavior. Accepting this cultural center is not only the right thing to do Constitutionally, it is also the best way to thumb our noses at the terrorists.

Returning to Immigration

So the Judge in Arizona has ruled to enjoin Arizona from implementing many provisions of SB1070 the so-called illegal immigration law. Many on the right have now decried the decision and impugned the judge's impartiality. Before the decision was handed down, many elected officials on both sides of the aisle were praising her fairness and competence. Activism, like beauty, apparently lies in the eye of the beholder.

On the right, the chief argument against illegal immigration is one of security. The talk is of the crime that accompanies it. The problem is that the facts simply do not bear this out. According to the FBI, crime is down in Arizona, and it is down across the board. The interesting fact is that crime is up in Maricopa County. Maricopa is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sheriff Joe is perhaps the most zealous hunter of illegals in the nation.

What does that say about illegal immigration and crime? Think about it for a minute. Crime is down throughout a state, but up in the county that most aggressively pursues illegal immigrants. I'd say the sheriff is obsessing so much about a perceived problem that he cannot see the real problems under his jurisdiction.

We are all hurting, and we want to pin blame for our pain on someone. Immigrants make an easy target. So do others that we perceive to be not like us. That's how the Nazi's came to power. During the Great Depression, they directed anger about the economy at foreigners and minorities. Believe me, you are not suffering because Jose is scrubbing toilets for $3.50 an hour of the books. Oh, and by the way, Jose thinks scrubbing toilets for that money is heaven in comparison to what he escaped. More to come.

The Rules of Racism

Now that a little time has passed since the Shirley Sherrod saga exploded, I think now is a good time to examine all the relevant facts and come up with the proverbial "teachable moment." The first step is to dispassionately list all the elements of the story. I believe that the following can be demonstrably shown to be true.

At an annual gathering, the NAACP passed a resolution calling on the Tea Party Movement to denounce the racism of some people who show up at their rallies who clearly exhibit racist attitudes. Leaders of the Tea Party Movement and Republican's appearing on cable news programs express offense at the NAACP for calling the Tea Party a racist movement. Andrew Breitbart posts a video on his website of Shirley Sherrod. The video is an excerpt of a speech given at an NAACP event. In the excerpt, Ms. Sherrod recounts an event where she considered denying a white man her best efforts to help him simply because he is white, and was exhibiting what she perceived to be a superior attitude towards her.

The clip went viral under headlines declaring proof of reverse racism at USDA. People at USDA demanded and received her resignation. The rest of her speech was released and it became clear that it was a story about overcoming racial prejudice. That is the story in a nutshell.

Prior to these events, Fox News and Republican pundits were hyping a phony story about how the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) had declined to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation because they were black. I say this story is phony because the decision not to prosecute was made 2 weeks before Obama became President. In other words, it was decided by the Bush DOJ.

To sum up, we have Tea Partiers taking umbrage at racism charges that were never leveled at them, and charges of reverse racism against the Obama administration that fall flat against the evidence. These are the facts and I welcome anyone to offer proof that refutes them. Now, here's the teachable moment. We need rules to know when racism is occurring and when it is not.

• Rule #1: If you feel the need to defend yourself against racism charges that nobody has made, think twice before uttering the phrase, "I'm not a racist" or "How dare they call me a racist!"

• Rule #2: Racial insensitivity is not racism. For example, I make ethnic jokes all the time. Okay, not all the time, I will play to the stereotypes of any ethnicity among my friends. A side note here- when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team as "Nappy-Headed Ho's" it was insensitive, juvenile, disrespectful, and worst of all just not funny. but it was not racist.

• Rule #3: Being surprised that people of different ethnic background are any different than you is a strong indicator of racial bias. And example here is Bill O'Reilly describing his surprise when having lunch with Reverend Al Sharpton at Sylvia's the black patrons were not saying, "Mofo" he was implying the longer version of the epithet.

• A Corollary to Rule #3: People of different sexual orientation aren't different from you either. Gay people aren't going to try to have sex with you unless they perceive a mutual interest.

I think this is a good start- when people familiarize themselves with these, we can add more.

Immigration distraction

It never ceases to amaze me how much passion there is to do something about the problem of illegal immigration in what has long been called a nation of immigrants. For those who believe (wrongly, but I'll address that later) that we are a Christian Nation, that Christianity arrived via immigration. The Native Americans, who came across the Bering Strait about 10,000 years ago and are thus also immigrants, were not Christians.

Almost from the day after colonists landed in Jamestown in 1607 we have wanted to put a huge Keep Out sign on this country. The idea that immigrants can be illegal is fundamentally un-American. The Lady with the torch in New York harbor encapsulates America. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," she beseeches. That is us to which she refers, and our parents and grandparents. As Bill Murray points out the next line in the movie "Stripes" we are the wretched refuse. We've been kicked out of every country on the planet and we've been kicking ass for 200 years!

On Passover, the Jewish People tell of the departure from Egypt as if it were this generation being freed. We need to think of the current illegal immigrants in much the same way- as though they are our parents and grandparents. These are people fleeing desperate circumstances. They are, as our ancestors were, seeking a better life.

The economy is in bad shape. There is record unemployment. These people are not the cause of it. They are easy targets for our anger. It is misplaced. . . .to be continued

Rethinking taxes

We need to change the way we talk about taxes at a fundamental level. We should stop thinking of taxes as money that goes to the government. Sure, that pretty much is the definition of tax. Only government can levy taxes, and enforce collection. But the point of the money isn't where it goes. The point is who has it and who doesn't. Right now we simply think of money we don't have because we have to fork it over to the government. For most of us, we don't even fork it over, it gets taken out of our paycheck, and we file paperwork to get some of it back.

However, there are lots of things we have to fork over money for: Health insurance, gas and electric bills, phone bills, gas for the car, a mortgage to name a few. You might argue that you are getting something for that money, and you'd be right, of course. But imagine if you could get the same thing for less money. In purely hypothetical terms, in other words I have done no actuarial research, imagine that the government levied a $0.50 tax per gallon of gas. This is clearly a tax hike. But what if, as a result, people drove less, or bought more fuel efficient vehicles and the lower demand dropped the price of a gallon of gas by the same $0.50

You break even. The government has extra revenue to build a wider highway or spend on research on alternative fuels, or other activities that could end up driving costs down further. Otherwise that $0.50 might end up in BP's CEO's pocket or Saudi Arabia. The point is it's coming out of your pocket anyway. I'd rather our government have it than BP or Saudi Arabia- at least there is a chance it'll do you some good.

The Bogeyman

Republicans go to rallies, go on Fox, and they tell everyone that the Democrats are going to take their guns, raise their taxes and kill Grandma. The claim that the Democrats want government to control everything. Tell you how to live your life. Tell you how you cannot make it by yourself, that you need government help. None of these claims are even remotely true. Republican leaders know that it is not true, but they do not care.

President George W. Bush said that he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban had it been brought to his desk. Nobody has proposed legislation to re-instate now. Taxes have gone down for 98% of Americans since President Obama took office. True, they are going to go up on January 1, 2011 if nothing is done, but that "tax hike" was passed by a Republican Congress.

It is actually the expiration of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 that had sunset provisions to hide the costs. I am not going to dignify the kill Grandma charge with a defense.

The Democrats do not want the government to control everything- regulation is not control, oh and look how well deregulation has worked. Republicans are the ones who want to tell you who you can sleep with and what you must do even if you are raped. Offering help is not the same as saying you need it.

The Republicans are the people who tell their kids that there actually is a monster under the bed that will eat them if they turn off the light. They also tell them that Democrats want to call them racists for being afraid of the child eating monster.

A quick note on racism

I will go into great detail on this subject in the near future, but the events of the past few weeks demand at least some comment. The NAACP called on the Tea Party movement to denounce members who display racist messages. Republicans pandering to the Tea Partiers denounce the NAACP for calling the Tea Party as racist, which they did not do. A right wing activist posts an edited video which purports to show a black woman acting in a racist manner. Her resignation is demanded- then the full text of her speech reveals that she had done nothing to affirm the reverse racist meme she was portrayed as having.

America needs to have a conversation about race. two things need to happen to make it an honest discussion. White people need to acknowledge that racism exists in America, and recognizing that is neither an accusation that someone is a racist nor an admission of it. Minorities need to acknowledge that sometimes they lose by virtue of losing. Sometimes in America racial a=motives are ascribed to things that have absolutely no racial basis.

Debating same sex marriage

I have always had difficulty in following the logic of those opposed to same sex marriage. For starters, I fail to see how any marriage affects anyone other than the participants in it and perhaps their immediate family. Secondly, I think that by definition, divorce does more to harm the institution of marriage than expanding the right to same sex couples. In the interests of disclosure, I personally would not marry someone who was the same sex as I. My sexual preference, however, is beside the point.

I can appreciate that some people believe that marriage is a sacred institution. To them I say that if it is sacred, the governments got no business in it; separation of Church and State and all. However, marriage is an institution that carries many legal benefits and obligations: Hospital visitation, next of kin, taxation, health and Social Security benefits put the government right in the middle. In light of this, I believe that the government issued marriage licenses should all be called civil unions. Let the clergy confer the title of marriage on a couple.

As a legal contract, if I have attained the age of consent and can enter into a marriage contract, and I wish to do so with someone who has also attained the age of consent but is of the same sex (I don't), then under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause I should be allowed to do so. Denying our right to wed is discrimination because someone does not like the choice. Opponents are not willing to concede this point. They say that I have a right to marry a woman, and a woman has a right to marry a man. They do not feel that my not having the same right to marry a man that a woman possesses violates equal protection.

The first argument that usually comes out is that traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've read parts of the Bible and have found that many times marriage is between a man and more than one woman. When this is pointed out, I've been told that in this country it has always been this way, and if I am going to allow same sex marriage I must allow polygamy. This is demonstrably false. I can define in law that a person can only be legally married to one person at a time without violating equal protection. Under these circumstances, if someone gets married to several people, a la "Big Love" on HBO, the government takes no position on the multiple religious ceremonies, but only 1 of these marriages carries the legal benefits.

Another argument that is often presented is that if we allow same sex marriage than if someone wants to marry a box turtle they can marry a box turtle. I don't recall who in Congress actually made the box turtle reference, it has been made similarly with dogs and horses. J.D. Hayworth mentioned the horse marriage in a segment with Rachel Maddow. What is it with Republicans and bestiality? This argument, like a sieve, fails to hold water. Under our laws, animals cannot consent to enter into contracts. Therefore, they cannot get married.

There has only been one situation that I have agreed a marriage should not be allowed is one in which an adult marries a minor with the parents' consent. That is legal in many states and it shouldn't be. Is that where opponents of same sex marriage want to make their last stand? We cannot allow adults of the same sex to marry because that would mean we have to legalize the marriage of a minor with parental consent which is already legal anyway?

Does this make any sense?

Cinderella America

There is a scene in the movie "Cinderella Man" where James J. Braddock walks into the relief agency and returns money that he received when his family was struggling. This is what comes to mind when I think of America. I like to believe in the best of people.

Republicans have blocked an extension of unemployment benefits several times this year. They say that it creates a disincentive to work. These people who crow about American Exceptionalism are so cynical and petty that they believe Americans are lazy and would rather collect a check for doing nothing than work. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't believe that most people are like that.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

The Republicans are in high dudgeon these days. Actually, they only have one gear when it comes to dudgeon, and they seem to be perpetually in it. The latest outrage is the NAACP's resolution calling on the Tea Party to denounce the fringe members who engage in racist rhetoric, or carry racially themed signs or posters at their rallies. Republicans are responding to this resolution in 2 ways. First, they are condemning the NAACP for calling the Tea Party racists, which they did not actually do. Second, they are calling out the NAACP as hypocrites for not condemning the New Black Panther Party for their racist rhetoric

I don't think it would cause controversy for me to say that 2 wrongs do not make a right. However, Republicans are defending a failure to denounce racism by charging the NAACP with a failure to denounce racism. They may be accurate with the charge, but it is no defense. Wrong is wrong. Politicians on both sides of the aisle often believe that they are above the law. That's fine, it is what they do. But when people defend acts that they deplore by saying the other side does it, too, I am offended by that. As Bill Maher might say, we need a new rule: If you are unwilling to denounce an offense committed that benefits you, you are Constitutionally barred from expressing outrage about the same offense committed by your political rival.

My Basic Political Philosophy

You are not supposed to argue politics or religion at a bar. Unfortunately, many people do, and after a few pints it can get ugly. I have seen and heard a number of call-in shows make their debuts, and many callers ask questions specifically trying to ascertain the host's politics. I'm not going to wait for the Christmas rush and state that I am a liberal.

If you are conservative, feel free to call me a progressive, socialist, or any other perceived pejorative du jour. The funny thing is, I used to think of myself as a moderate- a real middle of the road person. I'm even a middle child. I thought that liberal folly was believing that a problem could be solved by throwing more money at it. I was pro death penalty, and I believed that there should be restrictions on late-term abortions.

However, we live in an age where there are no moderates. The recently passed healthcare bill is more conservative than one proposed by President Nixon, yet it is called Socialism. Senator McCain with a 97% rating by conservative political groups was derided by party members as a liberal and a RINO until he became the party's Presidential nominee. Senator Graham is now getting flack from tea partiers for the sin of working with Democrats to craft an energy bill.

That's enough food for thought for now- my glass is empty- literally.

An introduction

Hello World!

As this is my first post, I thought I should introduce myself, and say what you can expect by visiting. This site is devoted to the political junkie in me. The pint that I get is the one at the local pub. It is also a play on the arrogant assertion that I get the point; a point which I will share with you, should you indulge me.

My next post will begin detailing my political philosophy, and we can start arguing over both pints and points from there.