Democracy Corps runs a survey and finds that they are shocked at the results.

So what was the survey, you ask? Democracy Corp ran a survey asking Americans how they felt about American leadership with regard to National Security and world respect for the identity of the United States of America. What they found is that the majority of Americans feel that the world sees us worse today as compared to two years ago and that Republicans are awarded higher credit for National Security than both Obama and Democrats in Congress.

The devil is in the details. 51% of Americans surveyed said that “American standing” has dropped during the first 13 months of President Obama's administration. That is compared to 41% of Americans who say the opposite.

So who is Democracy Corps and are they promoting a particular political agenda? Wait for it.

According to the Washington Times reporting on the survey results, 50% of likely voters feel that Republicans would likely do a better job of providing National Security. Only 33% favored Democrats in the pole.

Nearly one year ago (May of 2009) just after the Presidential transition, the same poll showed that the American people felt Democrats were equally as capable as Republicans with regard to national defense. When asking questions like “Keeping American Safe” or “Ensuring a strong military” or “Making America Safer from nuclear threats” Democrats now trail Republicans at 13%, 31% and 11% respectively.

So now, you are thinking that numbers can be made to look favorable to whomever is pimping them, right? I would agree with you. What is interesting is that Democracy Corps was founded in 1999 as the result of a few people feeling outraged at the political partisanship of Congress when they impeached President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Democracy Corp rallied the proverbial troops of voters when their preferred candidate, Al Gore, didn't get elected the next President of the United States. Said another way, this group isn't about to win any political conservatism awards.

And now they are reporting that America is disappointed in the Presidency of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats. Why would that be? Well, it appears that today, the Democracy Corps is dedicated to what they would call “making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people.” They clearly take issue with the fact that the government doesn't appear to be listening to the people.

All of the poll on health care demonstrate the same exact outcome. The trend as it were, exclaims loudly that the American public don't feel the current administration nor Congress is listening, and they are being vocal.

There is plenty of advice the group gives to Democrats in Congress and the White House. They label that advise “Analysis.” But regardless of their politically aligned advice, the bottom line is: American's feel that we are less safe and the world has a lower opinion of America now than it did the day this administration took over Washington, DC.

Feel free to read more straight from the horses mouth:

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2010/03/the-politics-of-national-security-a-wake-up-call/?section=Analysis

My First Comic In 20 Years!

I have truly been slacking. When I was a kid I used to draw all of the time. And while I do creative artistic work with regularity, i don't really spend any time drawing comics, at least not to any level of completion.

Well tonight as I was headed home I had this thought that I needed to put down on paper. A couple hours later after digitally coloring it and adding captions, here it is! (Clicking the comic will open a larger version)




Feel free to leave me your thoughts in the form of comments!

Fox News vs. The White House

Since mid-presidential election of 2008 I have heard plenty of debate about how Fox News is too conservatively-biased resulting in a not-so-"fair and balanced" presentation or how the White House shouldn't be afraid of the one news organization willing to ask the tough questions. No matter the perspective, it isn't new for a president to have a particular known view about a news outlet. What is interesting is that NPR is weighing in by asking people to voice their opinion in a poll asking the public who they are more likely to side with.

Before I show you the snapshot, two items worth mentioning:

First, it isn't a one-sided battle with Fox News picking on the silent suffering Obama Administration. The White House Communications Director recently said "let's not pretend they are a news network the way CNN is" when referring to Fox News. There are many regular news shows on Fox News, and they aren't all The O'Reilly Factor or The Glen Beck Show. I am certain we could list at least two non-conservative news commentary programs to compete.

Secondly, statistics might prove that the White House Communications Director is simply showing political bias and demonstrating he is out of touch with America when claiming Fox News isn't a real news network. The numbers show that Fox News trumps all other news networks when you consider basic viewership. In fact Fox News typically has as many viewers in a day as all of the other news networks combined (Daily: Fox News = 1,375,000 as compared to 1,392,000 = CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and HLN combined; at primetime, Fox News beats all other news networks combined by over 100,000 viewers.)

So, you might already be guessing where the results of this NPR poll are headed (as of 10am October 21st, 2009):

At the bottom of the poll there is disclaimer information about how the poll is not scientific and an appeal for more people to more regularly get involved in these web conversations. I think, even though the poll is not scientific, it is interesting that 2/3rds of the NPR voting public would side with Fox News rather than the White House. NPR has never been famous for attracting a conservative audience so I wonder what this poll really reflects about this little war between the Obama Administration and Fox News?

The Many Faces Of Health Care Reform

I can't keep up these days... and I am really trying. But the winds at the White House are changing so fast. or maybe they are not and it is just a tactic, I don't know. I hate to think the worst but when something totally stumps you, you have to look at the possible alternatives.

The big debate right now on Health Care Reform is "the public option" meaning government would provide a competitive alternative to current insurance plans. Many people fear that because the government will play the role of both "health care insurance company" as well as "health care insurance rules judge" that they will always beat out any competition. This will result in the government taking over health care both in terms of (1) health insurance and (2) health insurance regulation, but also in providing health care (because of new regulations on Doctors and the fact that they would then be paid by the government.)

The other side of the debate has everything to do with providing health care for uninsured people. Forget the fact that not everyone wants to buy insurance and that senior citizens would be forced into the government program (if they don't spend their money on a government-approved alternative.) The fact is that the other side of the debate is concerned with providing health care insurance to the currently uninsured. Whether they understand how this gets paid for or if millions of Americans flooding into that new solution creates health care rationing, just about anyone agrees with the altruistic goal of helping people. That isn't the debate. The problem is in the "how."

So, this blog post is not about the details of the plan. This post is about the mixed messages coming from the bills largest proponent, the President.

Over the weekend the Washington Times (and a number of other news groups) wrote that the White House communicated President Obama was not married to passing a Health Care Reform bill that contained a "public option." Since that time other Democrats went on the record saying that the Public Option didn't have enough Democrat support in the Congress to pass the reform bill and that we should move on to focus on "reform" and stop flogging that dead horse. The White House even did a little more face-saving by saying, ...We have been saying this for about two months now. Now, I thought I was paying attention and I don't recall them ever saying they were fine with supporting a bill that didn't include the "public option."

Next in the time line comes a letter from the Congressional Democrats sent to Obama asking, "What the? No Public Option?" This only just happened and was likely the result of so many Democrats hitting the road to pimp Health Care Reform including the public option and taking a beating in public forums.

Now, in today's Washington Times President Obama is said to be back in vocal support of the Public Option. The source: his letter back to Congressional Democrats. Obama basically writes back and says, wait a sec... I still want a public option and nothing has changed.

So how do we take this? Here are my alternative explanations for this kind of double-talk:

Semantical Accuracy: If you look at both sides of what President Obama is saying at the same time, then he is communicating... I want the public option just like you, Liberals, but I am not married to it and would sign health care reform bill into law without it, like you, Conservatives.

Liberal Bias: If you look at this as a liberal, then you think that the President saying he is fine without it but really wants it simply means that he wants people to cool their jets in opposition to it, while he gives a wink to the liberal folks and says, ...hey, keep pushing for it because we really still want it. At the same time liberal folks who have stuck their necks out and said stuff like health reform without a Public Option is a waste of time (Nanci Pelosi) are worried that Obama might be simply pandering to them if he is really willing to sign a Health Care Reform bill into law without it.

Conservative Bias: If you have your conservative hat on then while you thought that the President's wavering commitment to the Public Option felt like a move in the right direction, now you simply wonder if he was pandering to conservatives while still sending support to the senators who are hitting the road pimping the Public Option. The conservative mind feels worried that the President is pandering at best and lying at the worst if he isn't really willing to sign a bill into law without the Public Option.

At this point the double-talk only serves up one outcome for those who are paying attension: a loss of trust for somebody. If you are a liberal and you want him to simply be pandering to the conservatives but in the end he signs a bill into law that doesn't include the public option, well, then you lose trust. If you are conservative and he refuses to sign a bill without the public option, then he is a liar to you, and you lose trust. Someone loses trust as a result of this experiment in words.

There is one other reaction at this point that I can think of and it goes like this...

Fan-boy: The substance of the President's words matter less that your ability to spin them into unwavering support. One week ago you were championing along with the President for Health Care Reform that included the Public Option and this week (for at least a moment) you were celebrating the seemingly bi-partisan move to not be married to a bill that must contain the Public Option.

The problem with fan-boy is that the only guiding value in that scenario is unwavering support for the icon that is the President. If you were a proponent of the Public Option and looked at the details then you would likely have a very difficult time cooling your jets and suddenly be fine with not including it. If you opposed the bill then you understood the ideological, social and financial difference that the Public Option made and were not about to simply start endorsing it. If none of that mattered to you, then I have a difficult time imagining that you were paying attention, because one way or the other a decision in this category would end up shaping the lives of Americans. So the details matter.

White House FY 2010 Budget Has A New Name

The Fiscal Year 2010 Budget from the White House is now being renamed by Obama's Treasure Secretary. While it was once described as “A New Era of Responsibility” it has now been labeled “an exploding budget deficit.” And do you think that the answer should be to tame that budget by cutting back programs that we cannot afford, the same tactic that all Americans employ when faced with a financial short come? No. We are being told that the answer could be a tax-hike for the Middle Class.

One of the latest additions to an already run-amuck budget: H.R. 3200. The H.R. 3200 bill, dubbed “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009,” seems anything but affordable. At the minimum it promises to add $1 trillion do our national debt and since President Obama doesn't want to appear irresponsible, rather than simply tack that onto our national debt (nobody wants that) his White House staff are leaving the door open to ask the Middle Class to foot the bill. When National Economic Council Director Larry Summers was asked if Obama would tax the Middle Class rather than keep his campaign word when he repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Summers said "There is a lot that can happen over time... it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."

Now, I know a number of Americans who would like to stick it to the high priced insurance companies and find a way to bring down the cost of health care. The trouble is that H.R. 3200 is so far reaching that it funds programs, makes decisions and eliminates choices faster than it brings in alternatives or a savings. To answer your question in advance, no I have not read the entire bill consisting of more than a thousand pages. But I have struggled through the first 50 pages, and it is painful. For the government to create an affordable competitive plan they first have to take over the game. In fact, for them to compete they have to pretty well fix the game. To bring to light a comparison, imagine the following scenario:

Imagine that the U.S. Government wanted to make buying cars more affordable. Well, according to this plan, first it needs a horse in the race. So it goes and buys a car company (hmmm... check that off the list.) But owning a car company doesn't make cars more affordable. So what does it have to do? Well, it needs to control the features on the car, “optimize” them to keep the costs down. How does it do this? By creating a committee that decides who (which Americans) get what features. That is the first part of the equation: keeping costs down. But how does it make it competitive? Well, private car companies could just offer nice features at a reasonable cost and keep the U.S. own car company out of the game, right? We all win then, right? Well, no. You see the U.S. also needs to define what it means to be competitive. How do they do that? Well, they allow existing car companies to maintain their existing cars for the next four years, at which point all non-government-owned car companies now have to play by the new rules as defined by the government. Literally all of the cars older than four years old would have to come off the road at which point everyone would have to get into a car that now played by the governments new rules. In other words, if you are happy with your car, feel free to keep it... well, for the next few years, at which point all cars will have to look like the government cars. Hmmm? And the committee keeps deciding whose car gets what features? You guessed it.

Now we do the math! If you are in the Middle Class then you are currently paying a good sum of money for your health care. Next, imagine that H.R. 3200 gets passed. Now you are paying for your private health care and at the same time paying for other peoples health care because your taxes just got hiked up. I thought this was supposed to be cheaper... or “affordable?” Apparently, it is only affordable if you aren't paying taxes at all. But wait for it! You might anyway. Since Joe Biden was voted into the White House as the Vice President he has headed a task-force to define WHO the Middle-Class really is. So, for all you know even if you make less than $50,000 per year (currently the cut-off for the Middle Class), soon you might fit into the definition of Middle-Class. At what point does this plan become affordable?

Well, if you are anything like me, you are seeing a pattern here. The American public was first duped when Obama said he wouldn't raise your taxes. During the election he defied John McCain when he confidently declared to America that he could pull off his budget plans without raising taxes. He named his first fiscal budget “An Era of Responsibility” but we all now know that it is “an exploding budget deficit” at the admission of his own Treasury Secretary. I am waiting for the same Americans who voted President Obama into office to finally realize that the “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009” is both not affordable and oxymoronically eliminates “choice” by simply becoming the gatekeeper for the definition of what our “choices” will eventually be.

As a sidenote to this health care debate: research the history on Medicare and Medicaid. These struggling programs are constantly in jeopardy due to the way they exist and are managed by Congress. While you are at it understand that H.R. 3200 is modeled after elements of both of those programs as well as the Social Security system all of which have been bailed out over the years due to the unsustainable fiscal reality of those programs. Why are we sitting on our hands imagining that Congress is suddenly able go from mismanaging those three programs and yet we are cool with them taking on something so much larger and further reaching!?

CALL, EMAIL or WRITE YOUR CONGRESS-PERSON and tell them NOT TO SUPPORT H.R. 3200. If ever a public health care plan was a good idea, this is not that plan (and Congress knows it... now you need to tell them you know it too!)

F-22, the President, and Spending Cuts

There has recently been a bit of press about how President Obama is going toe-to-toe with Congress declaring that he wants to see spending cuts! Specifically, he says that he will not sign any bill that attempts to fund the F-22 aircraft project. Now, I thought that the President was a spend-thrift? Does this spending cut action prove me wrong? Let's take a look at the details.

Well, it is true that President Obama has said the program needs to be cut and that he won't sign any bill that funds the program. It sure feels like he is wanting to cut some pork, right!?

The bill the President is referring to is a $636 billion bill coming out of Congress. Within that bill you can see the f-22 project getting funding. The price tag for the f-22 in this bill: $369 million. Our heads start to spin... millions, billions! These are numbers we never have to deal with in our everyday lives. Let's put these numbers into perspective. The President is saying that he refuses to sign a bill that funds a project worth about 1/20th of 1% of the entire bill. Let me type that again... one twentieth of one percent of the entire bill.

Does this mean that the President is a man of principle? That might seem like a plausible guess. It isn't about how much of the bill it equals, but based on the primciple of not wanting to approve wasteful bork barrel spending, he refuses to sign a bill because he objects to a line-item worth 1/20th of 1% of the bill's total worth.

Here is the problem with that. Pork barrel spending watchdogs claim that the bill contains over 1,000 porkbarrel items in it. The f-22 project is maybe one of those one-thousand items!

Ok, there goes the case for "principle" out the window. Why then is this such a big deal? Well, to you and I who will never see $369 million in our lifetimes, it IS a big deal. But in reality it is a sham of a deal, a token if you will, of what might be wrong in this situation.

If the Presidents gets his fractional cut hacked out of the bill then it will likely be heralded as a "victory for the President" and will be remembered as his move to uphold his promise to get the pork out of Congress. But now, you and I both know, this is a dog and pony show.

This is like the President allowing Congress to go into all of our wallets and at the last minute putting on a loud show, "Wait just a minute! How DARE YOU CONGRESS. Give that man back his empty wallet! How DARE YOU take his wallet from him! You can take all the cash you want from the wallet but LEAVE THE MAN HIS WALLET FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!"

If you want to see the pork out of Congress, well... HEY I am with you. But this is a show and not principle. And if you are still thinking this is a pricipled move because the President really just wants to reduce military spending, well, you have another think coming! If they pull the f-22 out of the bill he said he would sign it: The remaining $636 billion of the bill is all funding programs at the Pentagon... think again!

What Can We Learn from Obama’s Thoughts About His Respected Friends Arrest

Here is how I would like to do this. Let’s look at The Good, the Assumptions and The Outcomes.

The Good

Obama can be a compassionate and committed friend. He knew his friend as well as his friend’s reputation and came to his friend’s defense based on what he (thought he) knew. We could always hope for such a friend in our own personal corner of life.

Obama is an educated man and reflects on other external information to review situations in a larger context. A couple of times now a number of radio talk shows from NPR to independent national commercial radio programs have attached themselves to Obama’s reflections on studies that state the idea that Black and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by the police, inferring that this is such a case.

Obama admitted that he knew little about the details of the case. He prefaced everything he said with that statement. I would go so far as to say that it seems to qualify any following remarks in that context.

The Assumptions

Obama said what he heard.

He claimed to have heard that his friend was inevitable inside his home having presented his ID to the police officer who eventually arrested him.

He also stated the assumption that the Boston Police department acted “stupidly.”

The Outcomes

Nothing is resolved yet. We know a few additional facts that we did not previously know. For example, we know, according to Reuters that the man was arrested outside his home, not in it. This simply demonstrates that Obama new less than he previously thought.

We know that Obama jumped to some conclusions about the cause of the arrest, that being racially motivated. According to the admitting of Obama his bias was motivated by those external sources of information that he allowed to influence his line of thinking. Said another way, while he might be right about the event being racially motivated, he could easily as well be wrong and his assumption simply demonstrates that he is willing to jump to certain conclusions based on his bias in the absence of fact.

Before we jump on him for that, I will admit that I do this as well from time to time within my conservative bias. The point is, just as a judge must separate themselves from their bias and review facts in the light of president judgments and the constitution, can Obama successfully do the same in his role as President? Rather than allowing his bias to generate strawmen for the purpose of knocking them down, can he, as President, refrain from building a case for bias and instead demonstrate being a reasonable person willing to wait for the facts? I heard his story of what he thought had transpired. I also agreed with his response to that story. At the same time I also, like many others felt like I was willing to wait for the facts. I didn’t want to jump in and say, “I think that cop was right,” or “Man, that poor respected citizen abused by that policeman.”

Obama could have said, “If what I have heard is the whole story and ends up being true, well, then I think that that police officer acted stupidly.” Moreover, if it were racially motivated I might have used more severe and critical language than simply calling it “stupid.”

But that isn’t what Obama did. Instead he made assumptions and literally claimed the entire police force acted “stupidly.” I am far less a believer that such a statement will come close to being true in this case. Maybe the cop individually acted stupidly, but that leap was clearly irresponsible. I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon read about a detraction on that point; either detraction or a White House redefining of “what the President meant” by that, which is an excuse rather than an apology.

But Obama said he didn’t know much, didn’t he? Well, yes he did. And yet he made the declarative statements he made. In other words, he knew he didn’t know enough, and at that level of knowledge he willingly rendered a biased judgment. I know plenty of people who know the limit of their knowledge and aren’t willing to render such a judgment.

Is this a big deal?

Well in the scope of this situation, I don’t think it is as big a deal as people are making it out to be. It does however raise questions about how Obama comes to conclusions about certain facts or even decisions without the availability of facts.

We already know that Obama isn’t a big reader, so how much insight does the man demand before he is ready to render a decision on big stuff like… the economy, healthcare plan details, local education funding in the multi-billion dollars with unprecedented new federal oversight, cap-and-trade policy, new U.N. Treaties that give jurisdiction over local government at an international level, etc?

My assumptive guess, based on this demonstration of his response in-kind… he doesn’t require nearly as much insight into these scenarios as we previously might have imagined.

Another $18 million down the drain

Recently I have read stories where we are being told that the economy is once again sound, but not quite back to where we would really like to see it. In other words, “Everybody relax, but not too much.” And why should we relax but not too much? Mostly because there is more fund raising to do. Current the Congressional Budget Office took a look at the recent government plans for health care and announced that it will now add yet another $1 trillion to our national deficit. This is on top of the few other trillions of dollars scheduled to be added onto the deficit since the conclusion of the 2008 election. It was at this time that now in an unprecedented reach-out to influence the Congressional Budget Office, the White House has invited the leadership of the CBO over for a private meeting. Hmmmm? If I am a betting man I would guess that the meeting might have to do with the unfavorable review of the financial outlook of the plan.

Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.

And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?

Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov

This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.

And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.

Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com

Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!

And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?

Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?

If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.

Supreme Court Criteria, Sonia Sotomayor

Is there a difference between prejudice (pre-judgment) and racism (pre-judgment with regard to race-based stereotypes)? I think there is. Many people can be legally prejudiced against a certain perspective without it making them into a racist. This happens as a result of various life experiences. Being a racist might have nothing to do with experience but rather indoctrination into a set of perspectives. Am I splitting hairs? Maybe.

In the press right now is the possibility of seating a Supreme Court justice who has made a few statements that could quite possibly be found somewhere between legally prejudiced and possibly racist. I will go out of my way and expose myself as someone who doesn’t think this potential S.C. justice is a racist. Let’s quickly examine this.

Here is the context of what has been asked that created the questionable response:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

The full context of the speech can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

So was she contextual legally prejudiced in the scenario she was speaking to, is she a racist or none of the above?

Well, I don’t believe she is being a racist. She is basically saying that she feels that perspective is a byproduct of life and in certain circumstances having a particular perspective will offer greater insight for the purpose of rendering better decisions. In fact, some might ask the question, shouldn’t we want diverse experience within the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t having diverse experiences benefit the court’s decisions?

In the legal system this is unfortunately the wrong question, and Obama being a lawyer won’t likely be promoting this perspective (unless he is hoping to persuade the approval of Congress by creating public pressure to do so.) If it were the right question then she gave the exact wrong answer.

Our judges should be experienced in parsing the law, not in empathizing with the experience of others. If we are looking for criteria for seating people on the Supreme Court then we are looking for people who have the strength to measure out legal judgments that value our laws more than a biased perspective outweighing our understanding of those laws. Perspective should be wrought from having an ability to identify truth, justice, and compliance based on facts with regard to the law and not based on who makes the more compelling emotive argument or worse yet, who is willing to render a “better judgment” simply by their historical or stereotypical vantage point.

Now, imagine the court system!

Let’s imagine you were going to court and the evidence is in your favor. But imagine the prosecutor is amazing at weaving a very relationally emotive message that connects with a jury in such a way as to help bring convictions. You would want lawyers defending you that could dismantle emotive arguments and focus on the facts and the law. Only in the case where the evidence didn’t support you, would you want a jury emoting in your favor. This is why jury selection is so tedious a process. Juries aren’t typically selected because they are diverse (diversity can't be confused with being "representative"... there is a big difference.) They are selected because they have the capacity to understand the issues and do not carry any pre-judgment. If the defense or prosecutor can identify legal pre-judgment (prejudice) then you can be removed from the jury.

Again, if the case is a shaky one then the lawyer might try to find jury members who could be emotionally manipulated by their perspective and experience.

The same is even more true of judges. If prejudice or racism is in question then naturally the people (Congress) who select the grandest “jury” (the Supreme Court) will and should be allowed to ask refining questions. Moreover, judges are not considered "peers" like a jury is considered "peers" to the defendant. This means that "peer" criteria is flat out of the equation for judges. Electing judges on such criteria reduces S.C. justice criteria to political criteria and works against the very nature of the system that has been established.

I say, ask a few more questions and then move on. I don't think she is a racist. She might be biases based on legal pre-judgment and then should be disqualified (even at a more local level.) I can't believe we are suddenly out of good candidate who are both qualified and untainted.

I encourage you to keep watching this case.

Based on the above here is my short of list of unacceptable explanations (if they are offered):

• The court needs my diverse perspective.
  
• Sure, I think that my demographic stereotype is uniquely special. Here are a few more demographic stereotypes that are now also special and should make me seem less like a racist.
  
• I am not a racist.
  

Even if all of these items were true (well, except the second one) none of them would bring us any closer to gaining an understanding of better Supreme Court justice selection criteria in the context of the aforementioned goofy statements we already know about.

Update:

It is almost entirely true now.

Politico is reporting that some Dems in Congress are pressing for an unprecedentedly quick confirmation of Sotomayor while others are saying, "There is no need to be in a rush."

At the same time Sotomayor is saying that she also supports her friends counterargument with regard to white male stereotypes (i.e. she said that in the speech she made reference to the fact that white male Supreme Court justices were a part of most of the larger civil rights laws of the previous century, but she still gives the majority credit to female lawyers.) This is just her justifying her stereotype by validating another friends stereotype.
(That is like my above second point of unwelcome excuses.)

Someone recently reminded me that if what she said had been spoken by a white person, it would surely be called racist. Let's see how that looks:

I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

You decide if the above statement would be called racist or prejudice. Feel free to leave a response here.

UPDATED AGAIN:

Ends up that 60% of Sotomayors decisions were overturned by a higher court. Forgetting about stereotypes based on race and gender, that means that the legal system thinks that this particular (specific) Latina woman does not "more often than not reach a better conclusion"... than her peers. So fundamentally her words are at best a sideshow to the fact that she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Now, mind you, she is an appeals judge. This means that she doesn't have to sit through long presented cases and come to a decision. She only has to look at the appeal criteria. And so, a lower court would say, "No, you can't," and she would review that and say, "Yes, you can," which would be appealed to a higher court in which six out of every ten appeal decisions would then be overturned by saying, "Ah, no, you can't" and inevitably that would be the outcome. So, fundamentally that might be a measure of poor "judgement."

The Cap And Trade Market Is The New Wallstreet

The word on the street is that the Carbon Pollution (still only a theory and disproved more and more everyday by observed non-anomilic science) “Cap and Trade” is poised to make certain folks into quick billionaires. GE is one of those companies. There are many others. Here is how this will work.

For some time now a number of companies organized as a group called “USCAP” have teamed up to recommend how cap and trade works. The gist is, based on recommended levels for carbon pollution, companies in the US would be awarded credits. If you are beating the cap then you get credits and if you are exceeding the cap then you need to go out and buy credits due to your credit deficit. Over the course of the next 50 years those credits would be progressively reduced lower carbon pollution numbers (wait for it.) Here is the problem.

1. Carbon pollution is not science nor are the standards. They are manufactured "Caps" (I will explain how these Caps came to be in the next point.)
   
2. The USCAP group is recommending standards that stack the deck in their favor. If the government adopts their recommendation, then since those companies have a head start on adhering to the standard they would be awarded an inequitable number of credits.

As a result many other companies would have to go to them to buy credits. And companies like GE are then awarded in the billions of dollars. Years later after politicians are willing to agree with the current science debunking AGW and proving we are on a new cooling trend, rather than returning all of our money they will only claim we've now solved AGW at a globally and ecologically infeasible speed and now we can stop doing Cap and Trade and energy taxes... wait a minute, WHO AM I KIDDING?

If the government can crank up personal energy taxes, why would they EVER STOP? And if companies can OWN the Cap and Trade system before it even gets going, how hard will they lobby Congress to keep that cashcow alive long after Anthropogenic Global Warming pseudo-science is debunked publicly?

Well, the answer is, they won't stop. This is a new industry they are creating. And we are not talking about companies trading billions based on carbon credit trading alone. Here is where you are I come in.

Carbon Cap and Trade laws would very quickly affect the average American household at the rate of over $3,000 per year. This is already all over the news based on the plan being proposed. If you think you have a tight budget now, imagine finding another $3,000 per year to handle trickle down Cap and Trade economics. If you are single with a roommate renting a home, well then it will only be $1,500+ for you, but I am sure you are now doing the math. As energy costs go up, also due specifically to energy taxes, it is being estimated that people will retire older electronic devices and from who will they purchase those new devices? Two letters: G.E.

This also affects companies and communities. G.E. is not only a major participant in crafting the Cap and Trade recommendations to the US Government but it is the largest manufacturer of the purported consumer AND company AND community level “solutions”. Where will people buy windmills from? New generator? Updated "low polution" arcraft engines? G.E. And this is only one company in the mix.

Let's talk about oil. Since the beginning of AGW theories ExxonMobil has been quit public about disputing the science behind the claims. And while they have not publicly changed their position, they are surprisingly getting involved in USCAP to help shape those policies before they become laws. So they aren't debating the fact that they don't believe in AGW anymore today than they did yesterday. They are only reading the writing on the wall and grabbing a seat at the big table so they can be one of the key families in the new enviro-mafia.

So (like usual) let’s do the math:

Cap and Trade doesn’t solve any problems, it creates a new trade market.

Moreover it creates or IMPLEMENTS a scheduled problem for average Americans to which that same group “creating” the problem will then be the very group providing the solution. The last time I heard a storyline like this I think I was watching the movie “The Godfather.” I am just starting to really understand those funny new “Tea Parties” in the news these days. You know? Those blips in the news where the media tells you that a few people got together to complain about taxes? Well, historically, people got pretty pissed because England wanted to get more money out of the colonies, so while England controlled the tea being exported to the colonies, they saw an opportunity in controlling the taxes associated with them. To be fair, Cap and Trade is just a new Tea Tax. But in this case it isn't tea they are taxing, it is carbon - the most prevelant element in the known universe. Said another way, if America could tax you for breathing, comparitively they couldn't raise as much funding as the AGW carbon "polution" taxation market will be able to do.

So, am I nuts? Where do I get the guts to call Cap and Trade a planned ploy to create a problem and then pimp the only solution? Well, just follow the story for yourself…

OK, be a good American and read these two articles:

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em: Industry owns Cap and Trade rather than really being about Green Legislation

…and…

Cap and Trade Slumlords: If going green is so altruistic, how did Al Gore go from a net worth of $2 million at the end of his vice presidency to over $100 million in only eight years due to the new green market?

...and if you prefer to watch video instead then check out...

Al Gore Buys Offsets (Good Conservationist?)

The winner in the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate is the conservationist lifestyle (but I am a little more worried about the losers than the winners.)

A poll by the New York Times about fuel taxes implies that Americans are somewhat welcoming to the idea of higher fuel taxes if (and a mostly BIG "if") those dollars go directly to investment in sustainable reasonable fuel alternatives. In other words, the population is willing to consume less and pay more in hopes that they will dodge the doom of a global meltdown. This reminds me of press that seemed to come out at about the time the IPCC and another gentleman won the Nobel prize for their AGW movie and research.

In fact, recall when the IPCC co-won the Nobel prize and the UN that supported it started to more vocally promote carbon taxes as the key solutions, other long time conservationists starting to jump ship from the "global warming" momentum. To date they treat anthropogenic global warming (AGW) like the noisy slightly slow cousin who keeps stirring up the right interest, just not quite in the right direction. I am going to agree with that. I love the idea of promoting conservation through responsible moderation. I however hate it that AGW gets to run wild in the streets dumping its pseudo-science everywhere, fearing-mongering the population into redistribution of wealth through taxation. It's a fundraiser powered by fear that doesn't result in fixing anything.

Well, the first benefactor of these get-financial-redistribution-quick schemes is none other than the individual who was the co-winner of that Nobel Prize, Al Gore.

Some of you might recall that soon after the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out it was revealed that Al Gore's Tennesee home consumes 20 times the power as compared to the average American home. His response... I (Al Gore) invest in carbon offsets.

Now regardless of what you are I think about carbon offsets, maybe that is still admirable. At best, carbon offsets are ensuring that while you personally waste, you are paying to ensure that someone else doesn't (or rather bears the burden of maximizing their conservation so you don't have to.) At worst, ideologically, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade and buying offsets equals giving people the right to buy an increase in pollution. ie. "I am beating up the planet, but at the same time I am making donations into the DON'T BEAT UP THE PLANET fund, so we're good, right?"

I wish this story ended there! Recently, it has come to my attention that Al Gore actually buys his offsets from General Investment Management. The problem: Al Gore co-founded General Investment Management (GIM)!

So, do the math. His movie, his prize, his company, and if the laws and taxes are all successful, then his profits!? So his offsets are really an investment in an offset resource company that will make him more money?

For one, you have to admit that this is questionable at best. At worst, he is fear-mongering for cash! And so all of the "settled science" claims, his unwillingness to debate with reputable scientists who would like to discuss the science behind AGW just simply buy time as our government is swindled into forcing American companies to buy his GIM company services because we got into bed with the UN to redistribute wealth across the planet.

The most horrible part of all of that: none of it stops or slows down the "big problem" that is carbon emitions (remembering that just about everything on this planet is carbon-based ... they are setting up a tax plan for the most abundant element in the known universe). Why are we pursuing it? Good question.

But regardless, people intuitively know the right answer to this wrong question. The answer is personal responsibility to own a more conservationist lifestyle. There is no good reason to waste resources or over consume (step one should be changing the advertising monster that roams the planet psychologically demanding that we replace our perfectly good funiture and kitchen appliances with more stylish ones, just because) and so while people are still mostly confused about the science and reality of AGW, they are really hoping for answers that lead to Christian values like "intentional awareness of moderation." The funny thing about that NYTimes poll on rising fuel costs: less than half of the people who said they would be fine with rising fuel costs if it would help said they would continue to be OK with it if the revenue didn't reall help better the situation.

I am hopeful that the world pays attention and learns moderation and reasonable conservative living. I am however afraid that it might be at the expense of allowing a myth to continue and worse yet promote a secondary agenda at the expense of the planet. If you think that the myth is mostly harmless, read this review that anticipates something more like global bankruptcy if we follow through with this and other UN-based redistribution of wealth initiatives.

A few last videos to review:

Living On Credit Cards

Dear Friend,

For some time now my budget has been busted. I have been spending way more than I can afford or even have. And right now I feel so sad because the people around me are also suffering financially. So here is what I have decided to do. I have asked all of my friends to pool as much of their disposable income with me as they can.

Some can afford a little and some can afford more. Many are not giving at all. I am doing my best to lay on thick the guilt trip to those friends who are doing well (or at least better than me.) The tact I have taken is to make them feel bad for being a success when people around them are not. The trick is that I say this fairly loud and in the presence of people who aren't doing well. The people who are poorer than me even add to the angry feelings toward the folks that are doing well.

I mean, who do those wealthier people think they are after all? Why do they have money while others don't? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't even want to know. I just want to hear the sound of them opening their wallets.

Now, once I have created this pool of funds, I have decided to turn around and open a huge line of credit using those funds as collateral. Sure the interest rates are fairly high on this sort of fund, and I am having to borrow that money from people not in my neighborhood, but in the end, it feels soooooo good to hand out wads of cash to people. I mean, they need the money right? And I am giving it to them, right? How cool is that. By the way, I actually took the loan out in their name. So when the lender from the other neighborhood shows up to collect, well, let's just say that won't really be my problem.

It just feels good to help, well, to help right now. Right now is when we need it the most, right? I mean, sure, we are living on credit together, but as long as I keep handing out the cash, it seems to me that nobody is asking questions, you know? They just need the cash.

So what if in a while they figure out the cost of that cash? They need it now, no matter the cost. And I am willing to help, no matter the cost. Gosh, that makes it sound like I have values and like I am taking on the responsibility of that cost. I am not. My friends and neighbors are, but let's not get distracted by those details. Let's just be good neighbors and get out there and buy new microwave ovens and locally manufactured automobiles and homes.

Oh man, take the wad of cash I handed you and follow my example by getting out a loan against your wad of cash. It is amazing how you will feel, well, right now! Maybe later you will realize it costs more, and more for a fairly long time (how long have we all been making payments on those crazy credit cards now?) but that is the magic of living on credit. Sure you are paying for it until you die, but man what a house, right? Well, what a house until the not so close neighbor takes it away when they come to collect their loan back. But I just can't think about that right now.

Right now I need to do something. And not a smart well thought out something, but a right now kind of something. A quick close your eyes and sign on the dotted line and ignor the fine print kind of something. We don't have TIME for talking about alternatives or shopping for better loans or whatever! Because, in the end, I know that I will feel good once they hand me that briefcase full of money. And I know I will feel better once I am handing that out to my neighbors! Who cares if it comes from China, right? Who cares if we are paying for it darned near the rest of our lives. We just need to focus on the cash, people! Focus! Over here! Not over there, over here! Seriously, stop looking at the fine print over there and just look at the cash in this briefcase over here.

Clearly this is the answer. Just ask all of my friends. When the chips are down and we are out of money, we just pull out the credit card and go have dinner and movie, right? I mean, what else could we do? Wait. Don't answer that. Focus!

- America, 2009

Updated:

Hi! America here! That was me back in 2009. Wow, I was not really thinking of my future. I quickly found myself buried under amazing debt and it wasn't until I stopped panicking and started talking to all of my friends that I started to get things under control. Unfortunately, here in 2030 life is getting a little better. I have paid down a lot of debt, but it started with getting my spending under control. My friends called it a budget and while it took a few false starts to learn how to live on one, I am now doing much better. Budgets really help you to prioritize, I tell you. For a while there I was calling things priorities that should never have been. After the spending was under more control and I was doing a lot better monitoring my ability to live under my budget, next I was able to refocus a bit. It is funny. Living under a budget helps you set realistic goals (and in my case my goals were all over the place.) By re-examining my purpose I was able to focus on my goals again, pay down my debt and focus on that purpose. It's funny what happens when you are in a tight spot and panic sets in. I really stirred myself up and got all freaked out. Thank goodness some of my friends were not all joining me in my panicky freakout sessions. I even accused those friends of not caring because they weren't freaking out with me (I was such a dork!) If they hadn't been patient and forgiving I might not have chilled out and took their advice. It is funny. I really knew what I needed to do all along. It is just too bad I made the decisions I did anyway (I guess the fact that I am still paying for it serves as a good reminder.) In the end, I can say that being in a tough spot was somewhat my fault and somewhat not, but my reaction is something I needed to own up to. And I continue to own up to it each day. Thank God for caring, patient, long suffering friends.

The Party Of No

It is time for a "political" reality check and they are accompanied by a few "scenarios" I would like to run past you. Give your most honest answer to the following questions:

1. Your kid just blew his allowance on candy, ate it all, got sick from it, and now has your checkbook. That kid is now saying that the only way to keep from getting more sick is to get a bit more of the "hair of the dog that bit him" and needs you to finance the next candy run. "Mom, I am sick! This is the recommendation from the person holding your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? I am sick and getting sicker... what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, your only option is Yes = more candy, or NO = be accused of doing nothing.)
   
   
2. Your neighbor drove home last night drunk... into the side of their house. Their entire home is now an uninhabitable portico. Give it a few more hours and the roof will cave in. The people in the next town think that the house looks horrible and that crappy drive-through home must be bringing down the value of your home. So here is the thing. Those folks from the next town over think that they should do something about this and so they grab your checkbook. The "thing" they do is tell you, "Hey, if we don't stabilize this house so that your reckless drunk-of-a-neighbor can keep living there then it won't bode well for you. This is the recommendation from the person holding your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? They are about to not be able to live in that house... what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, your only option is Yes = spend your hard earned money on refinancing your neighbors ability to continue living in that house regardless of their relationship to that property, how they got into it, or how they are taking care of business, or NO = be accused of doing nothing.)
   
   
3. You check your bank account only to find out that your spend-thrift spouse has slowly been bleeding dry your retirement on various pet projects that are all currently falling to pieces around you (sculptures in the back yard, half a hole dug for an in-ground pool, a few half-built guest houses designed for a couple visiting relatives now all semi-permanent homes to two dozen people you don't know demanding better room service.) You recall having "financial risk" conversations about this sort of thing previously, and you even wanted to set thresholds on those accounts but couldn't get your spouse to agree... now you know why. You confront your spouse, and that spouse simply yells at you saying "Well, your name is on the account too, YOU should have STOPPED ME! So really this is your fault! Moreover, we have half a pool here and people need their pillows fluffed, so I need you to go take out another mortgage on the house so we can finish this pool and buy bigger pillows! This is the recommendation from the person holding a copy of your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? This POOL AIN'T GONNA SWIM IN ITSELF HERE!!! ...what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, Yes = refinance your own home to save, stabilize and bring to fruition a number of projects that are full-on imploding in your own backyard, or No = be accused of doing nothing.)

My best guess is that even the most conservative or liberal individual can think of a dozen very reasonable alternatives to any of these crazy scenarios to make for a positive outcome. Being given no options where only agreeing makes you look reasonable and disagreeing makes you look like a jerk IS unreasonable. Did you enjoy being pigeonholed into simply agreeing with someone who was threatening to call you bad-names if you didn't? The fact is, it is tyranny to pretend like you are getting choices when you aren't.

When the Henry Ford was selling his Model T in the 1920s and was asked "What colors will it come in?" his reply was, "You can have any color you want, as long as that color is black." Well, this is the mantra of the Democrats in congress as well as our President at the moment. "You can have any change you want, as long as it's the change we are promoting," with the caveat, "and if you don't want our change, screw your alternatives, you are just the 'party of no' that's what you are."

If you are an American and you believe in democracy then you have to stand up to this tyrannical rediculum that is forcing their agenda without debate and calling anyone who opposes them bad-names, creating political commercials and smear campaigns to propagandize the masses! (and before you run out and blame Republicans for the defense-related political decisions of the post-9-11-era, go back and look at debates and voting records on those issues before your polarize your perspective. Things can change and should. But they should change because it is the change we want(sound familiar) and not because one group calls us names if we want to look at our options.)

Dem. Chris Dodd + Whitehouse = A.I.G. Bonuses

It's now formal. The man who is debated to be the largest political donation recipient from AIG and the chair of the Senate Banking Comittee, Chris Dodd is now changing his story from "when that language left the Senate, that I wrote, that language was not included" to "we wrote the language" and claiming that he is proud to have written that late addition into the bail-out bill enabling and empowering AIG to pay out over $100 million in bonuses, giving them the thumbs-up to go for it. For the record, if you are looking for the man-behind-the-man, Chris Dodd says that man was the Whitehouse Administration (i.e. the President) who told him to write that provisional language.

I think Edward Liddy needs an apology, odd as that may sound. Edward Liddy is the guy who came in to help AIG recover, is getting paid $1 per year to simply give them new direction, and the bill from the senate said he should uphold those executive bonus contracts. Now, mind you, he didn't have to do it. But he also didn't need to sit under the chastisement of our Congress as they told him -in writing- to uphold those bonus contracts and then crusify him publicly after he did it!

I guess the mystery is over. This also explains why the Whitehouse is hotly attempting to tell the country to focus on the next stuff coming rather than the past (even if the past is less than a month old and we're still in the middle of it ... sorry, Mr. President, you can't convince us to stop paying attention to current events.)



Update: Three cheers for continuing to pay attention to current events!! I''ve finally watched the President Obama interview on Jay Leno and I have a few take-aways from that which are well worthy of a blog or two, but instead I will update this entry with one:

President Obama said that the answer to this situation with AIG has everything to do with mitigating risk through better government oversight. In theory, I understand what he is talking about. The trouble is the breathing example we have of this RIGHT NOW in Senator Chris Dodd (Democrat.) This man CHAIRS the committee that currently brings oversight and at the same time he is a HUGE RECIPIENT of election donations by AIG (and others.) It was his personal team that made the change in this bail-out bill SPECIFICALLY to allow the contractual bonuses. And rather than debate or explain or justify... HE LIED ABOUT IT! So... this is oversight.

What is more devistating is that Obama hints at knowing more than he is willing to let on in the interview. He says at one point that the legal decision to change the bill to allow the bonuses was actually a good decision because if they had said that AIG has to abandon the contractual bonuses that those executives could sue for 3-times the contractual amounts and likely win. Obama called that a good legal decision implying that the decisions being made now are either (1) not good or (2) some other form of good or (3) good but from a non-legal standpoint. In other words, yeah, he knew all about this and like a good democrat he was ramming this stuff through Congress mis-managing the effect and outcomes of everything and now that people don't like those outcomes (i.e. a good emotional response and not a good legal one) he is now pretending to be morally outraged.

If Obama is outraged, then he is outraged because the people on the receiving end of the contracts (the AIG execs) wanted AIG to honor those contracts. If you work at AIG, then you are in a loosing situation no matter what happens, because the Senate gave you the right to your contractual "bonus" (which, if it is a contract, then it is not performance based as much as it is a form of payment outside of your annual salary) but then ate you for lunch if you actually exercised that right. I don't feel too bad for people getting millions as a bonus, but I think this proves that government oversight under the current leadership sucks rocks if this is the best they could do to manage this situation.

There is no way in this context that you don't feel that the president's "outrage" is an act IF he actually knew that the bonuses were allowed into the bill based on it's legal justification. That is like offer someone your friendship and acting all offended and outraged when they accept it. I recall being a kid in middle school and I was in a class and my teacher told all of us to stay in our seats. I needed to throw something away and my friend acted like they were going to watch the teacher so I could hop out of my seat to toss something in the trash. When I got the sign to go for it, I hopped up and went for the trash can. And as SOON AS I WAS ON MY FEET... my friend spoke out loudly to the classroom and teacher, "STEVE IS OUT OF HIS SEAT!!!!!!!" Sounds familiar to me!?

It seems clear to me that this situation didn't slip through like some would make it seem. President Obama along with his administration and the banking subcommittee knowingly took the action they did and rather than defend their "choice" are busy broadcasting lies and conflicting stories and opinions. This doesn't feel too much like leadership or honesty or even an effort to be honest. This is pandering and positioning and politics at its "best."

Pretty Little Budget Book

Due to new rules in the government about adhering to a "more true" representation of reality the new administrations budget headed for Congressional approval had to be reprinted. Luckily enough I happen to get a glance at the current cover, and I have to say I like the design. The objection has far less to do with the design than it does with the word choice on the cover.

I have to say that I really like the font choice as well as some of the appointments and color selection. It says "classic" or "classy" but the font is definitely "fresh" and "contemporary.


On an even cooler note, I was able to grab a look at the new cover for comparison (consulting with the government has it's perks!) Notice that the presentation is fundamentally the same, while the copy has been "updated" to parallel a more realistic representation of the budget as well as current events. Have a look. I think they did an O.K. job!




(All applicable copy rights reserved: This post is for political purposes only. Any offensive element of this work of fiction is intended for the purpose of ribbing my friends who love Obama in hopes to provoke fun political banter because sometimes I really enjoy getting people going. If you have no response to this presentation whatsoever then you might want to look into changing your medication.)

Budget Spending & Earmarks

I think earmarks are worthy of a fight. By that I mean I think year-to-year we throw too much money away on earmark spending. I would like to imagine that I don't send so much extra money to the Federal Government each year in taxes that politicians can fund their little local projects that have nothing to do with the scope of national programs that are made more obvious to the public.

Having said that, I think that John McCain is making a big deal about the current earmark spending. You here this message all of the time now. "Come on John, earmarks and less than 1% of the total budget being proposed." That still amounts to a lot of money. Enough money, in fact, to bail out a good number of families on the eastern seaboard. I digress.

I still think earmarks are worthy of a fight. Here is why: Obama said he would fight earmark spending. He even got specific about how: Now-President Obama then candidate Obama said he would go through the budget line-by-line and deal with earmarks. Having said that Congress handed him the equivalent of 7 sub-budgets all wrapped up in one in hopes to bury him in paperwork the same way that he did to them with the bailout budget. And it looks like earmark spending as a battle topic will be all but ignored. This is offensive.

I hear people say that we don't have time to be petty. I disagree. Economies move slowly. This is the time to put everything under the looking glass and ensure that we are not going down the wrong road. Tell me, honestly: if you are under financial pressure, do you spend more faster, or slow down and weigh how you intend to spend each and every dollar? Hello, Congress? Wake up!

Favorite Quote of the Day

"...and this is case-and-point that the Federal Government needs to get their heads out of their..."
- Government Consultant

I think there needs to be an OverheardInDC.com website like overheardinnewyork.com where people can add such quotes.

This was the tail end of a conversation about how the government is currently creating opportunities that allow certain bailout beneficiaries the ability to double-dip into deep Federal pockets (and by Federal pockets I really mean the pockets lined with money that is defered debt that will live like a weight on the backs of soon-to-be-employed generations like my young niece and nephew.)

Only in America do we entrust trillions of dollars to the same leadership that not only caused the problem but as well didn't see it coming. At a time when our government should be focused on putting out the fires across our enblazoned economy, they are spending money on making the fire department prettier.

Partisan Pandering

I hear a lot of debate over the Stimulus Bill and the first Federal Budge under the new Obama Presidency. Here is the consensus opinion (from conservatives and liberals)talking points that I am hearing:

• The government should be doing something.
  
  
• I am uneasy about the amount of money congress is talking about spending.
  

It seems that only the biggest "fanboys" on either side of the congressional carpet are completely and blindly agreeing with a hard-party-line perspective. For example, ultra-conservatives would rather the government simply slim down and spend less, while some would see room for a more Ronald Reagan type of approach. Equally as true, there are folks like Obama who believe that the only way to pass a stimulus bill is to pass a high-priced spending bill, while some Democrat senators are making public announcements about the risk of saddling future generations with insurmountable Federal debt.

In a related note, recently I had a conversation with some company leaders about "career development." A number of ideas came out with regard to (1) career pathing, (2) expanding the scope of employee empowerment, (3) personal continued education, etc. After a bit of talking some of those leaders shared the fact that they had not previously imagined "career development" equaling anything other than climbing a corporate ladder (i.e. giving title changes and matching raises.) While most people probably aren't loosing any sleep over the title of their job, they likely wouldn't be opposed to receiving a raise. At the same time, money is clearly not the only motivator. I think that the facts bare out the idea people want purpose, personal growth and measurable movement that feels like progress. Assuming that you can survive on your current salary, are you more likely switch jobs for a moderate raise or title change? Or could your current company retain your interest and commitment if they focused on mutually beneficial opportunities that help you grow professionally and help you see how you work has purpose and results in measurable success and progress? All things being equal, I think the later could well be described as "career development."

Likewise, right now President Obama is showing the limitation of his understanding of what a Federal Stimulus Bill could be:



I find the fanboy "right!" remark at the end entertaining. To be fair, I have no idea what she said next, but it is that kind of lack of deeper introspection that plagues the President and the Democrat-liberal congress right now. Rather than truly examine what is being said by either side in an open and free discussion, the alternatives are being blown off by simple name-calling them "old" or "tired." Let's look at another example:



By simply listening to this video it almost sounds like a cross-section of America is chiming in to support these seemingly profound statements about how this bold move by the President is new or fresh, while any alternative yet-to-be-debated-or-even-discussed is blown off as tired or worn out. But are all those whoops and hollers coming from a cross-section of American people, or is this video-op really just a planned event with a hand-picked crowd? The Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this President is the most honest we have seen in years (how often are you hearing that right now?) But I recall President Bush and his press secretaries allowing themselves to make announcements across the room from people who were willing to debate them on the spot. Let's hear another perspective about this speech you just heard:



So, how is this really newly bi-partisan or more honest? It seems to me that President Clinton and President Reagan were more bi-partisan. To me, the point is that it seems that President Obama is more interested in motivating people to action through social pressure, scare tactics and name-calling than he is through real political discourse. I've said it before and I will say it again. This is a sound-byte president. He buys Op-Ed space in news papers and gets TV time to spin significantly non-substantive statements that simply render a "yeah!" response rather than encouraging people to engage in the topic at hand.

In conclusion, I will offer a piece of advice to challenge the logic of the rhetoric coming from the current Presidency: If the statement can be applied to both parties, then it is not substantive but rhetoric. Take the idea that President Obama is explaining Republican talking points as "tired" or "worn out." He clearly described these perspectives as such to encourage the American people to reject those ideas simply because they are old long-held ideals of the Republican mindset. So here comes the test. Is what President Obama proposing with regard to spending a new Democrat approach? Or is he proposing the same old long-held ideals of the Democrat party? Likewise, could we not then call President Obama's approach "tired" and "worn out"? Should we then also just reject them, out of hand?

Or should we stop the rhetoric and demand that politicians begin to engage in a real discourse with each other and their constituency about how to expand the limited narrow-minded understanding of what a Stimulus Bill could be?

The Global Warming Debate is OVER!

For each year since 1998 the global mean temperature has gotten colder and since 2002 the Arctic ice shelf measurements show a growth of ice. There has been stints of warming in our more recent history, but no more than has been shortly measurable in other periods of history.

Beyond what I've said here, the reality is that some folks representing a hardline view of AGW would have us believe the debate is over (before it has event started.) The fact is that there are plenty of educated people debating AGW and the issue is far from over:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-7583,00.html

As thinking American individuals we need to not be lemmings and do the responsible thing, which is to say rightly ignor Al Gore's McCarthy-like statements about the debate being over and flat out disregard the emotional if not completely anti-constitutional / bill of rights violating statement by President Barack Obama to declare that he will bring an end to Global Warming "denial" (meaning he will, what... suspend freedom of speech with regard to this issue?)

As reasonable people, we need to send emails and postal mail to our Senators and tell them they had better start reviewing reasonable and intelligent scientific positions that examine the questionable claims of AGW science. We need to tell them without a doubt that we are not interested in becoming indebted to the United Nation's Carbon Taxes or wealth redistributive policies, goals and objectives.

[NOTE: There is plenty of emotional statements on either side of this issue. I think it is time for people to learn more on AGW, for and against, and then decide for themselves. It makes no sense to me that the New York Times along with other papers are beginning to publish information about the Fed adding Carbon Taxes to every day products and services when Congress hasn't been to date willing to review and hear an actual debate on such an intense topic. It feels like AGW is getting the same knee-jerk response as the Economic Bailout. Because it has been decided that it is a huge issue, the result is to decide that the government needs to be made responsible to solve it and so without much review or speculation, quick expensive decisions are made that pretend to include lots of oversight, but are defined within a Bill that the majority of Congress hasn't even taken the time to read! AGW as well as the economy aren't fast moving machines. We have time for weeks of detailed publically visible debates over these issues. There is only one reason the pressure to pass these measures is so hot!... because they don't want people to truly review those Bills.

There is another solution. Just because Congress decides to spend the money, doesn't mean that it has to get spent, or that taxes have to get enacted. Our state governments could put the breaks on and take responsability to review those bills and their details before signing up to take part in these fiascos. I think it is time for the Government of the State to stand up again.

There is a reason that Congress is still at or below a 30% approval rating. How long would you be allowed to run your employers company with an approval rating that low?]

VOTE NO... on the Stimulus Package

It is an important day. The country needs a good healthy shot in the arm to get things rolling again. What we don't need is a short term quick recovery that many future generations will have to pay for (including our current generation.)

Currently, the proposed stimulus package contains plenty of "special interest" spending that will not (1) create jobs or truly (2) bolster the economy. It surely will not (3) help people stay in their homes. Some estimate that nearly half of the economic plan could be trimmed out and not harm the above 3 objectives.

There are plenty of programs included in the stimulus that are good, worthy programs, but they are not stimulus and will not directly help the objectives. We need to send a strong immediate message that says, "Hey! First things first! Let's approve a solid stimulus package that aims to achieve the actual objectives. Let the other good programming stand-alone and be voted for on their own merits!"

So, what can you do?

First, go and sign the "country first" petition and tell the Senate to vote no on this package as it stands today:


Next, pass this blog post along to friends. You likely have a healthy digital network of friends, using tools like facebook or myspace. And those "networks" might include multiple groups of friends. Immediately reposting a link to this blog post in your social networking site will ensure that more people can encourage the Senate to focus on "First things first!"