File Under: No Shit

Just saw this headline in the New York Time.

Global Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith

Wow. I'm shocked.

“Climate change is real, and man is causing it,” Mr. Hill said, echoing most climate scientists. “That is indisputable. And we have to do something about it.”

A rain of boos showered Mr. Hill, including a hearty growl from Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party.

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

I wonder if Mr. Denison posts on this blog?

And I really love his insistence that the Earth was made for man to exploit. I wonder if he ever stops for a moment and thinks about the effect of climate change (man made or not) on international security issues which could lead to destabilizing economies in various states around the world.

Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. But all are wary of the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.

Any of you fall into these categories?

Ah, well. At least they are "thinking" as opposed to simply letting their emotions run away with them:)

Man Crush

While I admire and support President Obama, I do not have a man crush on him. I do, however, have a man crush on this guy.



Austan Goolsbee is the chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. He is the Robert P Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business (currently on leave while he works for the president). He is a centrist and primarily focuses on human behavior as it relates to economics.

I can't think of a more concise and perfect explanation of President Obama's accomplishments in pulling us from the brink of disaster. Maybe it's his voice that aides in this...very deep and manly...hence the man crush. It's almost as if he's going to go and kick the crap out of someone after he's done with this briefing.

So, will this demonstration of numbers, facts, and policies be enough to convince my commenters that President Obama pulled us out of the ditch? Probably not. I anxiously await the remarks from people who have less than one percent of the knowledge and experience in economics juxtaposed with Mr. Goolsbee's presentation.

Remember, naysayers, it is alright to admit when you are wrong.

If You Prick a Corporation Does It Not Bleed?

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that corporations are people is legally, morally and ethically flawed. Can a corporation testify in court? Can a corporation hold public office? Can a corporation vote? Can a corporation be a parent? Can a corporation be imprisoned for its crimes? If you prick a corporation does it not bleed?

No. A corporation is not a person by any commonsense definition, most specifically because it is not a citizen.

Over the past few years the right has rationalized that illegal immigrants and terror suspects have no rights because they are not citizens. We are, as the argument goes, therefore free to expel, imprison and interrogate them as we see fit.

Consistently applying this rationale to corporations means that the only rights they should have are the rights that are bestowed upon them by the laws that govern their creation and operation. By any commonsense definition corporations are not people and the government is free to dictate restrictions on their behavior, which it still does in excruciating detail.

Unlike citizens, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says that a corporation is a person. They are given no rights by the Constitution. A slave (euphemistically called a person "bound to Service for a Term of Years") is worth three-fifths of a person. A corporation? Zero.

If fact, corporations as they exist today did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. They did not become "artificial persons" that "possess individuality and immortality" until 1819 in another notorious Supreme Court decision.

Corporations exist solely to allow individuals to band together to avoid personal responsibility for collective actions. In particular, corporations are formed (in preference to partnerships) to avoid personal financial liability in the event of bankruptcy or other legal responsibility. This isn't evil or bad, it's necessary to run a business. But it's the reason why corporations aren't people.

As long as the officers of a corporation don't mix personal and corporate finances, and commit no crimes, they can run a company into bankruptcy and walk away without personal consequences. For example: let's say the officers of MegaMaint, a large building maintenance services corporation, build a new building with fancy offices for themselves and a fleet of nice new trucks, all with big loans from a bank. The building -- built by the lowest bidder -- has huge cost overruns, is poorly constructed and eventually collapses before completion. The trucks all break down -- lowest bidder again. MegaMaint goes bankrupt. The assets of the company are liquidated and the bank gets almost nothing. The bank goes after building contractor and the truck company, but they declare bankruptcy and their corporate officers skip out as well.

Now let's say that Jim is a small businessman who runs a sole-proprietor window-cleaning business. He doesn't have the money or wherewithal to hire a lawyer and set up a corporation. Jim borrows money from the bank to build a new outbuilding and a new truck. Then he falls off his ladder and breaks his back. Jim doesn't have health insurance because he's in a high-risk occupation and the premiums are too high. He goes bankrupt from medical bills and lost income.

The difference between the MegaMaint CEO and Jim is that Jim is on the hook for everything. The bank and the hospital can go after everything Jim and his wife own in bankruptcy proceedings: their house, their bank account, their lake cabin, her jewelry, their stereo, their TV. They are forced to sell their house and property to pay off the bank loan and the medical bills.

The MegaMaint CEO is free to go out and do it all over again. Jim is out of his house, stuck in bed, broke, with a broken back.

How is that fair?

This is the key difference between a person and a corporation. No one is responsible in a corporation. As long as there's no proof of crime or entanglement with personal and corporate finances, no one is held accountable for a corporation's -- or the CEO's -- mistakes. To be fair, corporate bankruptcies are rarely this clear-cut. The CEOs are always giving themselves bonuses while the company's going bust, lying about financial prospects, or cutting deals with subsidiaries they secretly own. So CEOs are always involved with litigation after a bankruptcy.

Now the Supreme Court has also decided that corporations should be allowed to freely manipulate the electoral process via the media, by hiding behind "non-profit" slush funds that allow corporations to avoid responsibility for slanderous attack ads against their enemies. They can secretly donate millions of dollars to get candidates elected to office who have promised to do what these giant corporations want them to do: i.e., deregulate industries dominated by huge multinational corporations like Koch, BP, FOX News, Toyota, GlaxoSmithKline, etc., allowing them to escape even more responsibility for the things they do.

The corollary to the "corporation is a person" that makes this possible is the other perversion of the Constitution that the court has perpetrated: to wit, that "money is speech." The Constitution doesn't say that money is speech. TV didn't exist when it was written. The government tightly regulates the public airwaves for content, so it obviously has jurisdiction over what's broadcast. Why aren't the original intent guys all over this obviously overreaching radical activist Supreme Court ruling? Speech means standing on the street corner haranguing passers-by, or printing hand-bills with your manifesto. Multi-million dollar ad buys weren't never once mentioned by the Founding Fathers.

We have no idea who's giving to the political slush funds that finance these scurrilous ads. There are no reporting requirements. It could be foreign corporations or even foreign governments. Which would be a crime. But there's no way to find out because five guys on the Supreme Court think Target, Exxon, Burger King and Coca Cola are just regular folks.

To paraphrase conservatives's argument from a few years back: if they're not doing anything wrong, why don't they just tell us who's giving them all that money? Why are their donors afraid to stand behind their own words? Why aren't they offering their donor lists in order to help the government ferret out potential foreign corruption of the political process?

For a more concrete example of corporate irresponsibility, consider the BP oil spill. Because it involves at least three corporations and dozens of engineers and rig workers, it will be impossible to find the person responsible for the spill in the Gulf. But BP has a history of serious safety lapses resulting in numerous explosions, deaths and spills from the Gulf, to Texas, to Alaska. Their safety record is abysmal, even compared to other oil producers.

Corporate management at BP is responsible for this climate of irresponsibility. People and animals have died, economies have been trashed and our land and seas have been despoiled. Undoubtedly a few lackeys will be fingered as the fall guys who caused the spill. But the ones truly responsible, the ones at the top who demanded that they get the oil out as fast as possible no matter what, will never be brought to justice. And that's the whole purpose of corporations: to dilute personal responsibility so that the guys at the top enjoy all the benefits and never face the consequences of their mistakes.

Now the Supreme Court has given over financing of elections to these people.

It's the Bizarro version of the old maxim: with great power comes no responsibility.

Defining the Players

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Perfect Summation

Peter Baker has an excellent piece in today's Times on President Obama. Before you read it, check out the gallery of photos by Ashley Gilbertson that accompany the article. Amazing, right?

The paragraph that really jumped out at me was the one that dealt with this question: can a modern day president succeed and if not, what are the obstacles? Baker thinks that a modern day president really can't succeed and here's why.

An implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration.

Mos def. It's their way or the highway. They want him to fail (for a number of reasons) and will do everything in their power to make certain this happens regardless of the public well being.

A news media saturated with triviality and conflict.

The story of the 2010 elections was written last August. The Democrats are going to lose big time on November 2nd and it will be because voters have rejected Obama due to his "failed" policies. Quite typical of the "liberal" media. But the triviality is the key here. We saw stories about education for about a week and then it was back to stories of trailer trash and ghetto crime.

A culture that demands solutions yesterday.

Ah, yes. Our hyper instant gratification society exemplified perfectly by Thelma Frank who told President Obama last month that she wasn't "feeling" the recovery yet. What does that even mean? And does she expect me to feel pity for her that she has to buy hot dogs and beans while still shelling out 50K a year for private school for her children?

This impatience has been pounced on by the Koch Brothers through their Tea Party network and exploited beyond all rationality. It's absolutely stunning to me that people who make less than 100K a year are listening to a word the Kochs and their cronies are saying. If we get the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for, the little that remains of the middle class are clearly going to be hurt the most.

A societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard.

This one is probably the worst. We have a knee jerk reaction to hating leaders now. This used to not be the case. I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton....an insanity which has now been conveniently forgotten (more on that giant pile of bullshit later).

A common mistake made by the Right is that people like me just hated Bush for no reason. This is an excellent example of hating in others what we fear in ourselves. I never hated Bush and simply thought he was incompetent. I think the results that came from his actions speak volumes. But they do hate Obama, though, and for no reason other than to be deliberately contrary. This would be why millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer when they say "Obamacare is threatening our freedom" without a shred of evidence to back it up. Or an alternate and detailed plan to replace it.

Since many Americans have this natural cynicism, they're going to distrust or even hate President Obama no matter what he does. As Baker concludes, a president in modern day America can, at best, hope for being average. Given our country's recent history that is filled with leaders that deserved accolades and respect, I find this entire, collective attitude to be completely nauseating.

Nope, No Racism Here

From a billboard in Colorado...

Move along...nothing to see here...no mention of the word racism which could cause anaphylactic fits of rage...move along...

Sitting in Wonder

I'm perplexed about something.

Why is it that 30 years later it's perfectly acceptable to rip Jimmy Carter new one after new one yet, only two years after he left office, the slightest word of blame or one that is even mildly derisive of George W. Bush sends conservatives into anaphylactic fits of rage?

Just curious...

What The Heck Do We Want?

With the election just over two weeks away, all of us are hearing a lot of sentences that start with "The American people want..." The question is does anyone who says this really know?

No, they don't. Why? Because the American people are basically Sally Field in the film Sybil. Check out this recent poll from the Washington Post. Americans say they want limited government but they also think that Social Security and Medicare are very important. The also want the federal government to be involved in schools, reduce poverty, and half of us want them to be involved in regulating health care. Only 39 percent asked in this poll want the government to cut spending. Wow. Really? This is down from 53 percent in 1994 when the GOP took over both houses.

What I found to be quite surprising was this poll showed that 50 percent wanted more government spending to fix the economy...regardless of the deficit. Even I'm not in that 50 percent. Combine this formation with this recent poll about the tax cuts and one wonders just how far Democrat's heads are up their arses. 65 percent of Dems, 64 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of independents all said that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. What a stunning campaign opportunity completely lost. Still, it's better to have a disappointing friend than someone who acts in direct conflict with the interests of virtually the entire country. More on this notion later.

There might be a lot of anger out there about entitlements but the majority of Americans do support these programs. As election day draws closer, I'm becoming more of the mind that Tea Party victories could end up being a very good thing. Generally speaking, people don't care about something until it's taken away from them. If the Tea Party gets a decent size caucus in the House and a few candidates in the Senate, we will get to see how they govern. It's not going to be pretty for a number of reasons.

The mischievous part of me can't wait to see the public reaction. It's going to be quite a show. After all, the American people want to have their cake and eat it too:)

A Sign for The Future

If you want to see what life would be like if the New and Hulked Out GOP is given control of anything in the future, take a look at the story of Gene Cranick.

Mr. Cranick is a resident of Obion County, Tennessee which requires its residents to pay a $75 fee to put out fires. Yea! No stinkin' socialism here, folks. Cranick forgot to pay it so firefighters would not come out to his home when he called. They did arrive, however, to spray down a water line between his neighbor's house (who paid the fee) and Cranick's burning abode. They stayed there to make sure the fire didn't spread and watched Cranick's house burn to the ground despite pleas and a payment in hand.

This isn't fear mongering for a future that isn't here yet. This is real. It happened. And it makes on wonder if the possible future so eloquently detailed in the film Repo Men (in which all government is neutered and corporations run health care at insanely high interest rates) might not be fear mongering at all. Robert Creamer put it best recently on HuffPo

Competitive markets are extremely efficient at encouraging innovation, increasing productivity and distributing goods and services in many arenas. But there are other arenas where history and experience have demonstrated that it is both more efficient and more humane to provide goods and services through government -- which, as Congressman Barney Frank likes to say, is the name we give to the things we have chosen to do together.

The core difference in values between the right wing and progressives is whether we create a society where we're all in this together, or all in this alone.

Mainstream Americans understand that there are a number of areas where it makes much more economic and moral sense to guarantee goods and services to everyone in the society and ask our citizens to finance them by paying their fair share of taxes rather than paying for them "ala carte".

More humane. Think about that for a minute. Which party do you think is more humane? I think that the Republican Party, in its all out effort and zeal to build a nation of rugged individualists, has forgotten the value of teamwork. In fact, they shit all over it.

The reaction to this story from the right is predictable. Why should Cranick "sponge off his neighbors" to get helped out, as Glenn Beck said recently. Except there was no sponging because he simply forgot to pay the fee as he had in the past. And if they had tax money covering the fire department he would be paying his fair share as well. I'm wondering what happens if you can't afford the fee. What then? I guess all the poor people in Obion county are fucked.

Adam Cohen put it best in his recent Time Blog on this subject

Today, there are politicians and commentators who want to push in the other direction: to water citizenship down, and turn Americans into mere customers. In this view, you should get things — including basics like fire service — not as a right of citizenship, but as a privilege with a price.

Indeed. So, in the GOP's vision of a perfect world, the only rights we would have as citizens are contingent upon how much money we have. Which party is it again that is the party of privilege? More importantly, which party continually blames the victim?

If the Flannel Shirt fits...

Apparently, a talent agency that was hired by the GOP to produce the ad below in the West Virginia Senate race called for actors who have that "Hicky, Blue Collar look." Here is a further explanation of the type of look they wanted.

These characters are from West Virginia so think coal miner/trucker looks. Each character should bring several options and stay away from all black or all white or thin stripes (thicker stripes and plaid are good).

The talent agency also made several additional clothing suggestions, including a "Dickie's type jacket with t-shirt underneath," "Down filled vest," "John Deer hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)," and "Trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)."

My oh my, what a stereotype! Adding further insult to injury was the fact that the ad wasn't even shot in West Virginia. It was made entirely in Philadelphia. So much for "grass roots." If I were Joe Manchin, I'd counter with an ad of him talking to people on the street in West Virginia with the tag line "Made entirely in West Virginia, not Philadelphia."

The other thing about this ad is that it is such a great example of how fake these things are. They're all paid actors playing a role that suits a narrative that is largely false. Take a look

Death Cult Recognized in England!

Two news stories caught my eye earlier this month. The first was about England recognizing Druidry as an official religion. The second was about a study of religious belief in the United States.

The English really are going to hell in a handbasket. They have this death cult that practices ritual cannibalism and ritual vampirism¹. (Some subcults of this religion have even discarded the notion that the cannibalism and vampirism are ritualistic, and posit they are actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood!²) They venerate an instrument of torture and death as their holy symbol, which in their temples often has a corpse hanging on it³. This religion's entire belief system is predicated on human sacrifice; the belief is that one person must be killed in order to grant another eternal life⁴. This cult became the official state religion in England about a thousand years ago. They call it "Christianity."

When I first read an article on the local paper's website about England recognizing Druidry -- a nature-worshiping religion that existed long before Christianity and perhaps even its predecessor, Judaism -- there were reader comments about how terrible England was for recognizing a pagan religion that practiced cannibalism, human sacrifice and worshiped Satan (Druids don't believe in Satan, who is a Judeo-Christian godling). Which struck me as ironic given Christianity's roots.

So when the study on US religious knowledge appeared I was curious to what light it shed on this question. It found that atheists, Jews and Mormons exhibit the greatest knowledge about religion in general. Hispanic Catholics and black Protestants are the least knowledgeable. Mormons and Evangelicals know the most about Christianity, while atheists and Jews know more about world religions. Finally, the most important factor in religious knowledge is education level.

So all the study tells us is that educated people know more stuff. Which we already knew.

That begs the question: why do people believe their religions are the one true path, when they actually don't know very much about their religions, they would be repelled by them if they did, and their core beliefs and practices hold so many contradictions and borrowings from other religions?

Christianity is just as creepy and crazy as any pagan religion, in large part because it has incorporated many of those practices -- pagan symbolism (Christmas trees), the idolatry of graven images (the cross), polytheism (Christianity -- the religion where 1 God + 1 Christ + 1 Holy Spirit = 1 God!, and then there are all those troublesome saints), fertility celebrations (the word Easter comes from Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of fertility, hence the bunny rabbits).

And then there's the whole genesis of Christian dogma. It was finalized at the Council of Nicaea, which was organized by the Emperor Constantine, who likely died a pagan but had chosen Christianity for the Roman Empire for political reasons. The Council picked and chose from hundreds of different competing versions of Christian writings, finally hammering out a final committee-approved bible. Pretty much the same process used to produce an annual corporate report.

But no one sees their own religion as creepy. They have conveniently forgotten or ignored the parts they don't like, and interpret it the way they want to. Many Christian practitioners insist they know the absolute will of God, though when bad things happen to good people everything suddenly becomes mysterious. Furthermore, Christianity is not a monolithic religion. Practically every tenet of every Christian sect's doctrine is considered heresy by at least one other Christian sect. It's hard to believe any of these things are true when Christians have been murdering each other for centuries over fine points of theological interpretation.

And this mindset doesn't stop at religion. Some Americans insist they know the absolute will of the Founding Fathers, that the Constitution is an inviolable holy writ that means only what exactly what it says. But the disagreements among the Founding Fathers are well documented; they did not all believe the same thing. They argued and comprised and came up with one of the greatest documents ever written. Even so, within 10 years of its writing there were huge disagreements among those same Founding Fathers about what it meant -- like whether the Constitution should allow the establishment of a federal banking system.

Which really gets to the heart of the problem: people don't actually understand or know what the literal text of the Bible or the Constitution is. Instead they take the easy way out and adhere to one prophet or another who claims to know what the ultimate truth is, and then do that prophet's bidding.

This the first mistake we all make: trusting that the judgment of the pope, or Muhammed, or Rush Limbaugh is superior to our own. The second mistake we make is going along with them for the whole ride. The pope, Muhammed and Rush are right about some things. They're not right about everything, and they're dead wrong about a lot of things. Our willingness to go along with them, right or wrong, is perhaps mankind's greatest tragedy.

Religionists keep telling us we can't pick and choose what points of doctrine we accept: as Catholics we have to believe everything the pope tells us to believe. As Mormons we have to accept everything in the Book of Mormon. But picking and choosing points of doctrine is what every religious leader has been doing since Day One.

So, for a better world, don't be a Dittohead.

Notes:

1) During communion Christians partake of wine and bread, which are symbols of Christ's blood and flesh. These are ritual acts of vampirism and cannibalism.

2) The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation posits that the priest is performing an actual miracle and is literally converting the wine to blood and the wheat in bread to flesh. Which means either that priests should in a pinch be able to use communion wine for blood transfusions, or that the Pillsbury Doughboy is the Second Coming of Christ.

3) Christ was tortured and killed on the cross, which is the symbol of most Christian churches. Not all, mind you: the Jehovah's Witnesses think it's disgusting to venerate the instrument of Christ's death, and believe Christ was crucified on a pole and not a cross in any case. The cross in many churches also has a statue of Christ on it. This graven image is also a big no-no.

4) The entire basis of Christianity is that Christ died for our sins: human sacrifice. That he is human is sometimes disputed -- just as his divinity often is. That this was a real sacrifice is also disputed -- if he was divine and he knew he would be resurrected and granted eternal life, then three days of chilling out in a tomb is not much of a sacrifice. And there's the whole Abraham and Isaac sacrifice deal...

A Nasty Climate

The subject of climate change has once again come up in comments so I thought I'd bring everyone up to speed on the latest which, in many ways, is sadly nothing new.

Basically, it comes down this: climate change is happening and the Chinese are moving ahead of us in green technology. Oh, yeah...and the right (as usual) is doing everything in their power to "prove" that man made climate change supporters are wrong by showing that it is a secret liberal plot to enslave and/or kill everyone.

Whether you agree that climate change is man made or not, it is happening. This means that parts of our planet are going to become unstable which will, in all likelihood, lead to national security concerns for the United States. Thankfully, our military has embraced the seriousness of the situation and is putting its resources to use.

As far as I'm concerned, it's probable that climate change is man made but I think we need more data and research. What we don't need is the pathological drive by the right to win the argument. Simply put, they are not being rational (surprise, surprise) and are hell bent to not give an inch on this issue. Worse, they seem to be turning more irrational. Take a gander at many of the conservative blogs out there that are offering this video and this video as "proof" of the liberal plot. Both of these shorts have been linked in comments here and emailed to me by hysterical conservatives. Read the comments below each video. Really guys? C'mon...

"Climategate" is over, folks. Factcheck dispensed with all of that hysteria quite nicely. They also addressed the "climate science slipping" meme as well. Again, all this demonstrates is that we need more data in my opinion. In the final analysis, I'm with Michael Mann on this one: time to take the politics out of climate science.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated meafter a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.

My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.

More specifically, time to remove those who have a pathological need to prove people wrong whom they don't like. In all honesty, that's what this is really all about..an emotional reaction. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Ken Perrot has an excellent piece which basically torpedoes the naysayers and details that the only "gate" out there is "Skepticgate."

And, as I will continue to say over and over again, the Chinese are all in with green technology. If we want to keep pace with them, we're going to have to step it up. This could be an area that could keep jobs in this country (should we decide to lead the world in green tech) and, more importantly, spark our economy. You want to bitch about the deficit? Fine. Here's one solution to helping reduce it.

So, enough folks. I've got no problem with you if being a critical thinker is your raison d'etre. This is why we have peer review. But if you think that climate change science is part of a cabal whose goal is a power grab, I implore you to seek psychological help.

Hope After All

Most of the time we don't like feel good stories. We'd rather have people dying or yelling at each other. It's more exciting, right? But this one made me proud to be an American.

The story of Aman Ali and Bassam Tariq should be told everywhere and often. The two men set out to visit 30 Mosques in 30 days travelling around 13000 miles across our great land and asking, is America a tolerant place? The answer was yes.

The fisherman in Montana became the embodiment of their trip -- Ali and Tariq were embraced nearly everywhere they went, from a Confederate souvenir shop in Georgia to the streets of Las Vegas, Nevada, to the hills of North Dakota where the nation's first mosque was built in 1929.

For Ali, his favorite moment was Ross, North Dakota, a blip of a town with a population of 48 people. He knew little of the town's rich Muslim history, and it was difficult to try to find someone in the town who did.

A pastor directed them to a woman, who kindly pointed them down a dirt road to where the nation's first mosque once stood. It's no longer there. It's been replaced by a tiny cement block mosque, complete with a gold dome. Nearby, there's a cemetery marking the pioneering Muslims of America, with birth dates of 1882, 1904, 1931.

Ali stood in awe. As he approached the mosque, his heart pounded. "I knew our roots went deep in this country, but it was great to truly experience it. Praying in there was like hopping in a time machine," said Ali, a 25-year-old Muslim who was born in Columbus, Ohio. "I literally felt like I was plummeting and falling."

Indeed, Muslim roots are very deep in this country which many people do not know. What Ali and Tariq found was an America that is much more tolerant than the media make it out to be.

It's a small but vocal group of Americans in this country pushing this anti-Muslim rhetoric," Ali said. "And unfortunately in our society, whomever shouts the loudest is going to get the most air time.

Once again, I'm happy to be wrong! Check out their web site located here for more details of their trip and their upcoming plans.

Why They Are The Way They Are (Part 1 of 2)

I've been thinking a lot about what drives Democrats and what drives Republicans from a psychological point of view. I realize it's over generalizing but one can't help but see patterns. I've spent a fair amount of time analyzing the GOP mindset and how they act based on their beliefs and ideology. I'll be talking about that at some point before the election but for now I want to focus on the Democrats.

If there is one word that can sum up the words and actions of a liberal/progressive/Democratic individual, it would be this one: Insecurity. This is the one thing that drives them more than anything else. Why?

Because of the election of 2004. The Dems still can't figure out how Bush won the election. It makes no sense. How could such a large group of people support someone clearly not competent to be president? More importantly, how could a guy who served his country in the military suddenly be looked upon as a traitor?

Reality ceased making sense for Democrats after that. It certainly did for me. More confounding is the simple fact that it's gotten worse. Compare George W Bush, for example, to Sarah Palin. Or Christine O'Donnell. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a resurrected Colonel Flagg become the GOP nominee in 2012. So, rather than try to get a public option in the health care bill (which, at one point 70 percent of Americans supported) or solidify taxes, the Democrats back down. It's a constant fear of losing.

Insecurity would also be why the left spends so much time focusing on what the right says and does. The fear of that many people (the conservative base) obeying a collection of individuals (the GOP leaders and now the Tea Party) who so clearly act against their best interests is overwhelming....so much so that inaction is the course often chosen.

When you hear many Dems speak, there is a decided lack of assuredness. This isn't true for President Obama and perhaps Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. But it is for Harry Reid and most others. They look at themselves as being weak. Even if they had 25 percent of the arrogance of the right, it would improve their image in so many ways. But they don't. They're insecure.

The left simply can't get over that loss in 2004. They can't get over the millions of people who view them as being terrorist loving socialists who want to Hitler their way into everyone's life. In so many ways, the complete fabrication, lies and unreality are too much to take. The ass whoopings in 2006 and 2008 don't matter. It doesn't matter that they are the party in power. As long as this insecurity exists and they act accordingly, they will always be the "weaker" of the two.

Even though the exact opposite is true.

Why We Fight

So little girls can go to school...

Pulled from the Department of Defense Facebook page.

U.S. Army Capt. Lisa Kirby speaks with Kaka Kot School students to learn what they want to be when they grow up in the Nahr-e-Shahi district, Afghanistan, Oct. 4, 2010.The Afghan National Army's 209th Corps and the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division's Female Engagement Team donated about $3,000 worth of school supplies to the girls' school. Kirby is the team coordinator assigned to the 10th Mountain Division on Camp Mike Spann in northern Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Sandra Arnold

The Shine of the Free Market

Health care options in the market under the health care reform law became better.

I wonder who it was that said this recently? Take a moment and think about it.

I'm sure your first thought was a Democrat or health reform lobbyist, right?

It was, in fact, Jackie Berry, spokesperson for 3m. 3M is one of the largest companies in the world with over 76,000 employees world wide. 3M has decided to give their retirees cash to go and shop for health care on their own, giving them the freedom to choose whatever plan they see fit.

3M is a company that sees the benefit of the new health care reform law.

Let's let the soak in for a moment, shall we.

(cue elevator music for 1-2 minutes)

And we're back.

So what exactly is going to happen?

• Starting Jan. 1, 2013, 3M retirees eligible for Medicare will get a health reimbursement arrangement: an account with credit in it to buy a Medicare supplement plan or a prescription drug plan.
• Starting Jan. 1, 2015, retirees not eligible for Medicare will also get a retiree health reimbursement arrangement to buy an individual insurance plan on the open market

Berry said retirees will end up saving money, thanks to several provisions due to kick in between now and then.

Open Market? Freedom of choice? Saving Money? Wait...I thought the opposite was supposed to happen under this new law. Was there a very large group of people not telling me the truth? Hmmm....

Not everyone is happy with freedom, however.

Rita Horne, 73, whose husband Einer Horne worked 33 years at 3M, was not pleased to receive the letter.

"I got to tell you, I would like to take Congress and wring their necks," said Horne, of Hudson, Wis. "They've taken a very satisfactory and good health insurance program and going to I don't know what."

Her husband, 75, who's had cancer and open-heart surgery, said he knew this day would come ever since "Obama passed Obamacare."

"You would think every corporation in America would do the same. Number one, it's going to save a hell of a lot of money and number two, it's probably as fair a system as you can get out of anybody," he said.

Will the new plan save money for him? Horne laughed: "I have no idea."

Saving money and being fair you say, Einer? At least he admits it. But Rita doesn't want that freedom or choice at all. Sad. And why, Rita, aren't you guys already on Medicare?

More importantly, take note of the words I have bolded in black. There is nothing that is more accurate a summation of where all this vitriol about health care originates: fear of the unknown. They don't know what is going to happen but they sure don't like it. How is that possible if you don't know?

See, this is where people like the Koch Brothers come in with FreedomWorks and prey upon people's fears. They know people don't really know that much about reform so they use it to their advantage and co-opt them into believing complete lies. The end result is basically the current form of the GOP.

The fact is that as more companies follow the lead of 3M, more people are going to have a choice about where to get their health care. This will eliminate health care being tied to employers which has not worked out well at all. It's a step in the right direction of eliminating the far too many middle men. You don't hear the word "freedom" associated with the new health care law amid the screaming by people who stand the most to lose from reform. But here it is, folks, plain as day.

This is an excellent example of why I supported it. And a shining example of the free market:)

Our Little Angels

About ten years ago I was sitting on the couch at a family gathering. Suddenly, out of nowhere, my six-year-old nephew clapped his hands over my ears as hard as he could. The pain was excruciating, and the effect on my hearing was immediate: everything sounded muddy and indistinct. I thought he'd popped my eardrum. It took months for my hearing to return to normal.

As appalling as it might be that a young child would assault someone for utterly no reason, his mother's reaction was even more appalling: My little angel wouldn't do that!

But why would I lie about this? I asked her. How could I even think to make up such a lie?

Well, she admitted, the boy had been taking karate lessons, and they had just showed him how to box someone's ears. So, she grudgingly admitted, he might have done it. (How anyone could possibly think it was appropriate to teach a child how to permanently damage someone's hearing is still beyond me...)

And this isn't an isolated incident. My own sister was convinced that an adult was lying about her five-year-old's spitting at another child on the bus. This kid was completely out of control at home, so it's unclear why my sister would have a hard time believing he was out of control with a dozen other rambunctious kids.

Old fogey time: when I was a kid, my parents would never take my word against an adult's. It was a given that kids lied to avoid punishment. Why is it that so many parents these days can't believe that their kids act like, well, kids?

A few years ago our neighbors would drive their kids down our one-block street and park on the corner with the engine running to wait for the bus. I wouldn't have cared, except they blocked the intersection and made it difficult to pull out into traffic. When I was a kid I walked to school rain or shine, snow or sleet, in blustering cold or blistering heat.

Stories of parents doing their kids' homework projects these days are rampant. And it continues on to the college level. I recently heard a news story about how several colleges have had to ban parents attending college orientation sessions. I've heard other stories about parents showing up at their kids' post-college job interviews. When I was in college my parents -- and the parents of everyone else I knew -- had no idea what we did at college.

So, what does this have to do with anything? One of Markadelphia's favorite topics is education reform. So here's my take on it.

Everyone these days is bemoaning how bad the education system is. The president and every Republican out there is talking about firing teachers who don't perform. Others blame parents for not being involved enough. Still others complain that class sizes are too large, while others clamor for school vouchers and charter schools. But the one factor no one ever dares mention? The one that undeniably has the largest impact on the educational performance of our little angels? The little darlings themselves.

If we ran schools like a business we wouldn't be talking about just firing the teachers whose students do poorly on tests. We'd fire the kids who are doing poorly. And that's exactly what private schools do, and it's one reason why their test results are so much better than those of public schools. They can choose their students and dump the rejects back into the public system.

How many kids do you think there are in math classes in India and China and Singapore? How many hours a week do you think those kids' parents work? How many of those parents drive their kids to school every day? How many of those kids go to bed hungry? A lot of those kids have jobs and actually have to work. On the whole, our kids are richer, healthier and better fed. We spend far more on them per capita than third-world countries spend on their kids. We enjoy all the advantages, and yet kids in third-world countries are beating the pants off us academically. Why?

I think the biggest reason is that our kids just aren't motivated. Some teachers may well be boring. Some may be just plain bad. But that's how life is. When they get out of school they're going to stuck in boring jobs. They're going to work for terrible bosses. But they're going to have to suck it up and keep on working. Mommy isn't going to be there for them every day in the real world.

Now look at it from the kids' point of view. All they hear is us talking about is firing their teachers if they get bad test scores. What's the take-away message? I can get back at my teacher by flunking this sucky standardized test.

This situation has existed for many years now, so it's not the result of the lousy economy. There are many reasons: smaller families, richer families, more leisure time, lower general expectations for children, a system that's eager to label every quirk of personality as some syndrome that requires special treatment or drugs. In many ways America has become fat, dumb and lazy.

Of course we have to hold teachers, administrators and parents accountable for making sure our kids get the education and support they need. We have to fire bad teachers and get parents involved. But coddling kids with overweaning concern for their fragile little egos is not doing them any favors. We cannot continue to throw billions and billions of dollars down the rat-hole of education and demand Herculean effort and sacrifice from everyone except the little angels themselves.

We have to instill real self-confidence, self-reliance and inner drive in children by making them the masters of their own fates. That only comes when you stand or fall on your own. American parents need to take the training wheels off and give their kids a good hard shove down the road of life.

More Evidence of "Failure"

Ford and Chrysler have reported huge sales gains in September further demonstrating the "failure" of President Obama and the Democrats' economic policies.

Ford reported sales up 46 percent from one year ago and Chrysler reported a 61 percent rise in sales. In fact, from September 2009 to September 2010, sales of 10 Chrysler models rose 95 percent. GM also saw a modest rise of 10.5 percent (or 22 percent if you don't count the four brands GM sold off or discontinued). Sales also rose for Honda, Toyota, Subaru, and Volkswagen.

I was under the impression that the anti colonial Kenyan was destroying business. Guess he's doing a pretty terrible job of it!

Hitch Your Wagon To This Star

Remember the whole ACORN thing? You know...the deal where "conservative activist" James O' Keefe played a deceptive fear mongering game with the intent to diminish liberal votes? And was ultimately successful in taking down an organization who advocated for low and middle income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues (aka traitorous socialists)?

Yeah, that guy. Guess what he's been up to lately.

A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

Cool. And check out the list of items he had planned to use as props. Lube? Blindfold? Dildos? Fantastic. It sounds like a plot that is perfect...if you are a 12 year old boy.

I remember having a long debate on another blog with a woman who goes by the name Scrapalatte regarding ACORN. She wrote long prose extolling Mr. O'Keefe as a hero to the conservative movement much like Michael Moore is to liberal causes. ACORN was the work of the devil and O'Keeke, a saint doing the Lord's work. I wonder what she thinks about him now with this latest revelation. And after he got arrested for tampering with Senator Mary Landrieu's phones earlier this year.

Hitch your wagon to this (super) star, my conservative friends. There's no doubt in my mind that he's going places!

News On The March!

Wishful Thinking

I've had several exchanges of late with conservatives, Tea Partiers, the GOP and random libertarians which center around a common theme: Democrats running for re-election are "running away from the president" because his policies are "unpopular with the American people." That may be true if you define "The American People" as being exclusively right wing.

It is not, however, true at all that Congressional Democrats are telling the president to stay away. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the president that congressional Democrats want to see more of the kind of campaign rally and rhetoric he displayed this week in Wisconsin. They said they especially want him to continue to make the case - and the contrast with Republicans - on jobs and the economy.

Another source familiar with the meeting said the message from Pelosi and other Democratic leaders was that "you are good on the stump, get out there, we need it."

I know it's fun to fantasize that all Americans feel the way you do, right wingers. But they don't. And just because you thump your chest and say it, doesn't mean that it is true.

Perfect Summation and Representation

When heading into the voting both in a few weeks, remember this audio clip



I'll be damned if I can find a better representation of the right. No facts...no solutions....just anger, screaming insults and vitriol. Sums them up perfectly.

Socialism=Fail

I just about fell out of my chair when I read this.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, "Never mind"?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."

The "he" in this conversation is Fidal Castro. And these aren't mere words. The government is laying off thousands of employees and telling private industry to have a party. After Chavez's latest losses in Venezuela, I think we may be seeing the death knell of centrally planned economies. They don't work and they never will.

Of course, the icing on the cake for this is that the right in this country is losing a boogieman they can prop up and froth at the mouth about endlessly. Of wait, I forgot. President Obama is anti colonial Kenyan terrorist loving socialist fascist like Hitler. So they still have him.

Welcome, Nikto!!

I'd like everyone to give a hearty welcome to a new contributor to Notes From The Front...Nikto! Nikto is a fellow Minnesotan like myself as well as being a recovering Republican. Look for posts from him starting next week!

Education Nation

I rip the media a lot for focusing on mainly ridiculous stories whose only purpose is ratings and sales of bullshit products. But NBC has really stepped up with their focus on education with their Education Nation project. Even in a time of sleazy election stories, their decision to focus on this extremely important issue shows real courage. I've been waiting to see something like this for a long time and boy oh boy have they delivered! The site is chock full o' action items on where you can start and what you can do to help out. Want to see how your local school is doing? Check out the nation wide, searchable database for detailed information.

The simple fact is this. Our country is having the problems we are having because of our education system. We are at a crossroads and every citizen must make a serious effort to improve the education of future generations. Marches, rallies and yelling are nice but what do they accomplish? Getting involved in the education of your community is far more valuable.

There is no doubt in my mind that Arne Duncan is the best Secretary of Education we have had in decades. He, and the president, understand all too well the stakes. This would be why they are calling for 10,000 new math and science teachers ASAP, a review of the tenure policy, poor teachers to be fired, and an absolute commitment to achieving deep knowledge and enduring understandings in the youth of our nation.

I'm going to be talking quite a bit about Education over the next few weeks. I'll also be sharing my thoughts on the film Waiting for Superman which has become an enormous spark to the movement to change the system. I'll be looking at specific issues that need serious change in order to improve the system.

Bring your pens and pencils, kids. Get ready to take notes and share ideas!

Imagining Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton has been on my mind a lot lately. I'm wondering what our first Treasury Secretary would think of our current economic situation. On the surface, one would think that the author of The Federalist Papers would offer great insight into the limits of government regarding the US Constitution. After all, this was the guy who argued against having a Bill of Rights.

Yet, it was Hamilton who, just two years after publishing the Federalist Papers, issued a state paper calling for the first central bank in our country's history. This idea was the great granddaddy of the Federal Reserve. More importantly, there was not a single word in our Constitution that allowed for such an institution.

Nonetheless, the man who is held up as the one who knows exactly what the Constitution means went to Article I Section 8.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

From this, he determined that it gave Congress the power to create a central bank. Given the fact that Congress had the power to collect taxes and borrow money, he reasoned that a central bank would help this process considerably. In looking at this line from Section 8, he argued that there are implied meanings in our Constitution. Meanings that give power, not only to the enumerated items but also to the implied ones.

Jefferson and Madison couldn't believe it. They knew as well as several others that there was no such power guaranteed in the Constitution. They argued vociferously against it. But our first president (another Founding Father) George Washington agreed with Hamilton. And thus was born our first national bank.

Essentially, what I am saying is that by taking this action, two of our Founding Fathers...one an author of a primary source on the Constitution...stated in no uncertain terms that it is a living document and open to interpretation by the people we elect.

So, the next time you hear someone yelling about strict readings of the US Constitution and what our founding fathers intended, tell them this story...that is, right after you wipe their spit from your face.

Hey, wait a minute...!

I've had a lot of angry people tell me in the last two years that Barack Obama is a terrorist loving socialist. Now we have this? And in my own backyard?

The warrant for the raid on Kelly's apartment, in the 1800 block of Riverside Avenue, sought notebooks, address books, photos and maps of Kelly's travels to the Palestinian territories, Colombia and in the United States on behalf of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

The warrant also sought any information about efforts to support FARC, a guerrilla organization in Colombia, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hezbollah, the political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon.

Apparently there were raids in Obama's home town of Chicago as well.

In Chicago, the FBI raided a condo of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, said Tom Burke of the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera, a Colombian revolutionary imprisoned in Colorado. Burke, who was given a subpoena, said he is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, as are some other raid subjects.

Burke said the group "advocates for socialism in the U.S." and opposes U.S. military intervention abroad. "Chicago and Minneapolis are two of the places we are bigger," he said.

I was under the impression that President Obama, as a freedom hating socialist, would in attendance at such a place with Bill Ayers running the meeting. Instead, he's arresting all of these advocates for socialism on suspicion of having terrorist ties? Could it be that I was right all along, not only about his place on the political spectrum (see: Dwight D. Eisenhower) but also about the infinitesimal influence of the actual left wingers of this country?

Take a look at this piece from World Socialist Web Site.

Of a piece with the Times’ decision to bury its news report on the raids in a perfunctory article on its inside pages, the editorial sends a clear signal to the Obama administration and the police/security agencies. The Times has no problem with the use of police-state methods to suppress antiwar sentiment and will not make an issue of the attacks carried out on Friday. This amounts to a tacit endorsement of the FBI raids.

Even the "Traitor Times" is now part of the police state? Where's Ann Coulter when I need her? Sheesh....

Some of you bitched at me and assured me that the Obama and the radical left were one and the same. In fact, I was told quite clearly that the radical left was running our government. And yet, he is now arresting them? He sure has a funny way of showing his loyalty...

Frankly, I'm stumped. Anyone care to help me out on this one?

Whither the Tax Cuts

In what has to be the most pathetic display I have seen in quite awhile in Washington DC, it appears that the Democrats are going to wait until after the election to take up the issue of the Bush tax cuts. Why they are not taking a vote is pure stupidity.

Most Americans want the tax cuts to be extended for all but the upper 2 percent. It's a slam dunk for the Dems heading out to campaign for the month. Even if they don't have the votes, they can point to the GOP and completely illustrate which party stands for the middle class and which does not.

They can also call the Republicans on their credibility gap regarding the tax cuts and what it will mean for the deficit. The simple fact is that if the budget is to be balanced by 2020 while making the cuts permanent AND protecting the programs (Social Security, Medicare, Defense etc) the GOP (in their Pledge To America) says that they will protect, the entirety of the rest of the federal government will have to be abolished. The complete absurdity of the GOP position needs to be aired. But now with no vote in either House, this won't happen.

People need to understand some basic facts about taxes. Here is an excellent summation from a recent comment by blk.

The average guy (someone who makes, say, $100,000 or less a year) will pay the regular income tax rate, which is 28% at $100K, as well as payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, which is 6.2% on $100K).

Now the rich are different. Much of their income can come from capital gains, which is taxed at the 15% capital gains tax rate. So, if you're rich, you just arrange to get most of your income in the form of capital gains taxes (stock bonuses, dividends, etc.) instead of salary. That way you pay taxes at half the rate of regular guys, and you pay no payroll taxes at all.

This is why Warren Buffet blasted the Bush tax system: he paid taxes at a 17.7% rate on his $46 million in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60K, paid taxes at a 30% rate.

And it's easy to arrange any percentage of your income to come as dividends. If you own a corporation, you decide how much salary you are paid. You also decide how to distribute dividends from profits. You simply adjust the slider to more dividends and less salary if you want to pay less tax. The IRS might get suspicious if you pay yourself $1 (as the GM CEO slyly did while accepting stock in place of salary). But paying yourself a salary of half a million dollars while giving yourself ten million dollars in dividends will still mean you're paying half the tax per dollar earned than the average person, and the IRS will never blink an eye.

This point was further driven home in a recent editorial by John Verant, a lawyer here in Minnesota.

The past 30 years have witnessed the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of America. When Ronald Reagan came to power, the richest 1 percent of Americans held 20 percent of the total wealth. When he left office, that figure was 36 percent. Today it is 43. Since 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans had their share of all income increase 2 1/2 times. And the top 0.1 percent had their share of our national earnings increase an amazing six times.

And yet we hear a constant drone about the evils of "soaking the rich" and how awful that would be for the free market should the tax cuts for the upper income brackets be allowed to expire.

The problem with this argument, as even Adam Smith knew, is that the "free market" is an objective measure of value only when parties have relatively equal bargaining strength. When bargaining strength is grossly disproportionate, as is usually the case in employer-employee relationships, the market is a compass that indicates nothing more principled than He Who Has the Power.

So, all of you Smith lovers out there can find another colonial to prop up as "evidence" that your ideas actually have practical application in reality. This is our reality now and it sucks. Adam Smith is completely irrelevant.

Verant goes on to echo blk as well as make some key points as to how we arrived here.

Our leaders changed the rules of the game.

• They changed the tax code so that Warren Buffet now pays income tax at a rate slightly less than one-half that paid by his secretary.
  
• They permitted businesses to use tactics in labor negotiations that in Europe would be criminal.
  
• They permitted corporations to undergo reorganizations in which they extinguished their obligations to employee pension funds, while their obligations to banks were held sacrosanct.
  

As a direct consequence, today the richest 1 percent of Americans own as much as the bottom 95 percent, a disparity greater than at any time in our history. Money is power, and having a tiny minority holding the bulk of the power is contrary to the most fundamental premises of a democracy.

This is the exact reason why the GOP and their supporters want the tax cuts to stay the way they are. The people that are funding the so called grass roots of the Tea Party (the Koch Brothers, for example) desperately want this system will stay in place. And who can blame them? This sort of insane disparity gives them more power.

But how can one measure this disparity?

The top 25 hedge fund managers in America collectively received $25 billion in compensation last year, an amount equivalent to that paid to 658,000 schoolteachers responsible for the education of 13 million students

The CEO of one of Minnesota's health insurance companies receives compensation equal to that of about 1,600 nurses.

These could be the Democrats talking points. They would have Main Street on their side in less than a second because this is the very essence of why our economy sucks as bad as it does right now. Enmity for Wall Street is at an all time high! But the Dems are too afraid of being called a "socialist" or "Hitler" even though there is nothing remotely socialist about having the government do their fucking job and actually defend us against these pathological scumbags.

It's no wonder the Democrat's base isn't as energized as the GOP's base. Their leaders are submitting five weeks before the election has even happened.

From The Left

We hear quite a bit about how the majority of America hates the new health care law. What we don't see is why they hate it. Now we have a poll that confirms what I have thought all along: people wanted more.

A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1

Really?

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral.

Interesting. So the next time I have a blowhard yelling in my face about how America hates "Obamacare" I can point them to this poll?

You're damn right I will. And it gets even better.

Those numbers are no endorsement for Obama's plan, but the survey also found a deep-seated desire for change that could pose a problem for Republicans. Only 25 percent in the poll said minimal tinkering would suffice for the health care system.

Republicans "are going to have to contend with the 75 percent who want substantial changes in the system," said Stanford political science professor Jon Krosnick, who directed the university's participation.

Running on repeal plays well to the base but how well it will play to the general population is completely different animal.

And this

"I think it's a Trojan horse," Braley said of the health care law. "It's a communist, socialist scheme. All the other countries that have tried this, they're billions in debt, and they admit this doesn't work."

isn't going to cut it when you take a look at these poll numbers. Or facts, for that matter. How's Germany doing these days?

What to Expect

If the GOP wins either or both House in the fall, I can't think of a better summation of what they are going to offer than this.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Postcards From the Pledge
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Hmm...maybe it might be a good thing for President Obama in 2012 if they do win.

Why They Fail

Take a look at this video.



Obviously it is edited and staged but that's not the real reason why this is bad PR for the Democrats. Where's the bile, fear, anger, and hatred? It's a feel good story with a happy ending and many Americans in 2010 simply don't like that.

One would think this is something that Democrats could point to and tout as a success. I certainly think it is and I point to it as a chief reason why I voted for Barack Obama. He said he would bring affordable health care to people like this woman and he did it. Under the old law, her family would've gone bankrupt and died. It's just that simple.

Sadly, many of us thrive on the WWE like circus. This is why the folks at MSNBC will never cover a story like this. It's bad for ratings. Chris Matthews laments the Tea Party and their insanity but is actually one of their biggest helpers along with everyone else on that network. Stories like the one above don't fit into the media meme of "Obama sucks, Dems are Gonna Lose Big" so they won't be seen.

And this would be why they fail.

Yep, Pretty Much.

Before there was Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, there was The Onion.

Nation Once Again Comes Under Sway Of Pink-Faced Half-Wit

This particular pink-faced half-wit is at the height of his persuasive powers," Ellington said of the bloated, hateful multimillionaire. "By exploiting citizens' greatest anxieties during an uncertain time in our nation's history, the pink-faced half-wit has been able to promote his own vain, avaricious self-interests under the guise of standing up for the very disenfranchised people whom he himself is fleecing.

I don't think I've read a more accurate assessment of the machine that drives the GOP.

And why do I keep talking about the "party out of power?"

According to scholars, pink-faced half-wits have had remarkable staying power throughout history despite their outlandish, easily debunked claims, shameless self-promotion, and complete lack of credentials. More often than not, experts said, these pasty, shallow dullards skillfully manage to control debate on the most important social and political topics of the day.

That's why.

Don't think for a moment, though, that The Onion is playing favorites.

In recent years, there has been a new breed of equally vociferous, foaming morons who espouse opposing viewpoints but use identical tactics: the prime example being that pink-faced Michael Moore half-wit.

What's amazing to me is how similar the mouth foamers are even if they are at ideologically opposites. Compare any left wing blog to a right wing one. They are basically the same. They use the same language, the same insults, suffer completely from cognitive dissonance, and claim "the truth."

Sadly and more importantly, many of these people have lives which are not very fulfilling for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are being hit by tough economic times or aren't very socially comfortable. It's probably a combination of both. So, they feed upon this sickening arena that has been slowly raised to onyx level importance and feel better about their lives.

I suspect, though, that it is an empty feeling. And, like many addicts, they keep going back to sate themselves with a tool (pink faced half wits) that will never be enough. Meaningful change is never going to occur in this country as long as our perception of these important social and political are warped to fill this pathetic urge.

In the final analysis, the cause of all of this is simple. The real pink faced half wits are the ones we see in the mirror every morning.