Dealing with delusional Phil Robertson supporters

With the A&E Duck Dynasty fiasco going on right now, I am seeing a lot of misinformation flying around from conservatives. In most instances, people are simply not telling the truth. Let me tackle most of these asinine claims in list form.

Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.

Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.

That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.

What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.

It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.

Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."

This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.

All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.

Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy

This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.

Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.

John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?

Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.

Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.

Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.

Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.

ABC World News Now looks to wrong audience on question about ACA signup problems

I was just checking Facebook before calling it a night and I came across a World News Now post in my feed that hit me as surprisingly out of place. The post asks Facebook users to let them know if you're someone who has used the Obamacare web site to sign up for health insurance. I find this odd, considering that people who don't have or can't afford health insurance probably don't use Facebook.

Let's think about that. If you are a struggling American, are you awake at 2am on a Sunday reading Facebook? Do you even have a Facebook account?

This makes me wonder if ABC is looking to get the answer they want by asking the question in a place where they know responses will be largely made by people who don't need to sign up.

I mean, if you want to make it look like rednecks are ignorant, wouldn't you go to a Toby Keith concert and ask them questions about classical music? You'd get the result you wanted, but it wouldn't be a valid sample.

David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover

One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.

The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.

Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:

YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???

Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?

It isn't. It hasn't.

Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?

Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.

In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.

While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.

Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.

Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.

If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.

You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.

In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.

This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/

What if there's a tie?

In past presidential elections, I do not recall so much emphasis being placed on the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College on election day. Over the past two weeks, it seems as if that's what 75% of news sources mention, in passing or directly. I'm beginning to wonder why.

If I go to Gallup or 270towin and read their front page, in a matter of seconds, I'm going to come across talk of a tie. Should there be a tie, the reality is, the House picks the winner. Right now, the House is controlled by Republicans. That means Romney wins.

So do these people know something we don't? According to 270towin, there are 32 combinations in which a tie might occur as of today with about eleven states up in the air.

It's almost as if they are giving us a preview for the news coverage we will receive on election night and the morning following the election. It's almost as if the election is going to be rigged and then stolen. Imagine the hubbub should the House pick Romney. It will be no different than the events which transpired in 2000 when George W. Bush was handed the big win by the Supreme Court. The people didn't make this decision. The Electoral College didn't even make that decision. It went to the Supreme Court. In this year's scenario, it would be left up to the House, not the people.

It would further discredit the validity of the Electoral College and invigorate the push for our elections to rely solely upon the popular vote instead. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way the tie scenario is being fed to us. It's very suspicious that this possible outcome is so common a topic this year.

I mean, according to 270towin, Obama has a 74% chance of getting to 270 and Romney only has a 24% shot at the same goal. Why, then, does it even come to mind that the election would end in a tie?

Is this just media hype? Imagine the division in this country should the House be given the choice. Imagine just how much finger pointing and complaining we will have to endure over the next four years. Imagine all the doubt and distrust something like this would create.

A tie? That'd put us in some deep doo doo. Let's hope there is a clear winner on election night. I do not want to put up with a partisan decision. I would rather see the Electoral College play out as intended.

Because we value entertainment more

People are now asking why it was such a disaster was allowed to happen at the Indiana State Fair this past week end. The band, Sugarland, was about to go on stage. The crowd was awaiting their performance. While all this was going on, storm clouds were on their way, Indiana officials were seeking out advice regarding the weather, and people were admittedly concerned about the looming storm.

So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?

I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.

People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.

On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.

But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.

After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.

But people in our area have taken this one step further.

When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.

Sounds great, right?

Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.

So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.

Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.

Double Standard: UCLA Miss Piggy

When a student at UCLA posted a racist rant towards Asians on YouTube, all hell broke loose. The video itself is arguably protected by First Amendment rights, but defenders of her "ooooohhh ching chong ling long ting tong" impression tend to be white, middle aged, loudmouths.

Let me give you all a lesson on comeuppance in the white community.

When you run your mouth, shit happens. You get your ass beat. It's Jerry Springer. It's white trash Maury. That's just how it goes.

There is a double standard being allowed to flourish underneath defending this young woman's comments.

As white people tend to put it, she bit off more than she could chew. She stepped in it. Now she's getting what she deserves.

Lesson:
Don't run your mouth. You're going to piss people off, and usually rightly so. Comeuppance is a bitch.

The Political Correctness critics are all over this one. I'll clue you. If this had been made about a white person, the reverse racism card would have been played in a heartbeat. Sometimes the people with the thinnest skins have the loudest mouths. Just remember that the next time White Honkey gets offended.

Being PC saves yourself from getting your ass handed to you for being stupid. The Golden Rule should guide you in the right direction. This poor fool wasn't thinking and she put something stupid on YouTube. Now, it'll haunt her for years.

If I were her, I'd stop studying in the library. If I were Asian, I'd target the hell out of her all the time just to make her angry. She started the fight and now she's going to have to live with the repercussions. That's how it works. She'll get a dose of just how un-PC the world can be to someone who doesn't have a filter.

She'll be forever known as White Bimbo Racist Miss Piggy.

Conservative Tweets Late To The Party

With all of the hoopla going on in Wisconsin over union busting, my initial instinct was to observe what the dialogue offered in cyberspace. Twitter was a great place to check. When the protests peaked late last week, Twitter was alive with positive comments supporting everything. The tweets reflected public opinion in terms of percentage supporting vs opposing the actions by Gov. Walker.

Today, now that the Republicans in Wisconsin have made fiscal concerns less important than ideology, attacking unions and middle class America, the vibe on Twitter is noticeably different.

Conservatives dominate the trends. Go ahead. Look for #unions. Look at all the tweets. They may have arrived late to the discussion, but now that they are here, they are flooding the internet with hatred, misinformation, and talking points related to unions.

Even in news articles posted online, commenters were largely supportive leading up to last night. Today? The Conservatives are trolling the message boards like stink on shit. The term "Union Thug" didn't get thrown out there until today on a grand scale.

One has to wonder if this isn't an organized effort to flood Twitter with negative publicity. This happened with HCR. It happens with every political topic out there. The Conservative response comes in a wave on Twitter, usually waves of misinformation and just as much hatred as witnessed in public.

The opposition just seems to be far too orchestrated than a random series of opinions.

I find this to be a peculiar observation. If public polling favors the unions, it stands to reason that Twitter should reflect these opinions. The sudden shift in content disturbs me as an American who knows corporations run the Republican party. Abrupt changes in the dialogue like what I've just described should not go unnoticed. Of course, nobody in the media will catch onto this trend. That's why I'm posting it here. When you control the dialogue, you control public opinion. The overwhelming change in opinions on Twitter incorrectly portrays the sentiments of the American working class.

All is not as it seems.

Maddow misses the mark

There is one thing that bothers me more than anything else about the more Liberal media outlets, namely MSNBC. While I admit the coverage and explanations are usually spot on and come from valid sources, the overall point has no relevance to the modern day Liberal. The often cynical news segment highlights the opposition and does not address our own goals or ambitions as Liberals.

In a recent episode of the RMS, Maddow correctly highlighted how Democratic officials have caught on to the hypocrisy of big government rhetoric among Conservative politicians.

I should probably explain this first.

Government involvement in our lives is something Conservative politicians use to rile up their base against their competition and although "big government" is a boogie man that only exists as a device for advancing one's own career, the socially conservative side of their base wants nothing more than government to interfere in our lives. This occurs in matters with religious undertones, namely gay marriage and abortion, but the fact remains. If the government tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes, it certainly does not look like small government.

That was a valid point to make. Nothing wrong with it.

But you're not talking to those hypocrites. You're talking to us. I'm glad Maddow reported on it the way she did, but as a Liberal who wants to see more ballsy attitudes from elected Democrats, such dialogue does nothing to tell me where we are headed as a party. Sure, our elected officials are catching on to the hypocrisy, but as a campaign ad against an opponent, it has very little bang for the buck. Voters on that side of the fence are still going to swing to the Right, citing the lesser of two evils defense.

In other words, this is not a credible attack plan. It only feeds the desire to run negative campaign ads. What voters *should* want are politicians who will tell us what they will do for us. They *should* want to hear a plan.

So while Maddow pegged conservatives for hypocrisy, in my eyes, it has no substantive merit.

We should focus on taking patriotism back. We should focus on our economic principles and fight the resistance set on crippling our legislation to the point where it becomes an ineffectual stack of paper. We should tout our accomplishments up to this point because our opponents continually tell their base we are doing nothing at all.

Divided we stand...Wait. What?

Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches on the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise is not a possibility anymore. One side attempts to compromise to the middle and ends up losing, while at the same time, gets framed as uncompromising and so far Left in ideology, the other side has no idea where the middle even begins or ends because they are too far Right in ideology. In the end, nothing gets done and the American people suffer for legislation that has been made ineffectual through backdoor deals and retroactive policies specifically designed to cripple such legislation. Let's face it. We are a mess.

After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.

After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.

Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.

What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.

My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.

I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.

Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.

Stop Calling Independents "Moderate"

Moments ago, David Gregory on Meet The Press asked a question of the panel, reflecting back on the 2010 midterm election. He phrased it in terms of the moderate voter moving away from President Obama and more to the Right. There's just one thing wrong with that comment. Referring to Independents as Moderates is no longer a legitimate perspective. The political spectrum has changed and our media talking heads have yet to make the adjustment.

I wrote a post about this a long time ago, yet no one seems to be catching on.
See A New Trend: Being an "Independent" Voter

Visit any Conservative web site where a forum is in place. Ask the Conservatives if they identify themselves as Republicans or Conservatives. Ask them!!!

Their answer will be the following.

They no longer associate themselves with the Republican party. They are Independents. THAT'S RIGHT. Those Conservatives are now calling themselves Independents. Conservatives who do not align themselves with the Republican party are not moderate Conservatives. They are fringe Conservatives. They believe in far Right policies. They will never support a Democratic agenda, let alone a moderate agenda. When news organizations conduct their polls and end the questionnaire by asking if participants identify themselves as a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, do you see now how these polls can suddenly make it seem as though the general public is against what Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing? The terminology needs to change. An Independent and a Moderate voter are not one and the same.

Leading up to the 2008 presidential election, we saw this trend. After Barack Obama won, we continued to see this split on the Conservative side of the fence. Our news outlets have not fully recognized the trend. They are asleep at the wheel. This sort of trend has existed on the Left for some time now. Only until recently has the "Independent" voice on the Right gained any traction.

So...will someone in the media shake some screws loose and stop referring to Independents as people who vote from the middle? It's misleading. Even top Conservatives in Washington, from Mitch McConnell to John Boehner have used this "statistic" to spin politics in their favor, claiming middle America is on their side when in fact, this is not the case.

America, where we do not learn from our mistakes.

Part of the problem I have with the Left-leaning main stream media is the disconnect it has with the goings-on among the real Right-wing electorate. When pundits sit at their desks discussing the power struggles going on in this country right now, they direct most of their focus at the elected officials who wear an R on their sleeve. The Left-leaning media does not hone in on their supporters. These pundits put things in context of an America which does not want to dive back into the ditch of the Bush years. A vote to the Right in the mid-term elections most likely will send us back into the old habits which got us into our present predicament to begin with.

The notion that we know where the mistakes were made cannot be any clearer. Those of us in the Center and on the Left seem to find solace in that ever popular quote, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's a good soundbyte. It does make sense. The problem is, the real world doesn't think that way, especially if the eyes looking out on the world are firmly planted in the head of someone Right-leaning. There is an alternate universe with a skewed version of reality chomping at the bit, hungry for control of this country.

Pundits need to take a vacation. They need to spend some time living in disguise among the entrenched Right wing zealots. Shreveport is just such a place, as is East Texas. I say, pack your bags and come on over here. You'll be shocked at what you learn after only a day or two among these southerners.

They do want the Bush years back and it has nothing to do with paying attention to the mistakes of the past. The mistakes are forgivable in their mind. Why? Because it fed into their paranoia. They could sleep at night knowing there was someone in the White House who wanted to kick some ass and who wouldn't let some Liberal pantywaist bring homosexuals into their churches and blacks into their neighborhoods. For them, our strength lies in our military, not our populace or our resilience. W gave them the out of sight, out of mind comfort. On top of all of that, the angst right now is deeply associated with the loss of an election, stirring up emotions only seen when two college football teams face off in the Southeastern Conference. They don't have the cajones to stand up against the corporate corruption and greed ruining our communities. They would rather have a job that kills them from the inside out than a government who fights for them to make the workplace safer and holds big business accountable for their misgivings. Our Left-leaning media does not know this group of people all that well. Unfortunately, I'm living among these kinds of people, distraught at the notion that I am living in some sort of personal Hell. We need to stomp these people out and shout them down the same way they go about handling us. The fight is on and we need to step up our efforts.

So while it might sound nice to be optimistic about the Democratic agenda and our success in previous elections, it has no bearing on what this country really wants, even if they want to drive us into a wall. It's a wishy washy way of thinking. The gloves need to come off. Barack Obama said it best in his speech the other day when he endorsed Harry Reid.

"We know how the movie ends when the other party is in charge. You don't have to guess how they'll govern, because we're still living with the damage from the last time they were governing...and they are still singing from the same hymnal. They haven't changed. They want to do the same stuff."

Unfortunately, Barack Obama still has faith in the American people. I do not. He thinks that Americans know that the policies of the previous administration will be remembered. He needs to recognize that the dialogue has been hijacked by the Tea Party and the spin has already begun on history barely even old enough to grow mold yet.

But even his quote targets elected officials and not the electorate. Don't get distracted, folks. We are up against more than a few idiots advocating chickens in exchange for health care and making lemonade out of children born out of incest. Their followers spew the same crap. We are up against the threat of idiocracy.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

And repeat we shall.

Again and again.

Until we learn our lesson.

Or until we poison ourselves and our planet in the name of our own selfish interests.

But by then, it's probably going to be too late.

Blanche Lincoln: Twisted Political Meaning

Blanche Lincoln is a conservative Democrat running to keep her seat in Arkansas. Anyone who followed the health care debate is familiar with this woman. She was just one of many so called "Democrats" holding up the process. Her reputation at the time was that of a member of Congress whose seat was in trouble.

Now that elections are coming, all the ads and commentary surrounding Blanche Lincoln are being twisted to fit some sort of anti-incumbency/anti-Obama agenda. Let's bring the nuts back to reality for a moment.

Her job was already in peril. From what most pundits said during the HCR debate, she was screwed and her attempts at opposing HCR were merely for show to save her job. Her present uphill battle has nothing to do with being an incumbent or being a Democrat. It has everything to do with things she did during her term in Congress.

The sad thing is, the media hasn't framed her in this light since the HCR debate. Somehow, her predicted loss is being used as a political ploy to convince the rest of America that people are coming after Democrats in the 2010 elections. While many other Democrats are facing battles in their home states, Blanche Lincoln is not one of the primary targets, even if they are building her up into one. When she loses her job, we should not interpret the result as a reflection on President Obama. It is simply a reflection of her inability to represent her constituents effectively.

Come on now people. Get a clue. This is all election fluff.

Poor Yahoo/AP News Journalism Stirs The Pot

With rising costs of running government programs, certain decisions will be necessary. Some programs will face cuts. Others will be deemed wasteful and cut altogether. The fact remains that in order for Americans to continue to enjoy services offered at the federal level and to remain a major military power in the world, we are going to have to find money somewhere. We also owe a few countries some money. No bones about it. We need to figure this out.

But what has Yahoo News thrown into the mix? Fear over a VAT, a value-added-tax. In simplest terms, that's a value based form of tax where an expense gets tacked on to a product which represents its journey from creation to market. Not many like the idea of a VAT, but that's not the point of my post, at least not directly.

What Yahoo News has done is write an article with a daunting headline striking fear into the minds of taxpayers, specifically wingnuts, and stirring the pot of anti-Obama sentiment a little more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax

What the article mentions, yet fails to responsibly convey, is that President Obama is not actually considering, nor his he proposing, a VAT. As expressed by the Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, a VAT “is not something the President has proposed nor is it under consideration.”

Can't get much clearer than that. The only people who should predictably fall for such an article already feel Obama is a liar. The truth could hit them in the nose and Obama would still be a liar.

But wait, there's more.

Like another recent debacle over a fishing ban spawned from one editorial piece on ESPN which got the wingnuts all riled up, the dubious VAT proposal is only being purported by Yahoo News. Anyone linking to a story about a VAT coming from the Obama administration leads directly back to the same Yahoo News Article. Read the article for yourself and follow along carefully. The headline asserts that Obama is considering a VAT, yet at every turn in the article, the message being sent in response is that a VAT is not being considered. What Obama did say is that many options are on the table. Perhaps he misspoke slightly, making himself appear as though in fiscal matters, he is remaining open minded. Blame poor question/answer prep.

Take the research one step further. Michele Bachmann tried to spin this VAT notion the other day when she went up against Chris Wallace. He called her on it, plainly stating that a VAT is not being proposed. Paul Volcker might have suggested that we as a country might have to consider it to pay our way out of the hole we've been left in, but that's as far as the idea goes. We all know Bachmann is nuts anyway.
http://factcheck.org/2010/04/sunday-slips/

Come on now people, crack some heads over this. Call me when Congress has moved beyond committee proposing an all out VAT. Otherwise, spare me the tin foil hat diatribes. The Senate just went 85-13 against the idea of having a VAT.

To the "Small Towners"

Lately in the debate over President Obama's approval numbers, people on the Right, the Tea Party ilk especially, are trying to use their insulated and isolated groups of friends to justify widespread disapproval of anything Obama proposes. While I know attempting to explain the interactions involved in this dynamic may be a matter of futility, I will try nonetheless.

The logic follows as such. If all the people I know dislike what Obama is doing, then it stands to reason the rest of the country feels the same. Let me fill you in on some extra aspects of the interaction going on.

1. I have to ask about the specifics regarding "everyone you know."
2. I have to ask whether or not you have any liberal friends to begin with.

Have these liberal friends questioned you? Have you wondered why?

They are tired of repeating themselves when confronted with outright lies and misinformation. Repeating oneself is not a fun thing to do. Ever sit around with a group of friends? How often to disagreements arise? You are a group of friends for a reason. Those outside your circle never participate in your get togethers. You seldom hear from opposing views.

I can sit around at the barber shop and never once hear anyone agree with Obama. Why? I'm in the South at a white barber shop. I'm not going to hear anything other than dissent, justified or not. That should raise a red flag. I can proudly say that I no longer waste my money on such nonsense and get my hair cut elsewhere.

It is this sort of social dynamic that perpetuates the idea that those who surround themselves with people of the same ilk refuse to see what is right in front of them. It is why FOX News is a single entity and other news organizations are labeled as "liberal media." While the Right continues to claim the "liberal media" controls what you hear, it is more true that FOX News and the talking heads on the Right follow the pattern which exemplifies controlled information and parroting of ideas because the information being passed around is often done in a circular fashion among themselves. They are an insulated entity. Everyone else is scrambling for a story and a career in journalism.

Take where I live, for example. None of my local news outlets are fair and balanced. They all stink. They use Rasmussen polls. Anchors have their own Right-leaning web sites and columns. Reports only report what the viewership around here wants to hear. Polls in local news broadcasts often perpetuate misinformation by using said misinformation as the premise for the poll, thereby legitimizing something that never was true to begin with. They get numbers in favor of something that does not exist. None are FOX stations. Well, one is, but I never watch it. My local NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates are all Right-leaning.

Two perfect examples:

A poll I posted on here at the blog asked whether or not we approved of the Obama health care bill. At the time, no Obama health care bill existed. There were multiple bills in the works and no one bill stood out as the leading piece of legislation. When asked the question, the ideal response is not yes or no, but rather "Which bill are you referring to?"

The second example is a recent one. The poll had to do with whether or not voting out career politicians would bring about repeal of the health care bill. It has already been pointed out by many, including Republicans, that it would take a miraculous number of wins in the midterm elections and even then, the chances of repealing the health care bill simply don't exist. The news disregarded this point, instead, choosing to fire up the Right wing base over anger related to the passage of the health care legislation to justify voting out elected officials.

But this is to be expected. You see, quite often, political differences are different because of a discrepancy with one premise. Often is the case that the premise on the Right is severely flawed, covered up with more animosity than real critical thinking. When one side of a debate operates from a very different premise, it is next to impossible to make your point shine through without drawing unnecessary and unrelated fire from the opposition.

Example:
I will never be able to point out the irony in - a Texan who feels abortion is a selfish arrogant act - to an actual Texan. Why? They will ask what Texas pride has to do with abortion. They are completely oblivious to the irony I see. The epitome of a Texan is that of an arrogant and selfish ass and in turn, I would not expect someone so selfish to have a problem with another so-called selfish act. An additional ironic point to make is that this is the new platform of the Religious Right component of the Republican party. Do as I say, not as I do. David Vitter exemplifies this utter hypocrisy in Christian Conservative thinking. But I digress. Hopefully you get the point of the example. The problem is premise.

You will never understand the broader picture until you step outside of the small town way of thinking. While Mayberry can be an enjoyable place, it operates under a very strict system of control. Those with power in small towns are able to manipulate anyone and everyone in the town. Those who question the power structure are chastised and cast out into the cold. There is nothing wrong with having pride for living in a flyover state, but you cannot suggest that you are any more American than someone living on the coast. It happens in coal mining towns. It happens in farming towns. It even happens in somewhat larger cities.

By limiting your argument to the opinions of only your friends, you have just introduced a hell of a lot of bias. I have very few friends where I live, but that is largely because they would prefer to have nothing to do with me as I'm not a church going, Right-leaning redneck. No, I'm not stereotyping. I'm simply telling you that the population of this town is largely comprised of this group and they are very selective about who they choose to surround themselves with. I highly doubt they are getting additional perspectives from anyone like me seeing as how I, myself, have very few friends as a northern transplant in the South. I've seen the outside world with my own two eyes living among the natives, not stationed on an army base.

To this accusation of corruption and arrogance, I expect anyone on the Right to respond with the well scripted "Liberals do it too." While I agree several on the Left insulate themselves, they do not follow the same pattern of limited information flow that occurs on the Right. The information being passed around outside of your circle is much more varied and open to interpretation whereas the information inside of your select group is limited by your own townsy lifestyle. This is why the "regular guy" has been pitted against the "elite" so as to prevent open interpretation of information from being accepted as legitimate. Your modus operandi should not be to screw over liberals every chance you get. I do not wake up every morning plotting to make life a living hell for conservatives. That is what has become of our political system. No longer is the statement "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" true. Nowadays, it's more about whether you win or lose. Much of the anger circulating among the Tea Party has more to do with being a sore loser than being a true conservative.

Prior to Columbus, the notion that the world was flat seemed almost painfully obvious. Look how that turned out. Things are not always that simple and seldom follow what Billy Bob considers common sense.

To steal a line from Pulp Fiction, move out of the sticks.

Michael Steele and the Slim Margin of Error

Some media networks today are covering aspects of a question asked during an interview between George Stephanopoulos and Michael Steele.

GS: "Do you feel that, as an African-American, you have a slimmer margin for error than another Chairman would?"

MS: "The honest answer is yes. It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do. It's a different role for me to play and others to play, and that's just the reality of it. But you take that as a part of the nature of it."

I agree with Steele, for the most part. I disagree with some of the commentators on major network TV. Listening to Al Sharpton right now on The Ed Show. I'm agreeing with most of what Sharpton is saying. It seems criticism over Steele's comment is largely partisan in nature and not focused around issues of racial disparity.

African Americans are under greater scrutiny and offered a much slimmer margin of error. It is a fact of life, but it is not one we should accept. It's not playing the race card as many have implied. The GOP does not have a stunning reputation when it comes to embracing ethnicities that are not Caucasian. The question is a reasonable one in light of this trend. Steele using Obama as an example is also legitimate and helps point out the drive from the Right towards criticizing Obama because of the color of his skin, although I do not think Steele meant for that conclusion to be drawn from his answer. When a white guy screws up, on average, he is going to get some leeway. When a black guy screws up, he is likely to be fired. Plain and simple.

That being said, Steele should be held to the standard by which any GOP Chairmen should. Whether or not he is being crucified as a result of his race has yet to be revealed, and perhaps never will, but the question is there. The "race card" is only a race card when it is played to avoid personal responsibility for matters unrelated to race by dragging race into an argument where it does not belong. The notion that perhaps Michael Steele was being set up or is simply taking the fall for this, in part, because of his race has been in my mind from the moment he took heat for Voyeur-gate. I'm not saying he should be excused, but I am saying that the reaction might be accentuated by matters of race.

We are not out of the (back)woods yet with regard to racism in this country.

Welcome Back, Domestic Terrorism

Joseph A. Stack flew 25 miles to an IRS building off of I-83 this morning. He then dove straight into it, Stack, the only death so far. Investigators are still searching for more casualties. Associated with the tragedy was an approximately 3000 word manifesto expressing his thought process for such an act along with the events which lead to his decision.

He repeatedly edited and finally posted a 3000 word manifesto leading up to this morning's disaster. The letter, a rant about taxes and the government, spurred from years of hassles with the IRS. Unfortunately, the language in the document was more than your basic gripe about the IRS.

"Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Desperation and anger sums it up. That is the disturbed paranoia on the Right which has triggered some to consider behaving violently. To deny the existence of such an element is to deny the serious nature of the accusations anti-government groups have made. Those accusations are not without consequence.

The strange part in the tirade was that I could not pin down which side of the fence the guy sat on. Much of his suicide note is obviously anti-government and anti-taxes, yet at the end of the document, he invokes Communism. The letter is peppered with Tea Party style language and other phrases which hint he leans more Right than Left. Strange, indeed. But we should not attempt to rationalize the ravings of a lunatic.

Moments after his name surfaced, Tea Party enthusiasts jumped at the opportunity to use the attack on the IRS to elevate their own anti-government position. The real question to ask then is, will Tea Partyers mistakenly take this act of violence as a green light to take action against the government in a violent manner themselves?

What troubles me even more is how Tea Party supporters and Limbaugh/Beck listeners will sympathize with this man. These same people call critics of the war terrorist sympathizers. I'm sure they feel that this man's violent response represents a legitimate message being sent to the Obama administration. They will defend is insane suicide note as something that represents a growing source of frustration in this country. The problem is, there is no IRS squeeze being put on Joe Taxpayer. The notion has been manufactured and perpetuated via ideology and fear. The Obama administration cut taxes for people in this group.

What they won't say, however, is that the manifesto has clues which suggest Stack may have not been all that kosher when it came to his taxes. I'll get to that in a minute. First, let me focus on the Tea Party reaction to this act.

Search Twitter for Stack sympathizers. These are just some of the gems you'll find.

Mixed feelings? Main stream media misinformation? Well written and poignant manifesto? Tea Party martyr?

Some folks on the Right are even claiming Stack was a wacko from the Left. They claim to have read his manifesto, yet aside from a jab at George W. Bush and a small tirade about health care being a crisis, nothing about his manifesto stinks of straight Liberalism, only Tea Party anti-government angst. Those on the Right consider anyone who criticizes Dubya or our "wonderful" health care system a Leftist. Part of his manifesto actually hinted that he was possibly weaseling around tax laws in order to evade paying. See the part where he talks about tax law readings with neighbors and lawyers and the section where he had undocumented income. He made himself out to be a patriot of all things. Draping oneself in a flag definitely belongs in the Right corner, not the Left. He also made it relatively clear he had a negative impression of unions and of a Democratic politician, Patrick Moynihan. I would personally love to get my hands on some of the letters he claimed to have written to politicians in the past. Perhaps they might shed some light on his thought process and how this dreadful day came into fruition.

So let's give these sympathizers the benefit of the doubt and say Stack wasn't a member of the Tea Party movement. Take all his angst and make a list. All of it resembles things said at speeches during the Tea Party convention. Someone with anti-government angst focused against the IRS does not fit a Leftist profile at all. On the contrary, self proclaimed "true Conservatives" post this kind of nonsense on the net minute by minute. "No taxation without representation" is a tag line of the Tea Party movement, a quote elevated with some importance in the Stack manifesto. Tea Party jargon inadvertently justifies his state of psychosis.

What Tea Party folks need to realize is that their choice of words resonates with more than their own protesters. Talk of revolution and oppression by way of taxes speaks to these lone wolves with psychotic tendencies. It speaks to those carrying signs with swastikas on them and those who play the Socialism card far too often than is necessary. All of those signs we see at Tea Party protests are not the least bit light hearted. They have a clear message directed at a clear target. The Tea Party marks the target. The crazy ones use a scope and fire away. Then the Tea Party gets to act as though they aren't to blame.

Speaking out against the entire US government with vague complaints leaves the uninformed to come to their own ridiculous conclusions. You've fired up the wrong people and now we've suffered as a result. Time to tame your own followers. Time to keep your volatile language in check.

What is ironic is how things are looking to become a self fulfilling prophecy. What do I mean by that? The Tea Party movement and several wingnuts claim the US government will turn into a police state, the likes of which we haven't seen since Communist Russia. I don't think they realize that by advocating revolution and trigging men and women to wage attacks on US soil, they will actually justify actions which would police our freedom.

Some additional points:
He became a Texan, although it would appear he has roots in Pennsylvania. Texas does strange things to people. It's why I really try to avoid driving into Texas altogether. I do give him credit, however, for noticing the over-inflated ego present in Texans.

He complained about all this money lost, yet he had a small plane. Doesn't seem to be hurting that bad. Although it appears that in his younger years, hard times were upon him, real poverty and hard times, he knew not. Who among you owns a plane? Who among you facing hard times owns a web site? That also means he owns a computer and has a decent internet connection. If money is an issue, I certainly wouldn't be throwing it away on a plane and a hosted domain.

My final word:
If his message resonates with you, I am scared of you. I wonder if you will be the next to take your own life and possibly many innocent others. I worry that members of our military will act out in a similar fashion. B52's fly training exercises above the city I live in. Imagine what kind of disaster could ensue should one of our own who swore to defend this country drove a plane like that into the ground. I wonder if I will become a victim of your angst. A body count is nothing to be proud of. You really do terrify the rest of us. Whether you post at FreeRepublic, NewsMax, InfoWars, or any of the many other "Conservative" leaning sites, comments which endorse violence and sympathize with revolution need to be weeded out. Freedom of speech only gets you so far before you become a threat to the rest of society.

I should not fear for my own life on this scale. That is terrorism. Are you a threat? If your answer is yes, you deserve to be on the FBI watch list and no-fly list. It's not oppression or police state when we come after you. You seek to cause physical harm to fellow Americans. Nothing excuses that kind of behavior. Nothing.

This is your "revolution"? You've made Americans afraid again. The language you choose to use to speak to your audience has consequences. They are preparing to take desperate measures. Time to rein in your fringe and send a clear message that this is not the way to solve problems.

David Gergen Gets It Oh So Very Wrong

Anderson Cooper is hosting a special on CNN with a panel of familiar CNN faces. At one point, Dr. Sanjay Gupta began discussing tort reform and defensive medicine. Then David Gergen followed up with his own example of what an ENT he talked to calls defensive medicine.

Here's the problem. The example is an absurd one. Unfortunately, Dr. Gupta didn't speak up to point out how asinine the example was. Like an episode of House, the example had that far fetched medical practice sound to it. I'm sure physicians everywhere groaned in disbelief, just as they do when watching House.

I don't know what ENT David Gergen spoke to about defensive medicine, but physicians I work with don't order tests just because the patient asks for them to be done. I certainly don't bend over backwards to appease a patient asking for a test just for the sole purpose of getting the test done.

Let's use the example Gergen gave us.

Patient X comes in and asks for an MRI. Doctor gives the patient the MRI, afraid that the patient will sue him or her for not providing the investigation the patient asked for.

That's not evidence based medicine. If your doctor gives in to that sort of thing, he or she is not a good doctor and cannot seem to muster up the sense to explain to the patient why they do not need the MRI. The patient did not go to medical school. The patient, no matter how informed, cannot just snap their fingers and order any test they'd like.

Here's how the situation should have been handled. Communication! The ENT should have asked the patient why they wanted the MRI. Then, after listening to the patient's own reasoning, the physician should have explained what an MRI would tell them and whether or not the reason is really justified.

An MRI is a peculiar example to use because the patient is not exposed to radiation. Let's twist the story a bit and show you how doctors really behave when it comes to patients who demand tests that could do a little more harm.

Instead of an MRI, let's say the patient is asking for a CT or a chest x-ray. If there is no justification for the test, the doctor is going to expose the patient to an unnecessary dose of radiation. That's malpractice. That's bad medicine. That is something they could be sued for, not denying the patient the CT.

Let's go a little further because the next example is a more common form of defensive medicine. A mother brings her child in to the pediatrician. The child has a cold and the mother says she wants antibiotics. The physician has determined the infection is viral. Antibiotics would not treat the viral infection.

Here are the choices the physician has at this point.

1. Deny the patient antibiotics because it's not evidence based medicine. Tell the mother to treat symptoms, have the child rest, and drink plenty of fluids. No lawsuit.

2. Give the child antibiotics to make the mother happy because they know unhappy mothers tend to complain and want the magic pill to make the infection go away. To avoid confrontation, the physician practices some defensive medicine. It's a bad practice and paves the way for superbugs resistant to antibiotics. Lawsuit.

There are other options if the physician feels the mother is confrontational. Those other options are not relevant to this discussion, although again, an open line of communication would have been the best course of action.

In clinics across America, physicians have regular conversations about the overuse of antibiotics and the rise of bacterial resistance to those antibiotics. Superbugs are the last troublesome obstacle we want to face. Just because a patient demands antibiotics is no reason for a physician to throw those concerns out the window.

Let's give an example of defensive medicine that is also evidence based. For the sake of clarity and understanding, let me skip some of the jargon and clinical details and just go for the basics.

Let's say a patient presents with a set of symptoms. The physician recognizes these symptoms and orders the tests to confirm the diagnosis he or she already suspects. However, these symptoms could also be a sign of a malignancy, something that if missed, could result in a much worse situation for the patient. If missed and the malignancy were to progress to the point where outcomes vary tremendously (surgery, removal, and recovery vs metastatic disease and palliative care for example), you've got a lawsuit on your hands. The physician orders the initial tests for the most likely diagnosis and will probably order the other investigation soon to make sure cancer is not the underlying cause.

In that case, the physician is covering his or her ass, but at the same time, understands that cancer is in the list of differential diagnoses. At some point prior to ordering these tests, the physician would have sat down with the patient and discussed his or her concerns and possible diagnoses which warranted the investigations.

KSLA reveals its ignorance

KSLA News 12 out of Shreveport revealed its ignorance on the health care debate this Friday by posting a poll question on its web site which did not represent the reality that is health care reform at this point in time in Washington DC.

Let me explain by showing you the poll.

Here is the poll question and the possible list of answer choices.
Should the president's health care overhaul plan be passed?
1. Yes, as it is
2. No
3. Yes, but it shouldn't be rushed
4. Not as it stands now

Alternatively, here is the screen shot I took.


The thing is, there is no presidential bill yet to overhaul health care. The House and Senate are each working on various aspects of health care reform with their own bills. There is no single plan on the table.

Will someone explain answer choices 1 and 4 to me then? Which bill are we leaving as is? Since no single bill currently exists, "Not as it stands now" is certainly not possible.

Did somebody forget how the legislative and executive branches of government work?

Have the folks at KSLA discovered time travel and jumped ahead into the future?

It seems quite a few people are uninformed. Talk about a sad day for journalism. Thing is, it slipped right by the person typing it on the teleprompter as well as the anchor who read it out loud.

KSLA sucks. KTAL sucks. KTBS sucks. We don't have one decent news station in this area. It's times like these when I'm glad I can at least listen to NPR during the day instead of these chuckleheads. It's bad enough we have a ton of misinformation out there. Now even our news outlets need fixing. Yes, KSLA has been notified by phone regarding this poll and its inaccuracies.

Maher's Obama Audacity Rant

By now, I'm sure you've seen it on tv somewhere. Who says the media doesn't offer up negative Obama coverage? Maher went off on him and the major networks picked it up and played the fat kid/cake routine. In cased you missed it, on the 6/12/2009 airing of Real Time with Bill Maher, the flagrant host ended his New Rules segment with a blurb about Obama. First, he went on and on about how much Obama is on tv these days. Then he went on to discuss how Obama basically needs to become a hardliner with a Bush-esque swagger.

Folks on the Right are actually agreeing with Bill without even wondering where his motivation is coming from. Because it's Obama criticism, they love it. Proof that folks on the Right are sheep. They won't agree once they understand who Maher is. They definitely won't be as pleased with his rant when they discover the ass Maher wants Obama to ram his foot into is a Republican one.

The media has actually covered this next point. Let me enlighten you. Obama obviously faces criticism from the Right. With some policy decisions, even the Left is taking swings at the President now. That's where Maher is coming from. He's an upset leftist in many aspects. By having his little tirade spinning Obama as a pansy spending more time on tv and less time actually doing presidential things, he appeals to a certain crowd. Look deeper. This tirade is a response to his need for Obama to push more liberal policies.

What policies?

Let's stick with health care for the purpose of my post. I'm fairly certain Maher is a strong defender of a single payer system. If you've been watching the news lately, you'll know that's not what the Obama plan is proposing. In fact, even during the campaign season, Obama did not advocate a single payer plan. If you look at Maher's history, he has it in for the drug and insurance companies to the point where you wonder if he might need to be on prescription medication himself. It's no surprise that when Obama tries to find balance with the insurance companies, Maher throws a hissy fit.

But that's the thing about Obama. He understands compromise and middle ground is the stuff Americans are craving right now. It's why he got elected. It's why the Dems are essentially in control on the Hill. The AMA is all over Obama's back. Insurance companies obviously have more than a few politicians in their pocket. It's not like Obama has a slam dunk opportunity to push health care reform through. Middle ground is mandatory, not optional.

But...

With the Dems largely in control, he does have an opportunity to get things done. That's where Maher has a point. We saw this with Clinton. What happened once the Republicans had Congress? Nothing got done and they turned all the focus on the blowjob. We don't need another run of do-nothing politicians and we don't need to shove a boot up anyone's ass. There is no time like the present.

Other issues I'm sure Maher is upset about include legalization of marijuana and the environment. The first isn't happening. Not a priority. The second is sticky, but doable under this administration. With the economy in the shitter, green is the environmental policy and the economic policy all wrapped into one. That's the plan Obama preached during his campaign.

What do we need?

Folks on the Left need to stop throwing punches at Obama and go along willingly with his plans. He sure isn't going to get any support from the "No" Republicans in office now. Wait until later to pick your battles. Save your fighting words for when mid-term elections come.

As Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) said, "No man. Fuck sides! What we need is a little solidarity!"

What about Obama's celebrity status?

I think the motivation behind all the tv appearances has to do with morale. When Americans see their President out and about doing normal things, it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling which feeds into the love affair we've had with almost every guy that's taken office, almost (You know who). With the economy still in turmoil, I think Obama is trying to show the country that life is still enjoyable. Go out and do things. It's not like his job isn't stressful. Bush had his ranch. Previous presidents had Camp David. Leisure time is nothing new, even in times of war.

That being said, I do agree that he's spending too much time with things he shouldn't and not enough time getting in front of the camera telling the rest of us we need to sacrifice. I don't think we've learned our lesson yet. People still plan on living outside of their means. Greed isn't gone. We aren't cutting back on fuel consumption. We aren't taking global warming seriously. People still bitch about taxes, yet want government funded programs. Obama has to look these folks in the eye and just say what needs to be said. Sacrifice.

Haven't posted in a while

I have not felt the need to post in a while. See, the thing is, lots of things have been going on in the political world. Most of it has done quite well on its own.

The Republicans and conservative base have been doing all the damage on their own. They don't need any help exposing their evil side. Rush can do that all on his own. His sheepish followers help fuel the fire that has been so great to watch over the last few weeks. Cheney going out there and opening his mouth has been a blessing. Republicans are so disoriented right now.

On top of that, the media is having a feeding frenzy. With the new Ed show on MSNBC, my straight talk attitude is less necessary. His Crazy Talk segment pretty much sums up my feelings on most days. Most reporters are speaking their minds lately too. Bill Maher hasn't been as gung ho as I'd like, but he did stop the two Republicans he had on his show last Friday.

I'm wondering if there is a need for a voice like mine. People are finally catching on. Still, there are some things I'd like to cover and I might get back into writing in the weeks to come. Republicans have been saying the same old shit lately though, so repeating myself isn't all that fun. Democrats like me are equally frustrated with the broken record too. The conservative base is scared and the same old tricks are all they have to fall back on. They only have Rush, Savage, and Fox News to turn to for inspiration. It's time to leave the fools clinging to a lost cause in our dust. Let them scramble for power among themselves. We have progress to make.