The Trust of the Innocent Is the Liar's Most Useful Tool.

Mitt Romney went to a political rally on Thursday in Defiance, Ohio and said "I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China."

I don't know if he intentionally lied to the people of Ohio - and the rest of us too because we have television, the Internet and newspapers - or just foolishly repeated what he or ones of his aides (a now former aide?) read in a blog on the ultra-conservative The Washington Examiner website.
The blog, written by Paul Bedard, claimed that "...Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.  Such a move would crash the economy in towns like Toledo, Ohio, where Jeeps are made and supplied, and rob the community of the economic security they thought Obama's auto bailout assured them."

After reading the blog post, I can see where he might come up with that idea. But Romney should know by now that you cannot trust right wing news media (or left wing, for that matter) to give you the facts.  Do a little research.  Expect more from your employees, Mr. Job Creator.

The Chrysler company was quick to offer a terse rebuttal.  Gualberto Ranieri, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications, replied to this gaffe on the Chrysler website. He wrote:

There are times when the reading of a newswire report generates storms originated by a biased or predisposed approach.

On Oct. 22, 2012, at 11:10 a.m. ET, the Bloomberg News report “Fiat Says Jeep® Output May Return to China as Demand Rises” stated “Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley (President and CEO of the Jeep brand) referred to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China.”

Despite clear and accurate reporting, the take has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. workforce. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.

Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It’s simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world’s largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation. A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.

Ouch! Fantasies and extravagant comments? Damn, that's harsh.

The question is does it matter? I quickly browsed the erroneous blog post's comments section on The Washington Examiner website and found the usual drivel of Obama is ruining the country takes and lengthy discussions about car buying preferences.  There were no retractions, there were no apologies and there is no doubt in my mind that Romney would say it again tomorrow if it helped get him elected.

The title quote is from Stephen King.

We Can't Help Everyone, but Everyone Can Help Someone.

Speaking of "job creators," there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between the two candidates about invention, innovation and entrepreneurship.  Governor Romney is of the opinion that people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Ray Kroc and "Papa" John Schnatter (he mentioned him, seriously) are brilliant people who created business empires without the help of another single person or thing, including the dreaded government.

These are brilliant men who did, in fact, succeed in business with wonderful innovations, ideas and technology; but to claim they did it all by themselves is factually incorrect and delusional.  Yet, this is the kind of message that fires up under-informed voters. It makes them believe that success is right around the corner, that they needn't be dynamic to be the next big thing, that if the government would just get out of the way, I will be the next Donald Trump!

That's why the Romney campaign made sure America heard Obama say "If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  Of course, those two lines are part of a bigger text referring to how personal ambition and creativity are peaked, molded and assisted through interaction, opportunity and history.  Here is a fuller quote from the President:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads or bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

While it is not eloquent to read, if you can imagine the stops and fervor with which he spoke those words, you probably would be inspired or at least hate him a little less.  Here is a short list (off the top of my head) of inventions aided by the government:

• ABC Computer (ISU!)
• ENIAC Computer
• UNIVAC Computer
• ERMA Computer
• MICR Computer
• Integrated Circuits
• Satelite Television
• ATM Machine
• Internet
• Microchips
• The Bar Code
• GPS
• Cordless Tools
• CAT Scanner
• Heart Rate Monitors
• Smoke Detectors
• Insulation
• Cell Phone Cameras
• Wii
• Trash Compactors
• Water Filters
• Memory Foam

Even Henry Ford needed the government to build roads in order to sell cars and McDonald's needs farm subsidies to keep their meals cheap. There are symbiotic relationships throughout the world that are necessary for success.  Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers says, "My wish with Outliers is that it makes us understand how much of a group project success is. When outliers become outliers it is not just because of their own efforts. It's because of the contributions of lots of different people and lots of different circumstances—and that means that we, as a society, have more control about who succeeds—and how many of us succeed—than we think. That's an amazingly hopeful and uplifting idea."

It's impossible to live in a vacuum and be successful unless you are a character in Atlas Shrugged.
 

The title is quote is from Ronald Reagan.

 

All Good Things Are Difficult to Achieve; and Bad Things Are Very Easy to Get.

I must admit that I have not been paying very close attention to the presidential election this year. I was fairly confident that I knew who I would be voting for prior to the Republicans even settling on a nominee.

Just recently, sparked by my curiosity of pundits claiming that Mitt Romney won the first debate in Denver handily, I began to look a little closer at both candidates and their so-called plans for the future. I went to Governor Romney's website to try to understand how someone with no concrete plans or ideas could win a debate. After I bounced through the splash page that is soliciting money like a dancer at the Crazy Horse II, I found Governor Romney's 5-Point Plan.

This plan is eight pages long, but if you cannot get through that he has simplified it with a one-page version. The first three pages are dedicated to the supposed failures of President Obama. The latest recession is mentioned and compared to the previous ten recessions - in case you don't know, that takes us back to 1949 and conveniently omits the Great Depression and the Recessions of 1937 and 1945 - better know as three of the four most comparable to the latest - and how it has taken longer to recover from this latest recession. The latest recession was the longest and had the steepest GDP decline of any of the ten it is compared with and has only one real equal in common sense: the Early 1980s Recession.

This is the beacon on the hill, if you will, for Republicans because it was Reagan's Recession. I find this one interesting because Reagan handled it the way both presidential candidates propose to handle jump starting the current economic situation. First, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was passed. This piece of legislation did this:

1) Further deregulated Savings & Loan institutions, making it easier for them to lend in order to spur economic growth because they were not required to actually possess the money they were lending and they could make loans to anyone because loan-to-value ratios were eliminated.

2) Reduced the marginal tax rate 23% - 20% of that reduction went to the top earners, taking their taxes from 70% to 50% on money earned over $85,600. (The household median income in 1982 was $19,004 in 1982 - according to the U.S. Census Bureau, "household median income" is defined as "the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount."

3) Reduced the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%.

This idea is alluded to very non-specifically is Governor Romney's 5-Point Plan. He says he will reduce the marginal tax rate by 20%. But will it be like Reagan's plan, where almost all of the reduction went to the top earners? He also, like Reagan, says he wants to reduce federal spending, but he has given no further specifics than eliminating Big Bird and his pals on Sesame Street. This is a measly .00014% of the federal budget.

Anyway, there are some other ideas about affluent seniors and broadening the tax base to make everything revenue-neutral and then three pages of sources that supposedly support these vague assertions. Regardless, I learned nothing other than what Governor Romney would learn if he won the election, what President Obama has learned and what Reagan learned sitting in the Oval Office - we must pay for services.

Contrary to popular Republican belief, Reagan didn't end the recession with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Along came 1982 and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. It rescinded many items of the previous tax legislation and instituted a three-year, $100 billion tax hike—the largest tax increase since World War II and the largest peacetime tax hike in history. Federal revenue grew and Reagan went on to raise taxes eleven times, including tax hikes on gasoline, cigarettes and capital gains and to triple the national debt while in office.

President Obama's plan to raise taxes on the highest earners isn't a cure-all. It needs to be coupled with other legislation, but at least it is a plan and it is specific. It's not easy - even Reagan said "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."

The title quote is from Confucius. 

A Union of Government and Religion Tends to Destroy Government and Degrade Religion."

Douglas County School District in Colorado has proposed and are moving forward with the "Choice Scholarship Program." Under this program, children/families can apply for a scholarship where, if accepted, they will be given 75% of the allotted budgeted money per pupil to apply towards a private school education.

Here is a list of the schools that have applied to be part of this program:

Accelerated Schools
Ambleside School
Aspen Academy
Ave Maria Catholic School
Beacon Country Day School
Castlewood Christian
CedarWood Christian Academy
Cherry Hills Christian
Christ Our Redeemer Lutheran School
Colorado International School
Denver Christian Schools-Highlands Ranch Campus
Denver Christian Schools-Van Dellen Campus
Denver Christian Schools-High School Campus
Denver Street School-Denver
Denver Street School-Lakewood
Denver Street School-Aurora
Evangelical Christian Academy
Fountain Valley School of Colorado
Front Range Christian School
Hillel Academy of Denver
Humanex
Lutheran High School
Mackintosh Academy
Mullen High School
Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School
Regis Jesuit High School
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran
Southeast Christian School
St. Peter Catholic School
St. Pius X Catholic School
St. Therese School
The Rock Academy
Trinity Lutheran
Valor Christian High School
Woodlands Academy

As you can tell, many of these schools are sectarian. The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and other groups immediately filed a lawsuit when the motion passed through the Douglas County School District board. It has since been combined with another lawsuit filed by a residents' group called Taxpayers for Public Education. Not only do they claim that it violates the state's public school finance act, but it also unfairly discriminates against children with special needs.

The defendants, including the school district and the state, claim the proposal is religion neutral because the parents and the children decide where to apply the money.

The approach by the Douglas County School District has precedent. In Colorado Christian University v. Weaver, et al. (July 23, 2008), the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found a state scholarship program unconstitutional. The scholarship program provided scholarships to eligible students who attended any accredited college in the state of Colorado, but Colorado Christian University (CCU) was excluded from said program for being pervasively sectarian. CCU sued claiming violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. While the district court held for the state, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the decision for two reasons:

1) The program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification, and 2) its criteria for doing so involves unconstitutional scrutiny of religious belief and practice.

There are tons of entanglement issues here. But the crux of the matter for me is: are these sectarian schools indoctrinating children with their curricula? In which case, state money is being used for the further advancement of religious teaching. In my opinion, that is a violation of the Colorado State Constitution.

Furthermore, while I would love to see the extra $775,000 left over from these kids not attending public school used on my child and others, the state budgets for public education, not private education. No one is telling any of these parents or their children they cannot attend these schools, but the argument that their tax dollars should go towards the education of their child or children is inane. The only way you get to decide where your tax dollars go is at the ballot box. Isn't that unsettling?

Title quote is from Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black

“The Past Is Behind, Learn from It. The Future Is Ahead, Prepare for It. The Present Is Here, Live It.”

House Speaker John Boehner claims the Republican party got 98% of what it wanted out of the infuriating and trivial debt-ceiling deal. Really? Nobody likes this deal. Democrats hate it, the Tea Party faction of the Republicans hates it, and Ron Paul and Paul Krugman agree that the deal sucks, albeit for different reasons.

"The ‘cuts’ being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases,” wrote Paul.

And Krugman used this analogy: "...those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker."

According to the Macroeconomic Advisers (http://www.macroadvisers.com/), the deal might shave one tenth of 1% off annual growth over the next decade. The Republicans threatened to have the country default on our debts and caused a downgrade in our credit rating for that?

So what is Boehner so pleased about?

Republicans like to pretend that more federal regulations under President Obama and taxes are behind the lousy economy and slow job growth. This is a blatant prevarication. Even David Frum, the conservative columnist and a former special assistant to President George W. Bush recently noted that new federal regulations under Obama have been insignificant in number and there have been no new tax increases on businesses put forth by the Obama administration.

So, the Republicans are completely resistant to new or more government spending, but have submitted no alternative policy to what comes from the White House or the left side of the aisle. Clinging to trickle-down economics is not a plan. Despite campaign assertions to the contrary, Obama has not raised taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, so where are all the jobs that are created by letting them stay at the Bush tax rates?

The Republicans picked up a huge number of seats in 2010 election, but they have done nothing with them. A CBS News/New York Times poll at the end of June stated that the issue of jobs and the economy should be priority number one - more than half of those polled identified this as the most pressing issue. The country's debt, one of the favorite issues of the Tea Party, ergo, now the Republicans, was of concern to only 7% of those who responded.

This deal didn't create a single job, except to get me to come back to my blog - and I don't get paid.

Title quote is from Thomas S. Monson

I've Never Had a Problem with Drugs; I've Had Problems with the Police, Part I

During his presidency, Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs. Personally, I don't understood how you declare a war on something that does not fight back (the definition of war is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations), but Ronald Reagan continued this "war"in the 1980s and in 1986 Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act.

This act made it easier for the government to seize drug offenders' assets (houses, boats, cars, money, etc.), allowed the president to increase tariffs (taxes on imports) on products from countries that do not cooperate with the U.S. efforts to stop drug imports into the United States, and created the first laws against money laundering, or moving illegally obtained money (such as drug sale proceeds) into or out of bank accounts. Most importantly, this bill reinstated mandatory drug sentences by defining the amounts of various drugs that it believed would be in the hands of drug kingpins and high-level dealers.

In order to curtail trafficking, Congress enacted mandatory ten-year sentences for possession of 1000 grams of heroin and 5000 grams of powder cocaine and mandatory five-year sentences for 100 grams of heroin and 500 grams of powder cocaine with each level doubling for prior convictions. Reagan also proposed a 20 to 1 ratio for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, but House Democrats raised the ratio to 50 to 1 and Senate Democrats raised it 100 to 1. Therefore, possession of 50 grams of crack merits a ten-year minimum sentence and 5 grams of crack triggers a five-year minimum sentence, whereas trafficking 50 grams of powder cocaine carries no mandatory sentence.

Congress justified this sentencing disparity by stressing the serious social harms with which crack use was associated. That summer the media was in a frenzy about the crack epidemic and the poor crack babies that were being born every day. Of course, we now know that cocaine is not associated with any pattern of defects. Nor does it produce infantile withdrawal, like opiates.

The intent of this act was to target drug kingpins, but the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions - the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.

These mandatory minimums have shifted decision-making authority from judges, who now operate on the bench without accountability in these cases. These sentences have also sent a record number of women and people of color to prison, causing extreme overcrowding in our detention system - more than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions and in 2004 the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 55% of all federal prisoners were convicted on drug crimes. Most importantly, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime.

Yet, these laws remain on the books.

The title quote is from Keith Richards.

One Cannot Really Be a Catholic and a Grown Up

Earlier this week, President Obama was awarded an honorary degree from Notre Dame University. It is a tradition at Notre Dame to invite the president to speak at the graduation ceremonies the first May after he is elected, but this particular invitee drew the ire of of many Catholics. His stance on the abortion issue, apparently, was the reason people protested.

Mary Ann Glendon, a law professor at Harvard University and a former ambassador to the Vatican, was to receive the Laetare Medal, which Notre Dame calls the most prestigious honor awarded to American Catholics. She turned it down. Glendon wrote an open letter to Notre Dame president, Reverend John Jenkins, saying that while she did not oppose Obama speaking at the commencement, she was bothered by Notre Dame conferring an honorary degree on a president who supports abortion rights. She noted that this would be a direct violation of a 2004 statement by U.S. Catholic bishops, which declared that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

I commend the professor for her decision to not accept the Laetare Medal. She has every right to disagree with the decision of the school and to refuse to partake in the honor bestowed upon her under any circumstances or reasoning that she sees fit. However, would Glendon have been so quick to rebuke Notre Dame if the man who appointed her to ambassadorship, George W. Bush, was receiving the honorary degree and delivering the commencement speech?

Bush received his honorary degree and delivered the commencement address in May of 2001, but I do not recall a great wail of protest from the Catholics then. Bush, a staunch proponent of the death penalty (152 executions took place in Texas while Bush was governor) was welcomed with open arms in South Bend, despite the fact that the late Pope John Paul II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2267 to be exact) both condemn the death penalty vehemently.

This was not a religious quarrel, it was a political protest.

P.S.
The protests at the school were headed by conservative political activist, completely unqualified three-time presidential candidate and loser in every election he has entered, Alan Keyes. Keyes is also the man who filed a lawsuit seeking to challenge Obama's eligibility for the U.S. Presidency because he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. Oh, and much to his chagrin, his daughter Maya is a lesbian.

The title quote comes from George Orwell.

Books and Ideas Are the Most Effective Weapons Against Intolerance and Ignorance

I used to run a bookstore and one of my favorite booksellers was a former high school English teacher. After reading Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner," she told me that she had an urge to teach again because that book was so powerful and she wanted to share it with young minds. Her enthusiasm for the book inspired me to read it and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Recently the American Library Association listed "The Kite Runner" as one of the books that drew the most complaints last year by parents and educators. It was criticized for offensive language and sexual content. Of course, the overwhelming favorite amongst those who seek to control ideas and content is the book "And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, with illustrations by Henry Cole. This is an award-winning picture book about two male penguins who become parents. It is cited for being anti-family, pro-gay and anti-religion and has been the most challenged book for three straight years (pun intended).

I jumped over to the Barnes & Noble website (bn.com) to read customer reviews of of the "And Tango Makes Three," and I found mostly positive reviews. However, one of the dissenters posts read (caps are the reviewers):

THIS BOOK IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING UNNATURAL, WHILE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK OTHERWISE WITH A STOLEN EGG (OR CHILD). IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE, IT WOULD OCCUR NATURALLY THROUGHOUT NATURE. IT IS A WARPED VIEW OF FAMILY THAT TRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK ACCEPTABLE. IT PUSHES AN AGENDA THAT CHILDREN DO NOT NEED TO BE A PART OF.

Apparently this particular reviewer failed to see that this story was inspired by actual events at the New York Central Park Zoo. While a zoo isn't a truly natural habitat, it is an extremely close replica. Roy and Silo, the penguins in question for their sexuality, have been offered female companionship at the zoo and have adamantly refused it. They also seemed so desperate for an egg to incubate, they used a rock as a substitute before they were given the abandoned egg that became Tango.

The practice of banning books (a banned book is defined as one that has been removed from the shelves of a library, bookstore, or classroom because of its controversial content) is nothing new, but it is always frustrating to me. I have read thousands of books in my lifetime, books with despicable acts and what some would consider questionable language, but I have never felt compelled to be a homosexual because I read Michael Chabon's "The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" or a psychopath because I read Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho." I didn't start using the word nigger because of Mark Twain's "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" or become a devout Christian because I read the Bible. Books provide entertainment, enlightenment, education and escape. They do not force a reader to be the subject or partake in the subject matter.

The title quote come from Lyndon Baines Johnson

With Soap, Baptism Is a Good Thing

I recently read an article on the Denver Post with the headline: "Springs church, school clash over proselytizing." Apparently, representatives of the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Colorado Springs tried to lure a seventh grader into a van. This church has previously been charged with baptizing children without permission. Students at other nearby schools have also been approached by church members and other members have been preaching the Bible on school grounds.

After this incident, the school district sent home letters to all the parents and met with the church's leaders to complain about church members coming all school grounds, but all this did was force them onto the sidewalk. Once they are off school grounds, it is up to the parents to take legal action against them.

Part of this church's doctrinal statement is "We believe the church is a local, separated body of believers who are sent forth into the world to get people saved, baptized and added to the church." Obviously, they believe so strongly that they are willing to risk kidnapping and other felonies (it is my understanding that Baptists use the full immersion technique) to deliver the first sacrament.

I am very tolerant of and curious about religion (just ask the Mormons who had to describe their church in detail for almost two hours when they knocked at my door - I wonder why they never came back after they said they would?), but this is going way too far. They should hold a mixer or do philanthropy in the community in order to attract new members, not frighten children and dunk them unwillingly.

Religion is slowly but surely fading away in America. The latest survey by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicates that 16.1% of Americans are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Among Americans 18-29 years of age, the number is 31%. This makes for a smaller pool for churches to recruit from and a very competitive marketplace. Moreover, church doctrine is losing hold over its congregation. For example, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, slightly more Catholics favor legalized abortion in most or all cases than do not, despite the firm belief of the Catholic church that abortion is a grave evil. Pope Benedict himself said "The so-called traditional churches look like they are dying."

Eventually the religious unaffiliated will become a force in American social life and politics (if they haven't already). At 16.1%, this group represents a larger portion of the population than Latinos (14%), African-Americans (13%), and Asians (5%) and is the second largest religious group to Catholics (23%). Maybe the Cornerstone Baptist Church sees the writing on the wall and is trying to keep themselves relevant. Unfortunately for them, the Pew survey also shows that 44% reject the religion placed on them in childhood.

Title quote comes from Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Facts Are Stupid Things

I was recently driving back to Colorado from Iowa when somewhere west of North Platte, Nebraska, I exhausted my musical choices and could no longer stand to listen to the incessant hum of dialogue and action seeping from the movies my son was enjoying in the backseat. I searched in vain for an FM radio station that was not playing both kinds of music - country and western - but I was unsuccessful, so I switched to AM. And there in crystal clear signal was the grating voice of Rush Limbaugh. I needed a good laugh, so I kept listening.

He lectured his audience on history that only happens in his mind, claimed he knew where his private jet was at all times, bragged about burning as much jet fuel as possible on Earth Day and beat an inappropriate joke into the ground when a female caller made a slip while trying to say she was going to pop the cork on some champagne because Senator Arlen Specter had left the Republican party.

What he said after that truly frightened me. He said that he was glad Arlen Specter had left because the Republicans needed to get all of the liberal Republicans out of the party. He went on to say, "If this is to be the order of the day, next to go could be Senator McCain and his daughter, Meghan. Get them officially moved over and it just facilitates reality."

In his reality, the conservative ideology is infallible. Moreover, someone cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal because then they are betraying the ideology. Just today, there was a story written about how Jeb Bush thinks that Republican party needs to begin looking forward and stop waxing nostalgic about Reagan. Limbaugh, commenting about this story, said "[W]hen you see anybody...when somebody says you gotta leave Reagan behind, the era of Reagan is over, however it's said, it is said by Republican politicians who don't believe in conservatism, pure and simple. They don't believe in conservatism, they believe in something else. They can't explain what they believe in, but they believe in something else."

This disconnect with reality is what scares me. Reagan may have believed in conservatism, but he didn't practice it at all. He raised taxes every year he was in office (13 total take hikes) except his first and last year and he tripled our debt. Moreover, he may have prolonged the Cold War by arming our country to the teeth when it was obvious that the Soviet Union was teetering, he was responsible for selling arms to South American guerrilla fighters and supplying weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War, he ignored the AIDS crisis, he stiffened laws on minor drug offenses that has overpopulated and bankrupt our prison system, and he did nothing on the energy front despite the tell-tale signs that burning fossil fuels was damaging to the environment and that our oil addiction made us vulnerable.

Despite the evidence, Reagan is celebrated by the Republicans. The celebration of his presidency relies on one solitary fact: he cut income taxes on the top earners from 70% to 28%. In Rush's reality, this is the only thing that matters. You can add on the pro-life sentiment, the right to have a gun, etc., but it's all dollars and sense - his dollars and his followers' lack of sense.

The title quote come from the

40th President of the United States of America.

T.E.A.'d Off!

On April 15th, in hundreds of cities and towns across America, people gathered to protest taxes. Ironically, many of these protests took place in federally-funded parks, at federally-funded museums and historical sites or at federally-funded places of business.

The right wing of our political system got behind these events and sent conservative radio talk show hosts and members of its chattering class to promote them. The left wing of our political system either ignored or called foul on these protests by claiming these were staged events by Republican political action committees in a move called astroturfing (a formal political campaign that seeks to create the impression that it is a grassroots campaign). Left wing commentators made dirty jokes about tea bagging (you'll have to look it up for yourself if you don't know what I mean) and could barely stifle their laughter.

Whether FreedomWorks,a Republican political action committee chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, pulled the strings behind these protests is really irrelevant (but their website sure is full of propaganda about these events). The truth is that there are several thousand people and maybe millions of people who think that are taxes are too high and that we should not have stepped in to help any failing businesses. And it is their right to get out there and scream at the top of their lungs about the perceived injustice of it all.

Just like it is my right to turn away in disbelief and slowly shake my head when I see people carrying posters that compare President Obama to Adolf Hitler. These signs are a direct indication that we aren't taxed enough. Our school system has failed miserably! These people actually believe that we are headed towards a socialist or fascist society. They truly have no idea what these ideas and politically theories are and how they work.

We were actually closer to socialism under President Bush because he took the first steps of repealing the Constitution of the United States of America by making it acceptable to listen in on all of our phone calls, read our mail (electronic and written) and rifle through our records and backgrounds. He also readily handed out government contracts to companies with no bid, creating a de facto nationalized military industry that was parlayed on favors and contacts. On the other hand, President Obama has used federal money to stave off nationalizing the banking industry by investing our money in these institutions.

And Fascism? How we ended up there, I don't know. Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. These people were allowed to say their peace. In a fascist state, they would have been tortured and killed (once again, closer to the policies of our last president).

I am sure that a lot of these people protesting have great intentions and are worried dearly, but unfortunately, they were overshadowed by the racist and uninformed that only went because Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Malkin and others told them to go. The Republicans see this as a jumping off point, but a new Gallup poll show that 48% of Americans feel they were taxed just about the right amount. And most people can look forward to a tax cut once the Bush taxes expire in 2010. Just another ironic twist; they were actually protesting a Republican tax policy.

(April) Fools!

The Republicans, with much pomp and circumstance, delivered their budget proposal to the American people today. The highlights of their plan include:

• Repealing the entire economic stimulus package.
• Rolling back the recently passed 8% spending boost in the budget for the current fiscal year.
• Transforming Medicare for Americans younger than 55 by allowing them to choose from a series of pre-approved private insurance plans, with premium payments from the federal government to insurers varying according to an individual's age, income and health.
• Extending all of former President Bush's tax cuts permanently.
• Suspending capital gains taxes through 2010.
• Repealing the estate tax.
• Dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
• Increasing Department of Defense spending by $5 billion over Obama's budget.
• Creating a two-tiered tax code - 10% on the first $50,000 ($100,000 for joint filers) and 25% for everything above.

Most of this junk was lifted straight from McCain campaign stationery (at least the Republicans are learning to recycle and re-use), but one item from that list really got my attention. The Republicans proposed a tax increase!

That's right. This proposal would raise taxes on all single filers making between $50,001 and $178,001 and all joint filers making between $100,001 and $265,721 (against the 2008 tax brackets). Per the Republican Playbook, everyone above those top amounts either stays the same or gets a tax break.

How fitting that the middle class gets stuck paying the bill again while the wealthy and the corporations skate away with less responsibility under another Republican plan. Of course, the party line is that the wealthy and the corporate world create jobs. However, that is all theory and conjecture and the statistics don't back it up. When looking at national income shares from 2001 to 2006, wages and salaries have decreased from 55% to 51.6% while corporate profit has grown from 8.5% to 13.8%.

The Republicans didn't lose this past election because people want to pay more taxes. They lost because they are completely out of touch with the majority of the people in this country. We want solutions to problems that have been hampering us for decades and the cost of shifting the focus elsewhere right now would be much greater than the debt we will incur trying to find those solutions.

The Healthy Man does not Torture Others - Generally it Is the Tortured Who Turn into Torturers

Dick Cheney, referred to callously and humorously by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as "the next most popular member of the Republican cabal (second to Rush Limbaugh)," has been seen more in the two months since leaving office than in the entire eight years he was serving as vice president. He has been defending the former administration's stance on torture vigorously.

When he was asked if he thought Obama has made Americans less safe by suspending military trials for suspected terrorists, announcing he will close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as overseas sites where the CIA has held some detainees, ordering CIA interrogators to abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual regulations for treatment of detainees and denouncing waterboarding as torture, he replied:

"I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles. President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

As ludicrous as that statement is to me, there are people who believe him when he says that and there are people who are truly committed to the idea that the only way America will be safe is to kill them all before they can do anything to us. I am hopeful that one day Cheney will be perched in a courtroom and a lawyer will get him to admit that he indeed ordered the Code Red.

And lo and behold, what did I read in the New York Times? A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. As of right now, the men soon to be investigated are Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General; John Yoo, former Justice Department lawyer (who wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions); Douglas Feith, former under secretary of defense for policy; William Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; Jay Bybee, Mr. Yoo's former boss at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, who was the chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Spain has legal jurisdiction under the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which both Spain and the United States are bound to adhere to, because five citizens or residents of Spain were held at Guantánamo Bay and claim they were tortured. While this is mostly a symbolic gesture, it might to lead to action by the United States government against the former administration to at least ascertain the accountability. And if they can ascertain accountability, the truth may actually come out that these lawyers were influenced or coerced to mold legal opinions around political malfeasance.

There Is no such Thing as Morality or Immorality in Thought. There Is Immoral Emotion.

It's been a month since I have written. This is mostly due to the beautiful weather that we have been experiencing in Colorado recently. We have topped 80 degrees a few times in the past few weeks and most days of have been well over 60 degrees and sunny. This has allowed me to get my son out to the park and into the backyard to play baseball and basketball. Basically, I've been having too much fun to settle down at the keyboard and write.

But today is a spring blizzard here in the Denver area. We are expected to get between 10 and 18 inches of snow and my son's sandbox and all of its contents are now pinned up against our fence as a result of the gale force wind whipping through my backyard. What a great day to put on a movie for my son and sneak away to rail against AIG.

Actually, I am going to take the opposite view of this current maelstrom: Pay them their bonuses! The righteous indignation spewing out of Washington about this is ridiculous, highlighted by Senator Grassley's (Rep.-Iowa) suggestion that the AIG executives who earned these bonuses should "follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

Politics is full of sideshows and grandstanding. Senators and Congressmen and -women love to get in front of the camera and take a safe position that most people will agree with. They revel in the glory of their sound bytes and video clips of them scolding the offending parties that are broadcast on the evening news and CNN. They love to pretend they are the hero looking out for the American people, but they are just publicity hounds with no more scruples than any of the people they seek to punish.

If AIG had contracts with these people based on certain goals and numbers and they reached those, then pay them. They earned those bonuses based on the parameters of their contracts.

It is mind boggling that people could earn bonuses when the company lost so much money that it was on the precipice of bankruptcy, but that is exactly what happened. Over-taxing those bonuses and nullifying those contracts is a decision that is far more dangerous and costly than the $165 million spent on those bonuses.

In the future, these executives should be held to a higher standard for overall results of the company, but to take away the money they earned, regardless of how foolish and short-sighted the contracts are, is immoral.

A Star Isn't Born

Louisiana Governor Piyush (Bobby) Jindal took on an enormous task last night - he had to provide the Republican response to President Obama's stirring and well-polished speech to the joint session of Congress and America. Obama was forceful, determined, and inspiring. Polls indicated that those who voted for John McCain this past November were nearly as impressed as those who voted for Obama with his address and his approval rating among Republicans improved vastly after the speech.

There are still thousands of people who do not believe in the type of government that Obama is proposing and moving ahead with presently. In fact, one Republican representative took the opportunity to act childishly and scream out "That's right!" when Obama said that the Republicans will browbeat the public that their taxes will be raised to support his ambitious programs. Jindal's job was to support that comment in a more professional way, but he failed miserably.

For those unfamiliar with Governor Jindal, who nicknamed himself Bobby after Mike Lookinland's character in The Brady Bunch, he is a stereotypical Republican except that he is the son of immigrants from India. He opposes same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and legislation against hate crimes. He supports chemical castration for sex offenders, making the PATRIOT Act permanent and off-shore drilling. But what is most stereotypical about Jindal and several other Republicans is that they rail against big government while enabling government to grow.

Louisiana has about 105,000 people on its payroll with base salaries totaling about $4.6 billion annually. Add retirement and benefit expenses and state supplements for teachers and other local public workers, and the state's overall annual obligation for personnel comes close to $8 billion. Moreover, since Jindal has been in office, state workers with salaries of more than $100,000 grew by $96 million, about one-fourth of this year's state budget shortfall.

Jindal claimed during his rebuttal that government doesn't work and cited the response to Hurricane Katrina as proof. Looking at Louisiana statistics, it is easy to see that his government isn't working - almost 30% of children live below the poverty line, Louisiana ranks 7th in highest violent crime rate occurrence and 1st in murder, and students routinely fall below the national average in reading and math. Now, faced with a $1.3 billion shortfall in the budget, Jindal wants to make cuts to education and health care. Yet, with a straight face, he claims that it is irresponsible to ask future generations to pay for the money we need now. Whether you ask them to pay back a loan or reduce their opportunity to learn, they are still on the hook for this generation's failure.

He bantered about things that never were, like a rail line from Disneyland to Las Vegas, and work that was never done, like Republicans offering ideas outside of more and bigger tax cuts. And he did it in a sneering, condescending manner, as if imploring people to stay dumb and put their faith back in the political party that ran up the debt with nothing to show for it except huge no-bid government contracts and restricted civil liberties.

The only thing that Jindal and I agreed on was that George Bush sucked. He said the Republicans got off track, but I think that the train just finally caught up with them.

If You Don't Create Change, Change Will Create You (Part II)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment plan looks like it is going to pass, despite the obstruction and consternation of many Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Over the past few weeks, we've heard a torrent of excuses from the minority party about why they will not support this piece of legislation, but the truth is that it is all about self-preservation.

Most of the Republicans who remain in office are from strict conservative districts and states who know that they need to keep the ideology of the Grand Old Party spewing from their mealy mouths in order to appease their constituents who watch Fox News and listen Rush Limbaugh. They are thinking about 2010 re-elections, not at a country on the precipice of economic collapse.

Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsay Graham have been outspoken in their accusations that President Obama and the Democrats have not been compromising and negotiating. McCain even went so far as to mock Obama, saying on Face the Nation that he thought there was going to be change in Washington with this new administration with his dirty-old-man smirk planted firmly on his face. But McCain and Graham have been rebuked by one of their own. Republican Senator Susan Collins said "I want to recognize that, regardless of how many Republicans vote for this package today, that many were involved, that several were involved, in the deliberations in which we participated."

There have been chances to work on this bill, but it's easier to heckle and instigate from the sideline, particularly when you have no intention of voting for something anyway. The Republican stance is to dismiss this work as a frivolous and grandiose spending bill by a liberal government that must be defeated. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, confirmed this when he told Republican Congressmen and -women during a conference call after the House of Representative vote on this piece of legislation that "The goose egg that you laid on the President's desk was just beautiful." By voting no, the Republicans are reserving their right to say "I told you so," while at the same time defending their ideological stature to the base of their party.

I can't blame them for these time-honored political moves, but I don't respect them either. Wild accusations and faux outrage are what is expected of the monkey in the zoo and you need to give the people what they want. It's refreshing to see elected officials stand on their own do what they think is best, like Republican Governor Charlie Crist, rather than play the tired role they've been practicing for years.

If You Don't Create Change, Change Will Create You

A funny thing happened once Barack Obama moved into the White House - politics reared its ugly head once more. The Republicans, with no sound ideology, principles or effective track record, began to cherry pick the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You've never heard of this piece of legislation? That's because the left-wing media, the group of reporters that right-wing commentators accuse of having slobbering affection for Obama, call it the stimulus bill.

This bill was not written for the sole purpose of getting the economy working again. This bill was written to protect people who have lost their jobs, save existing jobs, create new jobs and move our country in a new direction in the areas of health care, energy technology, education and transportation. Unfortunately, that message has been lost.

Sound bites about birth control, home weatherization, and poor vetting of cabinet candidates have dominated the headlines in a supposed infatuated and smitten media. A political party that has had control of Washington for almost three decades (yes, Clinton was just a Republican who was smarter than everybody else in the room) and failed to do anything with it but start unnecessary wars, restrict our freedom and rack up a huge debt is actually standing on the Hill and grandstanding. That's rich.

Obama and his team ran a great campaign on change, but Washington hasn't changed. Senator Lindsay Graham said that Obama is not providing leadership on this issue, but what he was really saying is that Obama isn't playing ball with the Republicans on this issue. And he won't.

He hit them hard with an essay in the Washington Post and he will bang the drum even louder when he addresses the nation. There may be compromise, but there will be no politics as usual. There won't be any backroom dealings and secret handshakes. This bill is going to pass and it will pass soon.

If My Aunt Had Balls, She'd Be My Uncle

Since I grew up in Iowa, my allegiance to the Pittsburgh Steelers might have been a simple case of mistaken identity. The uniform of my beloved Steelers and the University of Iowa Hawkeyes was probably difficult for me to distinguish while I was a child. Nevertheless, I am and have been a Steelers fan for as long as I can remember.

This is challenging because when you support a successful team that is not your hometown team (Iowa, incidentally, has no professional hometown teams) you get labeled as a bandwagon jumper, a fair-weather fan, etc., and your team is accused of getting all the breaks. Last night's Super Bowl was no exception.

Today I have oscillated between the pride of a historic accomplishment and the irritation with those who are disappointed with the outcome. Most of those who are disappointed are picking apart every detail and piece of minutiae related to last night's game (I guess I am a glutton for punishment because I have been checking message boards to read all of those claims) and clamoring for one more shot or changing a play and changing the outcome of the game in their minds.

My favorite of all the comments is from those who claim that they are not fans of either team. While that may be true, you don't go to message boards if you don't have a rooting interest. Earlier this year, a referee blew a call in a Denver Broncos-San Diego Chargers game. After seeing the replay, it was an obvious mistake; however, it didn't cost the Chargers the game. They had two opportunities to stop the Broncos from winning the game and they failed. I, who had no rooting interest, never went to a message board to disparage the referee, Ed Hochuli, even though I could plainly see it was an error in judgment and he admitted as much after the game.

The great thing about team sports is that there are no perfect performances. Nobody executes everything perfectly all of the time because that would be impossible. Sports are compelling because there is adversity and timeliness and obstacles to overcome. Referees miss calls, players miss tackles and blocks, and somebody eventually perseveres.

So for all those who say that there was a hold or a clip on James Harrison's amazing interception return for a touchdown, tough shit. For all those who claim that Kurt Warner did not fumble on Arizona's final offensive play of the game, too bad. For those who wanted to see a flag thrown because Santonio Holmes used the ball as a prop after scoring what turned out to be the game's final and deciding touchdown, boo-hoo.

When the Steelers got torched on that touchdown pass that Kurt Warner threw to Larry Fitzgerald, I told my wife that the Steelers had a tremendous opportunity. They took advantage of that opportunity and won the game, period.

Say Anything

I sat down to read the stimulus bill that Barack Obama and the Democrats drafted anticipating to be outraged at how much money we were going to throw away at unworthy and hopeless causes. I mean, if the Republicans can grandstand about how my child's grandchildren will be paying for this in the oh-so-distant future when all we need are a few tax cuts for multi-million dollar businesses and people who make more money than them, then how could I not be offended by the irresponsibility and partisan politics?

But, alas, I am not. While the amount of money is staggering, I do not see one area that I don't think the government should be supporting. Here is a breakdown of where the money is going:

• 54 billion towards energy, including investments in a smarter electrical grid and grants to make government building more energy-efficient
• 16 billion towards science and technology, including agricultural, biomedical, and engineering research
• 90 billion towards modernizing roads, bridges, transit and waterways
• 141.6 billion towards education
• 24.1 billion for healthcare, including health information technology and research
• 102 billion for those workers hurt by the economy, including job training and continuation of benefits for the unemployed
• 91 billion to be distributed to state and local governments to preserve vital jobs and keep Medicaid afloat
• The remaining money is tied into tax cuts for working families

Opponents to the bill have thrown out bits and pieces of misinformation about too much money being spent on birth control ("It won't stimulate the economy, but it might stimulate something else, te-hee!) and not enough being spent on infrastructure (Only 3% of this bill will be spent on roads! - actually it's 3.6% for roads and 11% on all forms of transportation). If this griping and bellyaching won't work (and it won't), they just go back to old standard. That's right, they make shit up.

Republicans said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report indicating that the majority of the spending in this bill will not take effect until 2011. Unfortunately for the Republicans, this report does not actually exist (nice try, Senator McConnell). But that didn't stop the left-wing media from mentioning it continuously this past weekend.

This piece of legislation fulfills campaign ideas and proposals that helped get Obama elected. I understand that some Republicans feel they must put up some sort of resistance in order to keep their Rush Limbaugh Fan Club card and to be able to say "I told you so!" if these measures don't work, but the people voted for Obama to enact these things whether they like it or not.

Barack Obama, in an attempt to be cordial and respectful, tried to convince the Republicans to let him follow through on this proposal. But now he must take charge, and as Lloyd Dobler did as the keymaster, tell the raving lunatics, "YOU MUST CHILL!"

Two Roads Diverged in a Wood...

I was blown away by Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday. Others have been critical because he did not deliver a policy speech - this is like picking lint off an Armani suit - but I was impressed because he made it point to do specific things during his speech.

First, Obama took his opportunity in front of the world to say that it will be difficult and that personal sacrifices will need to be made by all in order for the United States to live up to the promise of our charter. He also said that there are no easy solutions or fixes and that the road back to prominence will be steep. And now every time when something goes well or better than expected, he will look like a genius.

The ability to under-promise and over-deliver is a critical part of every salesperson's routine. And since a politician is nothing more than a salesperson, it should not be surprising that Obama has this technique down. He practiced it well towards the end of his campaign and he reaffirmed it in his prose on Tuesday.

And then on Wednesday he immediately put it into practice by issuing an executive order against torture, putting a freeze on the salaries of the White House staff, restricting gifts to White House aides and executive branch officials, and cracking down on the "revolving door" practice - where government staffers quickly moving into lucrative private sector jobs lobbying the government. The latter fulfilled a campaign promise. (Obama pledged that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointees will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.")

Not everyone will look at these as positives, but the majority of Americans do. And by knocking all of that out before 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, he casts a favorable light on himself and his administration.

Second, Obama took the opportunity to illuminate the differences between he and his predecessor. In a particularly muscular and stern part of his address, he lambasted President Bush and his administration. He said:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expediencies sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Obama swiftly dismissed the bravado-filled tenure of Bush and Cheney by slapping them upside the head with history of peace during dangerous times. He rebuked their argument of action with no boundaries in an effort to keep American citizens safe. There are certain lengths to which we should not have gone because there was no imminent danger - only a pervasive fear started by terrorists and kept alive by our government.

Not since Reagan's 1981 inaugural speech has there been such a fiery retort to the outgoing crew. Obama one-upped the "The Great Communicator" because he didn't rely on politics as usual. He established the politics of the future.

Robert Frost wrote:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Obama just started down the path less traveled. We will have to see if it makes all the difference.