What can we give up next?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~ Benjamin Franklin

For the first time in American history we are being mandated by the government to purchase something just because we are alive. Of course, this thing we must purchase is for our own good according to the government. I guess as long as the government deems it in our best interest we should comply. One must wonder though, how many personal responsibilities we will turn over to Uncle Sam before we have no rights left to exercise at all? And yes, we did willingly turn this liberty over to the government to manage when the majority of Americans voted for a leader and party that promised to do just that. Sort of democracy to end democracy I suppose.

Over the next fews years, I predict, that our bias press will promote the favorable parts of this health care legislation, as the best parts are set to be implemented first by design. Once hooked, like a kid on crack, all the bad parts that follow will be willingly swallowed to keep our fix. No crystal ball is needed to predict this either. All one has to do is look at the pyramid scheme that is Social Security to realize once we start down a government paved road there is little going back.

So now that my right to manage my health has been taken I would like to ask my keepers a few questions. Things like, how do you start up a trillion dollar program when other social programs are in the process of going broke? How do you add 32 million people to the health care system without adding more, doctors, facilities and other key personnel? Can I drop the coverage our company provides for our employees because I know they will be required to cover themselves now?

At least the government did do something to show the evil insurance agencies who's boss. I mean how can the insurance industry stand the thought of 32 million more people being forced to buy their product? That's got to hurt, huh? But I have to wonder, which group I'd rather deal with concerning my life. The evil insurance companies or the people who set up and run the IRS? Oh well, that's one choice I don't have to can't make anymore. Now, if we could get them to create an agency that would come pick out the color of my shirt in the morning life would be so much easier.

If it were me....

If I were president of Toyota....

I would hold a press conference about the recent recalls Toyota is experiencing. I would remind the public that recalls are a reality that every car manufacturer faces. That anyone who has owned a new car has more than likely received a notice in the mail to return the car to the dealer to have recall services performed. I would mention that the amount of attention that Toyota's recent recalls have received seems to be a bit excessive. Then, I would wonder out loud if all this attention from the government had anything to do with the government OWNING a large part of General Motors, one of Toyota's largest competitors. And yes, I would scream, "FOUL!" to anyone willing to listen.

Now, there may be no connection between the two, at all, but I would certainly plant the seed that there might be. This is why government should stay out of private business. There is a HUGE conflict of interest, that at the very least muddies the water, when government owns something it is suppose to be regulating, especially when the regulation centers on our safety. Duh! and double "Duh!!" to Toyota for not bringing this up.

Cheers

Recently a story lit up the news wires that not only caught my attention but the attention of President Obama as well. About a weeks ago the the Cambridge police received a call from a concerned neighbor that she might have witnessed a burglary in progress by two men. With this information officers were dispatched.

Upon entering the house the police discovered the man, who had been seen forcing the door open by the neighbor, was the resident of the house. The man, who was black, was asked to step outside. He was very irritated that the police had entered his house without authorization and refused to step outside claiming the officer, a white man, was a racist. After finally following the officer out of the house, the officer warned him twice to calm down. When Mr. Gates refused, he was handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail. The charges later dropped.

After hearing about the arrest President Obama, a friend of Mr. Gates, said in an interview that the police had acted "stupidly". He went on further to suggest that Mr. Gates was profiled because of his race. This was only hours after the arrest and before many facts were known about the case.

After the president realized he had said too much with too little information he called the officer involved in the arrest. The officer suggested the three of them have a beer and smooth things out. All accepted.

Now this beer event is being touted as a "Teaching Moment" to highlight the racial profiling of the professor, Mr Gates. WTF??!!!! SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME ON WHAT PLANET THIS MAN WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE OF HIS RACE??PLEASE... SOMEONE... ANYONE?

The definition of racial profiling according to the ACLU is as follows:

Racial Profiling:"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

The officer was dispatched to the scene, so no individual was targeted. The neighbor who made the call never mentioned the color of the people she saw. The officer had no idea what type of person he would find in the house, so no perceived notions. After arriving at the house the officer followed standard protocol. Other than Mr. Gates calling the officer a racist where was race a factor in the arrest?

So my only assumption here is that the lesson of this "Teaching Moment" is that EVERYONE can be guilty of racial profiling because that is exactly what Mr. Gates and the President did. THEY saw a white police officer, attached all the history and stereo types they've been taught and experiences and played the race card before they knew the facts. The very definition of "racial profiling" if you ask me. If that's the message that's going to be delivered after a few rounds of beer then I say, "cheers!"

But for some reason, I just don't see that in the cards.

My two trillion cents worth

Since the election I've been keeping my mouth shut about our new president. Believe me it hasn't been easy either. I like to think I'm a "give em a chance" type guy. His newest proposal, one he ran strong on, is health care reform. Something I agree desperately needs changing.

Of course I wouldn't go about it the way he's proposing... big surprise huh? There are so many options open to try before we hand over health care to the government. You know "the government" who can't run the schools, the post office or public transportation. Even for twice the money and half the quality of similar private institutions.

Here are a few things I would try before nationalizing health care.

Step One: I would implement something called True Cost Billing (I just made that up *pat on the back*) With True Cost Billing a patient could only be charged the actual coast of a procedure or medicine plus a set cap on profit. Say 30% max? So a 10 cent Tylenol would cost a patient no more 13 cent instead of the 6 dollars they maybe charged now.

Instead of the cost of those who can't pay being added to the cost of those who do, a person is only paying for the services THEY RECEIVED. Doing this will DRASTICALLY lower insurance rates. Under this system more people may actually feel than can afford to pay their bill. A lot more people can pay a 600.00 hospital bill rather than an over blown 4,000.00 bill they may just walk away from. That's less collections and less people having their credit destroyed.

"BUT WAIT" I think I heard someone scream. "Who is going to pay for all the people who can't afford care but still need it?" Ok, I didn't hear that but I'm sure someone thought it, very loud. Well, with True Cost Billing insurance rates should fall to a level where more employers can afford health insurance for their employees and families thus eliminating many of the non-payers. "What about the rest?" you may ask. That's where step two kicks in. Follow me...

Step Two: Tort Reform. Place a cap on how much one person can sue a doctor or hospital. "OMG! That's not fair!" that same mysterious voice just yelled. It is fair. If the doctor makes a honest mistake then there should be a limit to damages BUT if the doctor does something criminal then the caps come off and the damages are wide open. Besides, if the government takes over health care do you really think you can sue them for mistakes? Ask someone who uses a VA hospital how that turns out. So with tort reform, medical malpractice insurance goes way down and with it the cost of providing health care.

Step Three: Stop giving away health care to those in this country illegally. Harsh? Yes, I hated to even type it. I'm not advocating turning anyone in need away. There are ways to do this in a humane way. I would suggest a pay or go away plan. That means if you come to the hospital for care and you can pay no questions will be asked about your legal status. But, if you can't pay and you are in the country illegally you will be deported, after treatment of course. Cruel? Not when you consider that Mexicans alone send an estimated 17 billion dollars back to Mexico each year. Some of these people have the money to pay for their health care. If you use the system you should help pay for it.

Step Four: Cut the fraud. With all the computer technology I find it hard to believe someone can't right a program that will identify fraud in Medicaid and Medicare. It should be as easy as finding the average billing of services for a doctor or institution. If a doctor or institution submits payment for more than 10% of average then it would trigger an audit. Seems simple to me.

Step Five: Let companies shop for insurance across state lines. This will increase competition and cut premiums. Another no-brainer from where I sit.

I'm sure there are a few flaws in my steps but smarter people than me could work them out. I just can't see building a new system with all the same problems still there, except this time they're built into the system. Especially if the government is going to be in charge. I mean do we really want the same people who have our financial files to have our medical records too? Come on hippies of the sixties, where is all that paranoia of the government when we need it? Don't give into "the man".

To me it's like a boat that won't go because the anchor is out. So you build a bigger boat and tie the anchor to it. Hell, why not try just pulling the anchor up first?

Why even think?

Things in the news making me laugh these days.



The government shamed the auto industry executives into not using corporate jets. Then the president's plane is flown low over New York for a freaking photo opportunity. They wanted a picture of it over the Statue of Liberty. They could have accomplished the same objective with a home computer and photoshop and saved about half a million dollars. But then they wouldn't have been able to scare the crap out of the citizens of New York.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/29/real-cost-flyover-just-air-force/

Once again the press is leading us by the nose and directing us how to think. The news media has gone wild about the outbreak of swine flu. Maybe it's going to live up to the hype, but right now it isn't at the level worth the attention being given to it. The regular old common flu kills about 35,000 people a year in the US alone. There have been about 400 cases of swine flu with less than two hundred deaths reported world wide. Why all the attention? Is the media creating the news instead of just reporting it?

And why hasn't the media mentioned the illegal immigrants? Certainly thousands of unchecked people coming across our boarders everyday from the very country the swine flu originated has to pose some sort of threat. They usually travel in groups, smuggled in small confined spaces. Yet the press has been very careful not to mention them and to point out that all the known cases have been transmitted by people traveling to Mexico and back. It honestly defies logic. It's almost like the press has a pro-illegal immigration agenda. But I know Even if they did they wouldn't let their bias compromise their reporting of the facts. I'm sure their standards are too high for that. Please.

A rose by any other name?

I'm not big follower of "Miss Anything" pageants, but I did take notice last week when Miss California was asked a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant. When she indicated that she defined marriage between a man and a woman all hell broke loose.

Apparently, no one told her there was only ONE right answer to the question. Which makes me wonder, if there was only one right answer, why ask the question in the first place?

The question was asked by Perez Hilton, a vile, pitiful excuse for a human, who's claim to fame is a popular celebrity gossip blog. I don't even understand why he was there. I assume he only asked the question to have his agenda broadcast on national TV. When Miss California failed to give the response he was looking for to promote his agenda he condemned her. He went as far as calling her a bitch and more on his blog. I guess tolerance and acceptance is only reserved for those who agree with him.

The thing I found funny, in an odd way, is that Miss California never said she was against gays having the same rights as married people at the pageant. She even stated that America was a country where people had the right to choose.

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country,
in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

So why all the fuss? Maybe in the future the contestants should be given a list of acceptable answers to the judges questions. The only problem with that is they might become stereo typed as just pretty faces in high heels with no ability to think for themselves. Now how unattractive would that be?

What am I missing here?

Last week president Obama released the details of the CIA's terrorist interrogation methods. He condemned the use of "waterboarding" in particular. I have to wonder what limits on interigation the President would agree to if his daughters were kidnapped and a captured terrorist was suspected of knowing where they were being kept.

Since I can only guess at his mind-set in that situation lets look at some facts I don't have to guess at. The same waterboarding interrogation method that the president deems to harsh for terrorist is used on many American pilots as part of their training. Worse, the same president that deems waterboarding torture seems to have no problem ordering airstrikes to kill SUSPECTED terrorist living in Pakistan. Even though these strikes might kill innocent people, including women and children. But hey, at least we didn't have them waterboarded. W... T... F?!

Oh brother, Big Brother

What is our government thinking?

They don't like the bonuses that the executives at AIG received after the bailout money was given to the company so they are going to tax it back from them. Well guess what? I didn't like them getting it either but you can't just tax people out of money they earned in a legally binding contract. Well I guess you've proven you can but WOW! What a precedent you have set.

Talk about your Big Brother scenarios. I guess our government can TARGET law abiding individuals if they, the government, doesn't FEEL what they are doing is right. Isn't that what laws are for? This action being taken might make people feel better about socking it to the greedy rich but lets just hope our own actions don't attract the attention of our government and land us in their crosshairs.

Rats!

If they gave a 'Soccer Mom - Mother of the Year' award, my wife would surely be in the running. Besides all the picking up and dropping off she does at school and various events, she also volunteers in the children's classrooms every week. A commendable thing to do but it can get a bit expensive. I have more than once voiced my opposition to the amount of goodies and decorations she provides as room mom. This is in addition to all the stuff the other moms donate. This week she was going over her list of upcoming events and mentioned Groundhog Day. Huh?

Yes, they are having a Groundhog Day party at school. Complete with Groundhog cake, juice, candy, decorations - the works. Not The Wife's idea but she is scrambling to "make it so" none the less. First of all, we hardly have a winter here. What we do have has a snowball's chance in hell of making it another six weeks. Second, we don't have ground hogs. If we did, I seriously doubt they could tell the weather. Hell, the weatherman can't get it right most of the time. Isn't it enough that we have an angel with a bow that shoots love quivers, a bunny that hides colored eggs with candy in them, a fairy that steals old teeth from under children's pillows, a night where I have to give out free candy or get a trick played on me and a jolly old fat man in a big fluffy red suit that brings presents, that I pay for by the way?

Now we need to celebrate some damn rodent with a cake? That's right, a groundhog is like a big rat that lives in a dirt hole in the ground. The fact that he may or may not be scared of his own shadow makes me question his qualifications as a serious role model in the first place. That is, if you can get by the rat thing. And, what about his predictions? Are they even scientifically proven to be accurate??? How do we know the little bastard is scared of anything or maybe he's scared of everything. I think Groundhog Day is a ploy invented by the evil oil companies to sell more heating oil or sun tan oil. Whichever one they have a surplus of at the time.

A cake on Groundhog Day, holy Shit! It is certainly NOT a cake holiday. Where and when do we draw the line? I can tell you one thing, don't expect presents from me on Arbor Day.

I'm not just another petty Facebook picture

I was talking with my sister-in-law while we were all on vacation. She mentioned an old friend of mine that she use to live near when we were growing up. We lost contact when he moved away many years ago. When I mentioned I wouldn't mind seeing what he looked like she told me he was on Facebook.

I've known about Facebook for some time but knowing it is a social networking system, especially of all things past, is a bit of a turn off to me. That's just not how I roll, as they say. I recently set The Wife up with a page so she could join a group of people that enjoys a band she likes. That gave me a good idea of how Facebook works. After our vacation I talked to The Wife about setting up a Facebook page for the family. Only, you have to put one name in Facebook. Since I was the one who had the idea, was setting it up and wanted to check out my friend I used my name but I placed a picture of the whole family as the profile picture. Anyone from our past knows both of us. After realizing how many people I use to know was on Facebook I changed the name on the account to The Wife's name. Just not my cup of tea. We knew no matter whose name was on the account people would contact both of us. And they did.

My sister-in-law was our first friend. All fun and games until she wrote on her wall that her sister was pregnant and she was looking forward to "finally becoming an aunt." WTF? What are my kids and my sister's kids? It actually came as no surprise that she felt that way but to say it in a place she knew we would see it is more than a little rude and hurtful. I can see this type of stuff repeating itself over and over.

Last night the wife had me edit a picture of her for her fan Facebook page, I thought. Then she asked if it would be ok to take down the family picture on our page and put her picture up instead. I know it's petty, very petty, but it hit me wrong. When I asked why, she couldn't even be upfront about her reason. She said the picture of all of us, one she helped pick out, wasn't a good one. The thing is, I swear I don't care about Facebook. The whole concept of reaching out to people you let go out of your life with barely a thought makes me shiver. But alas, I guess some part of me does care. At least enough to get upset over our family picture being removed in favor of an individual one. Petty on my part but telling on The Wife's part I think, at least in my opinion it is.

Please Please Me

A few months ago Time Traveller left a comment on a post of mine:

"he has an obsessive need to please people" (referring to me)

I'm sure she meant it in a nice way but I must admit the comment stayed with me. Maybe because it was close to the truth or maybe because it exposes another truth in my life that I'm having a hard time dealing with at the moment.

Yes, I like to please people, to make them happy. I always have. Maybe I do it to a fault, if that's possible but that's not why the comment stuck with me. I've always known that about me. I've always thought it is one of my better attributes. It stuck with me because lately it's become a source of frustration and irritation.

In a perfect world I could continue doing things to make people happy and the reward of seeing them happy would be all I would want. But that's not reality, or at least that's not my reality. No, with all I try to do to make the people in my life happy eventually one question starts creeping into my mind.

Does anyone care if I'm happy?

Selfish? Sure, but damn, you would think that these people, who not only accept my gestures of goodwill but EXPECT them and in some cases demand them, would want to return a little bit of the kindness. Oh, they offer. They say the things people say but words are hollow and without action they have no real meaning do they? See, I believe my actions, more than my words, are some proof that I care. It's not the only way to show it but by doing even the little things it should signal to them that I feel their burden, understand their desires and respect their dreams.

So every once in awhile I wonder where my proof is. Believe me, I look. Not to keep score but to make sure I'm giving credit where credit is due. Maybe that's a problem too but I have my eyes open and I don't see it. Don't get me wrong, the people in my life do things for me. They do the stuff they have to do or do because there is no inconvenience to them. The rest seem to be gestures that aren't based on anything that would remotely make me happy. I know I'm a big bastard for saying this. I know it's suppose to be the thought that counts but does it count if there is no proof that any thought went into it at all? In fact, it frustrates me further that they don't take even a second to consider who I am or what I'm about.

I'm not pinning my happiness on them. I know being happy is my responsibility. Over the past few years I have done a lot to understand that fact and have tried to adjust my life accordingly. I am happier for it too. Still, shouldn't the people who love me, and I do believe they love me, derive some pleasure for providing some part of that happiness? Or am I just an oddball who thinks this way?

So, should I stop trying to please people? Just go about my life and if something I do happens to make someone happy great but if not, oh well. Is that my answer? I don't even think I would know how. I don't want to either. I like helping a guy lift a big box into his car at the hardware store, getting out a buggy for the person behind me at Walmart or just holding a door open for someone. I like making the people I love happy even more. I like being that guy because I like to think I am that guy but lately that guy is not only feeling less than pleased but like a sucker as well.

A Long Irrelevant News Slant Rant (a must skip read)

Now that the election is over I've had time to examine just how much influence the press has in this country and on the world. From my point of view and from the evidence I've seen, the press cheated this country and the world out of an honest debate about what the candidates had to offer. I doubt anyone will care but I feel I need to chronicle the way I felt the press influenced the pick of the 44TH president of The United States. This has nothing to do with Obama. I don't blame him for what the press did. I'm sure any candidate would have been happy to have the press on their side.

I don't think it's a secret that the press favors the left and therefor the Democrats. They have for a long time. Over the years, I believe, they have tried to maintain some sort of professionalism and balance but that changed in 2004. During President Bush's first term in office it was hard for the press to find much real fault. He had led us out of a recession, placed some regulations on public companies cooking their books, helped us deal with the 911 attacks and started a successful campaign against the terrorist of the world. He was popular with the people and supported by even most of thr Democrats.

Then in 2004 Bush made a huge miscalculation. After defeating the Iraqi army the president thought the Iraqi people would embrace democracy, they didn't. Because of this mistake, Bush didn't have a plan to handle a country that was use to being governed with an iron fist by Saddam. Bush scrambled to secure the country.

During this time the press realized Bush was vulnerable. Then Abu Ghraib came to light. While the extremist were struggling for control of Iraq, the press found out that some of the suspected terrorist being held at Abu Ghraib prison had been miss treated. Now some may read this and wonder why I didn't use the word 'torture' here. I didn't on purpose. While I don't condone what was done at Abu Ghraib, it's nothing that doesn't happen in almost every prison, in every country, every day. It was still better treatment than Saddam would have given them and it happened at a time when the terrorist were taking innocent people hostage and cutting off their heads. That's no excuse for doing wrong but what happened at Abu Ghraib must be kept in perspective with what was going on in Iraq.

The press seized on this opportunity. They reported the story to world as if the US was running concentration camps in Iraq. It was a 24/7 news feast of how bad America is. They were more outraged over naked prisoners than innocent people being decapitated. The story was over reported in an effort to hurt Bush's image to the world and discredit our military's efforts in Iraq. It did but it also had many other side effects. The story fueled the terrorist and had to help them in their recruiting efforts. Because the story was blown so out of proportion, or made public at all, the President's hands became tied. Now a country full of people who were use to being governed by a heavy hand saw that the American people didn't have the stomach to deal with terrorist. The President had lost his ability to assure the Iraqi people he had the strength and might to secure their country. More chaos ensued.

The press saw how much this one story had effected people's opinions and realized two things. One they needed to expose more government and military secrets and missteps. Two, they could turn Iraq into their very own Vietnam. A blue print for shaping public opinion had already been drawn during that war. Now this generation of reporters could use it to push their liberal agenda.

When the 2004 Presidential elections were held, to the shock and dismay of the mainstream press, Bush was reelected. I believe it was at this point the press decided that no matter what it took they were going to get a Democrat elected in 2008.

They spent the next four years demonizing President Bush to America and the world. They exposed national security secrets in an effort to bring down the president. They printed and promoted every lie, conspiracy and accusation that surfaced. Facts and the country's best interest be damned. They made big plans to use the now unpopular war against any 2006 and 2008 Republican candidate. They wanted us to lose in Iraq to hurt Bush and the republican party. Only, the surge worked and Iraq started working. Immediately news about Iraq dried up. If Iraq couldn't be used to hurt the right it was off the table.

During the primaries the press heavily influenced the pick of both nominees. They highlighted the strong republicans candidates weaknesses and played down the weakness of the person they wanted to win. Mitt Romney -spotlight- he's a Mormon, might be a cult. Mike Huckabee -spotlight- he's too religious, may govern from the bible. Rudolf Giuliani -spotlight- has a lot of personal baggage, as does Newt Gingrich. Senator McCain, being a moderate was left alone. They even turned their backs on Hillary Clinton when they realized Obama was more liberal and a better story.

As soon as the primaries were over they turned the spotlight on the once ignored McCain. They focused on his age, his temper and his 90% voting record with President Bush. Even though McCain had been a thorn in Bush's side throughout his eight years in office, the press linked the two as if they were the same. This lie would hurt McCain through out the whole election process.

The skilled fund raisers, strategist, and advisers that helped Bush get elected were now off limits to McCain out of fear of proving the press right about a connection. Had he used someone like Carl Rove, the press would have pointed to it as more proof that McCain and Bush were in fact the same people. The press had effectively cut McCain off from the very people he need to get elected.

All Obama had to do was repeat the lie that voting for McCain was the same as giving Bush another four years, that's just what he did. That might have been enough in itself but combined with the lack reporting the press did on Obama's background and the election shouldn't have ever been close. Anyone who surfaced to threaten Obama was destroyed by the press. Obama never had to counter people like Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber. The press did the dirty work so Obama could stay on a positive message. McCain on the other hand was forced to try and expose Obama's lack of experience and his questionable past associates. This made McCain come across as a mean spirited, negative person. He never had a chance. And sad to say, I don't think the American people nor the world had a fair chance to form an educated opinion with all the facts.

I could bombard you with lots of data supporting my theory but I won't. I'll just show the numbers that sum up what I'm talking about. These numbers come from independent sources.

Stories about Obama & Biden on the major networks:
65% positive / 35% negative

Stories about McCain & Palin on the major networks:
31% positive /69% negative

Anyone watching the major news outlets, other than Fox, would have concluded that it was better to vote for Obama than McCain. And they did.

I think the press has grabbed to much power during these last four years. They should not be able to decide who we elect. They should not want to influence public opinion about any situation. They are suppose to report the facts and let the public draw their own conclusions. Apparently they didn't trust the American people to make the right choice, their choice, in this past election.

If you think things are going to change anytime soon don't hold your breath. Now that the election is over several reporters and newspapers are admitting they favored Obama. Imagine that. I will leave you with this video clip. NBC's Chris Mathews, who is suppose to be a unbiased journalist, is being interviewed after the election. About halfway through the interview he states that, "I want to do everything I can to make this Presidency (Obama) work." because, "America needs a successful President." To which I have to wonder, "where were you the last eight years Chris?"

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.carter.html
http://journalism.org/node/13307
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6pq_Pwjwc0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

More Haters to Hate

Today it was announced that two neo-nazi skinheads were caught planning to assassinate Barrack Obama and kill another 102 black people. Now I've seen some pretty hateful stuff during this election campaign but this is pure evil. I can't even begin to understand how these people think. I don't want to try to either.

It only goes to remind me that I share this world with some sick animals out there disguised as humans. Seriously, they were going to kill a man because he was black and dared to reach for the highest position in this country. Who made these bastards the judge of who is allowed to run for office? Who gave them the right to decide who I can and who I CAN'T vote for? What have they accomplished that gives them such wisdom and power???? Nothing. But, I doubt they have the capacity to think past their hate.

Living in the deep south, as one might expect, I know a few racist. Not as many as you would think but they are here. They come in all colors and ethnic groups. No one race has the market cornered on stupidity and hate. Yet it somehow surprises me everytime I meet one.

For the record, I don't condone it. The other day, a person, who thought because I was white, spoke openly about voting for McCain. I agreed that I thought McCain would be a more experienced choice. Then, this person informed me that they weren't voting for McCain because of his politics but because Obama was black. I shook my head and asked if that was the only reason? They assured me it was. I told this person that they should vote for Obama. I meant it too. If the only reason Obama will lose this election is because of the color of his skin then I hope he wins.

Politics should be about electing the best people into office to represent us. People that share our vision of the direction this country should go. What in the hell does a person's skin color have to do with that?!!! Nothing of course but the haters will never get that because they are evil twisted and sick. The haters hate this world more than they love themselves and that type of person is dangerous, to all of us.

Exactly what I'm talking about

Columnist Leonard Pitts published a column Friday that just goes to prove my point. Though I will give him credit for admitting he is just plain against the death penalty and why. What infuriates me about his column is the fact that he's willing to throw the WHOLE judicial system away for Troy Davis, a cop killer. He states that government makes mistakes all the time so how can we trust it to be right about Davis' guilt or innocence? Please Mr. Pitts, our judicial system has enough checks and balances built into it to assure that anyone put to death is done so with no reasonable doubt. Please, show me a better system. I'll listen.

"I would not wager the change in my sofa cushions on the ability of government to spell my name without error. Yet day after day, we blithely wager the lives of other people on the ability of government to administer justice without error."

~ Leonard Pitts

Davis has had 19 years to prove he was falsely convicted. Through all the appeals, processes and stays of execution no court has found him anything but guilty. Please stop trying to make victims of the guilty, it's offensive to the real victim's family, and to me.

Killer Agendas

On August 19, 1989, I was 21 years old. I remember vividly hearing about a police officer that had been shot execution style at the Grey Hound bus station in the town where I live. I can't say I noticed much in the news back then but for some reason this caught my attention. Maybe because I knew the area, it involved a police officer or the way the officer was executed. It scared me because I remember thinking, "if a police officer can be killed like that what can I do to protect myself?"

After fleeing a man turned himself in claiming to be innocent. Nine witnesses claimed they saw Troy Anthony Davis shoot 27 year-old officer Mark McPhail, husband and father, at close range in the head. Some witnesses claimed he was even smiling when he did it. Davis was convicted and given the death penalty.

19 years and many, many denied appeals later, Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed on October 27, 2008. Now I'm not here to argue whether the death penalty is moral or not. That's something people have to decide for themselves. In Georgia the death penalty is legal and used as a tool for justice. Justice the family of Mark McPhail has been denied to this point.

Unfortunately, the closer the execution date gets the more we have to hear about Troy Davis. His family, Amnesty International and even the Reverend Al Sharpeton have blown into town to declare his innocence. They are all claiming that new evidence requires the state to grant Davis a new trial. What's the new evidence? Seven of the original nine eyewitnesses have recanted their testimony. And, they claim no physical evidence was ever found to connect Davis to the scene, although Davis does admit to being there. Even if seven of nine witnesses recanted their testimony that would still leave two who saw Davis shoot Mark McPhail. How many do you need?

If Amnesty International wants to protest the death penalty I have no problem with that. But to hide their agenda by claiming guilty people are innocent is ridiculous. THEY WILL DO AND SAY ALMOST ANYTHING TO GET SOMEONE OFF OF DEATH ROW. That's their agenda. They make victims out of killers to further their ideology. Why can't they just be honest and say, "Yes, he's guilty but we're against killing him." At least then Mark McPhail's family won't have sit back and watch a murderer be turned into a celebrity.

Our local paper has jumped on board as well. They print anything Amnesty International says and have written many stories designed to gain sympathy for how hard Troy Davis's life has been. Very little has been written about the crime or the hardship the victim's family has faced. They also played down the strengths of the prosecutions case. They barely mentioned, if at all, that Davis had been on a shooting spree that very night. He had shot another man in the face hours before killing Mark McPhail. The shell casings matched at both scenes.

When you have to hide the truth to further your agenda, you're being dishonest to your cause. When you try to clear the name of a cold blooded cop killer to promote your agenda, you are just plain fucked up.

***** Update ******

Yesterday, the 11 circuit court granted a stay of execution for Troy Davis. This is his third stay. I thought after the supreme court reviewed the case that it was over. Not so. Another thing that makes me sick about this case, every time the paper prints a story about this murderer they post a picture of Davis and his victim next to each other. How sad for the McPhail family.

http://savannahnow.com/node/601947

Freedom from the press?

I guess Joe the Plumber asked the wrong person the wrong question.

Joe Wurzelbacher just asked Obama a simple question about taxes at a campaign rally. Obama answered him honestly and Joe was respectful. I have no problem with the encounter. I wish we could have seen more encounters like it. I learned something watching it.

Then, during the presidential debate, John McCain used Joe the Plumber as an example to highlight the difference between his tax plan and Obama's. Joe the Plumber wasn't all that important, his situation was.

Unbelievably, (not really) the press and media went after Joe the Plumber like he was a threat to national security. Just like they did with Sarah Palin. It's sad that I've learned more in three days about Joe the Plumber than I've learned in 20 months about Barack Obama.

This situation should scare people. Why did the press rush to dig up every bit of dirt they could on this guy and drag his name through the mud? Why did the press feel it was their job to tear down and expose this citizen, to protect Obama, simply for asking a question? Is that where we're headed? Making people scared to ask a question of a candidate out of fear that they will be publicly humiliated. It sounds like something you would expect to hear from a place like North Korea or Iran, not America.

I've been blathering for some time about how dishonest the press has been during this election. I'm irritated because I don't think the press and the media should decide who we elect, still don't, but this truly scares me. I mean if a hard working plumber like Joe can cause such a harsh and angry reaction from the press, by asking simple questions, what would happen if say... they found out about my blog?

Shhhhhh... I'll be quiet before they hear me.

What are these economist thinking?

They keep pouring our tax dollars into the credit market so that banks will be able to loan more money. Holly shit!!!!! How in the hell will giving loans to people who can't pay off their current loans help anything??? That's like giving a crack addict more crack to cure him. Sure the withdrawal systems will disappear... until he needs his next hit.

OMG! Financial markets WAKE UP! Go to the heart of the problem. Do things that may actually help. Mandate a ceiling on the interest credit card companies can charge. The short term federal rate is at 1.5% so there should be plenty of profit at 8%. That way people have an fair chance of reducing their debt and can afford to live at the same time. Also, credit card companies will be a little more picky about who they give credit to. At the 24% they charge some people now they can afford to take a shotgun approach. Throw credit at everyone and if most pay they clear some major profit.

Next, realize the housing market is screwed! Government can't fix it. A lot of people will not pay for a house when they owe $700,000.00 and they can buy the same house across the street for $400,00.00. You can't make them. Renegotiate their loans? Most loans are already at a low rate. Extending a loan to lower the payment will not help people who need to sell and will only reinforce the feeling that people are stuck in their house forever with no hope.

The only reason this didn't happen sooner is because people kept taking equity out of their house to pay off mounting bills. When the housing bubble burst that trick went away. All the government can do now is make sure the financial institutions work with people in an ethical and compassionate way and let people work their way out of thier problem.

I think our generation is going to finally figure out the difference between want and need.

Snake Oil

Fools rush in

Where wise men never go

I've been watching the financial gears of this country grind to a halt and I can't help but laugh.

The Democrats, who have been screaming the President is an idiot for eight years, turned to him for guidance and direction to solve the financial crisis. Not only did they follow his lead, they lobbied for his plan to their party members who weren't buying it. If you call someone a fool and then follow their lead what does that make you?

The financial institutions, who are partly to blame, have their hand out for public money to help so they can survive. These are the same businesses that have been sticking it to us for years with ridiculous rates and fees. These same businesses, with their 'we're too big to care about an individual customer' attitude now wants mom and pop to care about them. I say put them on hold, make them do the finger digit dance as they listen to the awful music. Let them wonder for awhile if a real person is going to answer the phone and help. Press #1 if you are hearing me.

Wall Street, who has no morals or concerns about John Q Public, now screams that if we don't bail them out we are only hurting ourselves. I'm sorry but I won't be shedding any tears for these guys either. They are the masters of buying companies and selling off their assets to squeeze out every dime for profit, yet I haven't heard many of these companies selling off assets or divisions to raise capital. It's an all or nothing proposition they're trying to force. My children do the same thing, only they hold their breath hoping to get what they want. The only thing is, it doesn't work for the kids.

So here's the deal. We are going to give them around 800,000,000,000.00 dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, because they are slowly turning off the credit tap. Either we give them the money or they won't finance our houses, cars and stuff. It's blackmail plain and simple and we're going to do it. Shame on us.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to set up a fund of eight hundred billion that they could borrow from if they were desperate enough? If they volunteered to partake of this fund they would be subject to very strict government oversight (to the level of unbearable) until they paid back the money with interest. If they defaulted on the loan then assets would be seized and sold. The heavy regulation would have guaranteed only companies that needed help would have taken it and would have motivated them to pay back the money as fast as possible. It would also limit the role of government in the financial market. Of course nobody asked me so we're going to go with the 'blackmail 800,000,000,000.00 dollar thing' and hold our noses... and close our eyes.

Give credit where credit is due

Everyday we hear about another financial institution biting the dust. It's sad to see these big institutions go down and even sadder seeing all these people lose their jobs. What I can't understand is how people didn't see this coming.

Americans, in large numbers, have been living above their means for a long time. I myself have been guilty of doing this. While the trend may have started with wanting to have a cell phone, then the latest cell phone, it all to quickly became a pattern. A computer, then the latest and greatest computer, the habit soon turned into a hard addiction. DVD players, Flat panel TVs, led the way to new cars and then the addict took the biggest hit of all, they bought a house they couldn't afford.

We as a nation are obsessed with stuff. We have to have it and we have to have it now. While I hold the consumer responsible for the problem they placed themselves in, I also blame the financial institutions. They had to know. They had to see the amount of debt people were carrying but they kept on approving loans that would place people further in debt. Worse, bigger institutions gobbled up these bad loans to sure up their financial assets.

I liken the whole thing to a financial game of 'hot potato' but it was worse than that because they were playing with multiple potatoes. In other words they created or allowed so many problems that everyone playing had to know they would get caught, yet they played on.

So when will it end. Americans still want their stuff and the global economy depends on that to a degree. RVs, boats, jet ski's, motorcycles are not considered the property of the well off anymore. A vacation every year and a big Christmas are expected these days. Yet we clearly can't afford them. Hell, a lot of people can't afford the vacations they took last year and haven't paid for yet.

What scares me the most is that these financial institutions gambled people's saving, people's retirement money, MY RETIREMENT MONEY on something they had to know, or should have known, was a loser of a deal from the start.

Yes, they will pay. Many will lose their jobs and some (few) may go to jail but what about the people who trusted them to invest their money? What happens to the guy who saved his money, bought a house he could afford and took vacations only when he had the money to pay for them? The guy that got laughed at for not having a computer at all and carried a four year old cell phone on his hip. He will lose as well. Through no fault of his own he may owe more on his house than it's worth. His retirement fund may be wiped out. Sad.

People better change their ways now. The government has stepped into help but I wouldn't count on that for long. They are taking money from people who didn't over spend to help those who did. That can not go on for long. It's like giving yourself a transfusion with your own blood.

Credit can be dangerous thing. Especially when you give too much of it to people who aren't looking out for your best interest.

Hypocrisy

Don't you love when something comes along and exposes hypocrisy? Sarah Palin, John McCain's Vice Presidential pick, has exploded onto the scene in a very unexpected way. Right now the lady is lightning in a bottle.

You would think that women everywhere would be proud to see an intelligent, strong, accomplished women getting a chance to compete for a job previously held by only men. I'm not saying they should vote for her just because she's a women or that they should vote for her at all. I understand her positions and her leadership abilities should be the reason for a vote not her gender. Still, her surprise appearance has exposed some hypocrisy.

N.O.W. (National Organization for Women) - This is an organization dedicated to promoting women but not only will they not support Palin, they will not even defend her either. See, they feel Palin is not qualified to speak for women, which I find funny seeing how she is a woman. They say she's against women's rights (huh?). Who said they get to decide what is right for all women? The truth is, they don't support women, they support people that believe what they believe. Right now that's democrats with a liberal agenda. They would rather see Palin dragged back a few decades by her ponytail than stand up for her. Hypocrisy.

Oprah Winfrey - She refuses to have Palin on her show because she doesn't use her show as a platform for political candidates (huh?). She is a huge supporter of Obama. She has been on the campaign trail with him many times. Anyone that watches Oprah knows who she supports. Oprah's show is largely built around the premise of empowering women but, as with N.O.W., I guess it has to be a strong woman with the right (left) agenda. Hypocrisy.

The Mainstream Media - The media celebrated Hillary Clinton's candidacy as an example of how far women have come. They gushed over how intelligent she is and how savvy she is. They were ready and willing to pounce on anyone who even hinted at using her gender to discredited her. Now, this same press is the first to pounce on Sarah Palin for being a women trying to compete for a demanding job. "How will she raise her children and be the VP?" "Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. She must be a bad mother." " She is only on the ticket for her sex appeal and her good looks." These are just a few of the issues they have raised in the short week Palin has been running. Yet in 19 months they have never asked Obama how he plans to raise his children. Hypocrisy.

To be honest, I'm not surprised. I saw the same thing happen with Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice. The organizations that claim to support them not only turned their back on them, they attacked them. See these organization don't support the demographics they claim to, they support agendas. That, to me, is hypocrisy at it's finest.