Sunday, October 14, 2012

A Voice From The Darkness Speaks With Boxing Analogies

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/lehrer-debate-moderator-reviews-135751955--election.html?fb_action_ids=564482806266&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=246965925417366

The dust has now settled on the first two Presidential debates (one Presidential and one Vice Presidential) and I have a few observations. Debates are like political pugilism and boxing analogies work well for the debates this year.  Both sides have to show the American public what they are made of head to head.  Boxers always look good training, just like candidates look good on the stump. Once boxers are in the ring and candidates on stage, their training and strategies play out.  Using boxing analogies I will cover first the Presidential debate and my thoughts on Romney's perceived victory, then switch to the Vice-Presidential debate and Vice President Biden's perceived defeat according to Sunday's panel on FACE THE NATION..which I will link as soon as it is available

In the coverage in the first debate (lets call it Round One)  I was dismayed with the praise Governor Romney got for his debate against President Obama. Romney got credit for looking tough against President Obama's mediocre showing and generally having a better debate performance.  President Obama was blasted for looking confused and weak. I think this is an incorrect assumption although he missed several chances to soften Romney up. The link above even goes so far to pound (I think unfairly) Jim Lehrer for letting the debate get out of hand. To me all of this is hogwash.  It was not Jim Lehrer's fault the debate was a debacle for President Obama and a victory for Romney. Neither could get a word in edgewise for the ramblings of Romney. What I took from the debate was the Mitt Romney is behind in every sense of the race, and that he was merely out there to save his campaign. In my mind he failed..but again this is in my mind.

The analogy I would use is a boxer who goes into the ring knowing he is already beat.  This boxer is going to swing with all his might on every punch whether it connects or not, merely to keep the other boxer on the defensive.  The defeated boxer knows that it is hard to punch when you are dodging errant punches.  Romney went on stage in Denver knowing that if President Obama was able to speak, he (Romney) was beat.  Romney rambled on with his lists not because he had better things in those lists, but because he had more to say in those lists. President Obama did the right thing by letting Romney swing away, and keep from being rooked into a testy exchange.  The approach the President took was more like (using another boxing analogy) the rope-a-dope strategy Muhammad Ali used. He (Ali) floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee, and to most extents so did President Obama.  I will admit that President Obama missed some golden opportunities to soften Romney up with some body blows that would pay off in the later rounds.

Over all, I think seeing Romney's debate in Denver as a victory is contrived and even if you (incorrectly) want to blame Jim Lehrer for a bad performance by President Obama you have to look at just how rude Romney was. Count how many times the President asked for an opportunity for a rebuttle and was not allowed one because Romney kept talking.  Count too the times Romney interrupted Lehrer or Obama and you have a very bad performance and you might have to take off your shoes and socks. To use yet another pugilism comparison  scorers are not supposed to count punches landed on the referee.  But anyway, chalk round one up to Romney as the mass media has. It is still a long bout.

Round two took place in Danville, Kentucky at Centre College between Vice President Biden and Representative Paul Ryan. I personally did not watch the debate, primary because I figured it to be a bloodbath on the part of Ryan.  Joe Biden is not a very good debater  though he pummeled Sarah Palin in 2008..not that such a feat was all that challenging.  Facing Ryan, who I see as a real sharp political player, Biden was better off coming out with gloves up and elbows down.  What happened was the exact opposite. Biden came out swinging but in typical Biden fashion.

From  Sunday's FACE THE NATION, I gathered that the Vice-President was a bit smug and brash, but this is Joe Bidden we are talking about here. So how did the media score Round Two? Not so much Victory Ryan but Defeat Bidden. My assessment? Hogwash.  Why is it that Vice-President Bidden is scorn (at least by FACE THE NATION) for doing the very same thing in Round Two as Mitt Romney did in Round One?  Would people have booed Muhammad Ali for taking a few open swings even as he danced around the ring? Yes Bidden came off harsh, but that is Joe Bidden.  From what I see, he was not as rude as Romney was in the debate which is a plus.  He is a little gruff, but that is what most people understand him to be.  He swung, mainly to keep from getting hit and I don't blame him.

Paul Ryan is the better half of the Republican ticket and knows what he is talking about. If Bidden got into details, he might well have been skunked. Bidden did what he was has done all along for the President, and the primary job of any Vice-President, attack when the President cannot.  His blows to Ryan might have been softer to Ryan than Romney's blows to Obama, but they still should have evened the score.  What is baffling to me is that they did not in the eyes of the media.  Bidden's performance has not been given the credit due..again at least from what I saw on the panel of Sunday's FACE THE NATION.      

In my assessments of Rounds One and Two, I will admit that I am skewed towards the Obama/Bidden campaign but this is how I perceive them..it is after all my blog.  If given due, Romney's performance was okay, and Obama's a little shaky, but neither to the extent shown in the media.  Too, Vice-President Bidden was credited with a victory on many media outlets and my focusing on one program that argued to the contrary is unfair. In my assessments of Rounds Three and Four I will attempt to be more fair, though I will  still call out if I see things as misrepresented  in either direction.  

Monday, September 10, 2012

He Should Be Glad.

As is my routine, I listened to the Jason Lewis Show on my way back from town today. Per my routine, I have a blog post to publish.  The topic today is the teacher's strike in Chicago.  Now by no means do I think striking is a good things when a kid's education is on the line.  It is not helpful to student routine, to development of a good course of study, or student moral.  What I do think is is wrong is Mr. Lewis's understanding of teachers and his broad strokes painting us.  Since he chose, for the most part, to paint in the broad stroke signature of conservative radio hosts, I too will swath my way through his understanding of the educational sytem and my rebuttle.  Had I gotten through..or shall I say waited long enough..my response to his understadning would have been a series of questions that go something like this:

If all teachers have it so made,why are you, Mr. Lewis, not a teacher?

If all teachers have it so made, why does the average new teacher leave within the first five years?

If the teacher retirement is so great, why do those same teacher leave five years into service before gathering any retirement?

If all teachers have it made, why am I eating peanut butter sandwiches, driving a broken car, and living in the crappy apartment that I do?  Mind you I am paying off my student loans on time.

What is the most stressful part of your day Mr. Lewis?  Mine is wondering if I am going to get hit by a student with anger issues.

You get paid by how much advertising you are able to sale.  The more listeners you get, the more the advertising works.  The more it works the more you get paid.Ok, what do I do as a teacher to produce more students?

Yes, I am to produce better students.  How then, if are an education expert Mr. Lewis, do you suggest I do so? I only have a Master's Degree in education. Please give me some pointers.

How did you, Mr. Lewis, come to your place in stature in the conservative talk radio host world?  Yes, you will want to argue that you did it on your own, but you had to have at least had a high school education to get your first job as a DJ. Oh, you have a Master's Degree in Political Science from what's that?!? A public university... I bet your professors  there were wealthy aristocrats, just like mine at my small, liberal arts, private school..shoot just like me and my high paying public school job.

My guess is Mr. Lewis's screeners did their jobs and were able to stall him long enough to wait me out.  That's ok.  I will send him my question via email, which he will not read.  It always baffles me when people, who know very little about education or the production of, want to speak as though teachers produce widgets.  We produce, but it is not easily defined what we produce.  Yes, skilled students, but what is a skilled student?

A statistic thrown around was 15% of students in Chicago read at or above grade level.  Yes,that is terribly poor, but what is grade level?  Grade level reading is an arbitrary limit put on a set of skills from antiquated times.  Yes my students struggle to read, but they can do things on the computer the average Jason Lewis listener can only dream of...and yes I know pretty well what the average Jason Lewis listener can and cannot do on the computer.  They can do things that educated people struggle with in things like math and science.  They have complex reasoning skills that the likes of Jason Lewis would love to have.

They study the Constitution in my class, and the political system.  They learn economics and gain viable knowledge about economic systems, all information that the average Jason Lewis listener would fall short on..with the exception of what Mr. Lewis tells them about such information.  Sure I will accept the yoke of a radical liberal government teacher who teaches a loose intrepretation of the Constitution and lean toward govermnet intervention in economic depressions, but I only do so to counter balance the mostly un-educated drival spewed forth by the likes of Rush Limball (I refuse to learn how to spell his name) and Sean Hannity.

Finally I close with this:  Why are those kids not reading at grade level?  Could it be they've not eaten breakfast?  Could it be that they are beat when they get home to the point they don't want to learn anything at school, they're just glad to be away from home?  Could it be, for older students, that they are working to support their family, and not being the dead beats conservative talk radio hosts are always wanting to paint them as?  These are factors we as teachers have to deal with on a daily basis, AND teach a subject that is complex and difficult to understand.  So I think Mr. Lewis would be glad he didn't answer my call.  He might not have liked having to answer my question.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Where Have All The Populist Gone?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/a-modern-populist-movemen_b_639408.html


I found this article last night as I was researching the Populist Party in America, and I was left asking: Where have all the Populist gone?  There are a few Populist minded people in government these days, but there are very few if any true Populist from what I can tell.  These folks like the VW Microbus and Tab have faded into memory or exist in such a small number to be recognized.  Everything I read concluded that the Populist Party in the United State ended with William Jennings Bryan, though it sputtered to life in some of the policies in the New Deal.  There was a very brief resurgence in the 1970's but that puttered out quickly.  So what is a Populist? Why has there not been a ground swell of the party today?  Do we even need a Populist Party today? Where have all the Populist gone?

Asking the initial question lead to more questions as usual.  I read up more on the Populist platform and deduced that the party was primarly for the betterment of the working class, but not necessarily at the expense of the wealthy.  They wanted government working for the working person and raise them up to a equal and level playing field.  So I asked myself: Do we even need Populist today?  My conclusion. Yes! America today matches closely the American in which Populism flurished.  Any student of political history understands that the famous "Cross of Silver" speech given by Populist idol William Jennings Bryan was a plead for backing the currency with silver rather than gold.  Such a shift would benifit the struggling agriculural and working industrial class of the country. It was their last ditched hope of staving off the tide of robber barons and the industrial elite that was threatening to take complete control of every aspect in American life.    Even the America of the early Populists like Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk bears a striking resemblance to today's America.  Landed elites were gaining control of the import/export market at the expense of the country, inflation reached epic proportions for that time, and the railroads were just starting to make millions of dollars tearing up the frontier.  Populism rears it's head most at times of corporate greed and a diminishing middle class...Hmmmm sounds vaugely familiar.

So yes, while there are some Populistish members of Congress, we need a strong, real Populist Party today.Why has there not been a ground swell of Populist towards that need? Yes we have groups like OWS and even the TEA PARTY (the more I think about it they are both pretty Populistic). I think some of lack has to do with the political climate created by the Neo-Conservative Movement and this notion that to help the poor is too much like socialism.  Last time I checked it does not but who is counting.  The middle class ought, at least in my opinion, to be flocking towards Populism.  One voice against a roar is nothing but many voices will shut up a lion.  As Americans watch the middle class disappear like their bank accounts there is very little we can do to stem the tide.  The wealthy continue to gain wealth, while I am left hoping my car stays together so I can get to my teaching job.  There is nothing..nothing socialistic about helping me, or anyone else in my place.  There is very little socialistic about help people who do less and have less than me. Welfare is not a drain on the rich and anyone who might tell you other wise might need to take a real look at their accountant.  Wealthy people don't pay for poor people.  Wealthy people don't even pay for the what is left of the middle class.  The middle class pays for the poor, all the while educating the wealthy's kids, managing their factories, and cooking their high end meals at fancy restaurants. 

Populism or any movement towards such is also choked out by the two party system where people with alternative ideas are forced into one of the two parties and delegated to a life of chipping away at the dam.  It should not be this way, but it is what it is.  We've backed ourselves into a very tight corner with little hope of getting out in these regards.  No third party has ever one the Presidency, though the Populist have put up some of the best runs at the White House.  They also put a not a few Congressman into office during the heyday.  A third party like the Populist would need to spend decades sewing the seeds of a return..perhaps it is now..before it can become a vital party against.  With the decline of the Republican Party it is possible but it is a long up-hill climb.  Grass roots organizing would be a very viable route for the Populist as well as fund raising under the current limits.  Lots of middle class and poor can give $10, where very few would or could give the limits.

Where have all the Populist gone?  I think they have gone by the way with the American middle class, and the cowboy.  This is unfortunate, because now is a time ripe for Populistic movement in the country.  There is the Great Recession, corporations on the loose..hell even considered people..and we have at least a faint threat of a robber baron being handed the keys to the White House.  Populism could really catch on.  It needs to catch on.  Where have all the Populist gone?  I don't know, but I can tell you were one lives.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Turn Out The Lights..The Party's Over



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/us/politics/virgil-goode-on-virginia-ballot-poses-worry-for-romney.html


As I have said before, the 2012 election is really just a formality, but the more I think about it, the more I see it as a true identity crisis for the Republican Party and less a national contest. As I see it, the race is all but over.  What is the song like "Turn out the lights..the party's over." There is however an undercurrent to this year's race that is more interesting than the national election, and that is what is the Republican party going to do with themselves?

In one camp you have the TEA Party, Constitution Party types that are pushing the party to the far far far right.  My opinion is that they need to jettison these nutsos, and focus on being moderate and just plain realistic.  Republicans fear a candidate like Virginia's..shoot Franklin County's..own Virgil Goode.  They understand, as I pointed out a long time ago, that Goode will steal votes from Romney and hurt him in any state where Goode's name will appear.  Virginia is key, again as I have said before, to the Republicans.  It swung to President Obama in 2008, after having been Republican for several national elections.  This is completely ignoring the fact that the Republicans have a majority in the Virginia House of Burgesses (I know it is the House of Delegates but I'm a history major). Virginia is quickly becoming a RINO state, and in my opinion, Virgil Goode is speeding up the process. In many a Commonwealther's eyes Goode is a true Republican and Romney is some moderate that switches his opinions too often. Goode is going to come across more conservative than the Romney/Ryan ticket. Even with Ryan who is ultra-conservative, Romney just doesn't have the Conservative chops. Simply put, Goode's name on the ballot hurts Romney and helps President Obama. What's the song line? "Turn out the lights..the party's over."
Virgil "Fly In The Punch Bowl" Goode

In the other camp you have the moderate, Romneyish, types that understand the need to be moderate in a time when the other party is in power.  The Romney/Ryan ticket is a fair attempt to placate both sides of the coin, BUT they are still not catering enough to the far right..which is why they are so afraid of Goode... and it is hurting them.   Understandably this moderate camp has a very fine line to walk.  They cannot be too moderate as to be called liberal on the right, but they have to stick to their guns as moderates as well.  They must, simply must, be moderate and willing to compromise in order to get anything done with the Democrats in the White House, which thanks to their own party will be for another four years.  There are plenty of Virginians out there who are Republicans and not TEA Party fringers. They want to vote for Romney but those on the right are constantly bombarding them with the notions that Romney is not conservative enough, or too moderate.  These same people are wanting to see compromise, a word not in the TEA Party dictionary.   Goode is going to mop this vote 1) because he is from Virginia and 2) because he is more conservative.Simply put, Romney's name on the ballot hurts Goode and helps President Obama. What's the song line? "Turn out the lights..the party's over."
Mitt Romney Waves The White House Ado. Primary Because Of His Own Party


The Republicans had better take the next four years and reconstruct their party.  What is the Warren Zevon song? "Send lawyers guns and money, the shit has hit the fan."  They are moving in too many directions to be effective.  Republicans are forced to run a moderate (Romney) with a ultra-conservative (Ryan) on a very conservative platform (supposedly the most conservative in decades)  against a very  conservative (Goode) candidate, on a very very conservative platform (the Constitution Party is nearly liberal), and the results are not going to be pretty.  All President Obama needs to do is stay out of the way, and not screw up.  Simply put, a Republican's name on the ballot hurts Republicans and helps President Obama. What's the song line? "Turn out the lights..the party's over."
Paul Ryan Is Simply To Smart To Be Able To Flex His Conservative Muscles And Help The Ticket 

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Divisive Is A Two Way Street




While I do not particularly like Bill Maker's approach of not giving his guest their due on this chip I think he has a valid point. His show is by no means my favorite. Not because of his religion or lack there of, he's language and cockiness are what turn me off.  With what he says, I often agree, but I don't care for the way he delivers it.  In my opinion he is not much different than the Republican quack jobs at FOX which he loathes so.  That being said I like what his point is on the clip.  

I feel as though division is a two way street.  Yes, there is a time for standing up for what you believe, but there is also a time for going with the plan...I think I read that somewhere..maybe not those exact words, but something like that....oh yeah the Bible which Republican supposedly use as their playbook. Should Republicans have wanted to get things done while the Obama administration was in office, they needed to understand the need to work with the administration. Sure, President Obama could have worked better with Republicans, but HE is the President after all.  HE won the election, and it is HIS policies that will ultimately be scorned or loved in history.  HE is the man in the arena now, and if the Republicans want to throw road block after road block....which they have...it's egg on their face.  They've taken their ball and gone home, leaving the rest of us standing on the field with nothing left to do...or so we think

The American people are not as dumb and anyone in Washington thinks.  Republicans think we are not going to notice the fact that leaders in their party have publicly stated they were going to stand in the way of anything President Obama tries to pass.  President Obama thinks that we won't notice the fact that he has dodged some serious problems in the country.  Both parties have forgotten that is is us, they work for and us that put them them.  Now I am not one of these "vote'em all out" types, but there are things we can be doing to let officeholders know about the problems we face.  Writing a letter or making a call is just ask effective at voting.  I would say send an email but those are pithy when compared to a hands on, lick the stamp letter.  Voting out someone who is not a member of your party isn't always good. Yeah you might not agree with them on one thing or another, but there are plenty of things that that representative has done to help your area, and you need not lose sight of that. James Madison is credited for saying "You do not have to take part in Government, but Government will take part in your life."  Effective communication with your government official is critical no matter their party or yours.  Let them know what you think on the issues and their actions.  Do not let it only be negative either.  Despite what you think, they have the interest of your area in mind when they are acting.  

Politics is about give and take, we have lost sight of that in this country.  It has too easily become Republicans v. Democrats.  I understand this sound idealistic and grandiose but we need to get back to the basics of debate and compromise.  Republicans are guilty when a Democrat is in office, Democrats when a Republican holds, but it would seem particularly bad right now. Division is a two way street. It is your choice to take the ball and go home.  You can just as easily come back and play the game harder..which sadly the Republicans haven't done with this Romney/Ryan ticket..but who's counting.  It is also our choice, as those left with no game to play, to yell and scream as you walk away.  Guess what else is our choice?  Not to let you play again when you come back tomorrow.  Yes that is matching wrong with wrong, but we can.  If we really want to play ball, which many Americans want, we will not ban you. Division is a two way street, the sooner we recognize that, the better off we are. 

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

What Did He Just Say?!?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/


I watched Senator Rubio's comments on the Daily Show carefully because I saw it as a real opportunity to hear what the Republicans are going to say in their platform.  Maybe that is a wrong approach, but I get the sense that he is close to vein with the policy of the party and knows a thing or two about what is going down.  Here are my comments on a few of the things he said.

One of the things that I caught only is passing at first, though I went back to make sure, was the local government/small government reference he slipped in towards the end.  I'm still scratching my head about that one because I can see why Republicans would not want to slip power down the chain to the local governments.  I have never seen the Republicans as a party against government, but as a party against big federal government.  Traditionally, states rights has been a key plank in the platform of most modern Republican going back to the ripping of the vail in the early 1960's when Democrats started being the party of ingratiation and the Dixicrats took off.  Have Republicans goes so far off the Tea Party deep end that they are no longer supporting any government...of any size?  If so this is a seismic shift in ideals and party platform. I thought the Tea Party goose was cooked, but I've been wrong before...do you think that's why no one comes for Thanksgiving anymore?

I know the liberal media gets to me, and I know I have been brain washed but this notion of incentivizing the market only sounds like a way for their buddies to get rich.  It is a tale as old as cavemen.  Who better to have on you side than the best hunter, so you pay him a little extra of what you kill to keep him happy.  All the talk of letting the market go and run it's self sounds to me like is piss down my back when the forecast says rain.

 And why should I not by that way?  Wall Street has proven time again that they are fully capable of engineering complex market schemes in order to make money from just about any action they take.  Losing money is not something a millionaire does well (he is after all a millionaire), and neither do his millionaire friends.  So I'm supposed to think that electing the chief of the millionaire tribe is going to be the best thing for me?  I've heard some good ones in my time but that is about the best one I've heard....though take it for what it is worth..I've been brain washed.

The final thing that I am left frowning about is this hatred of government works projects.  Republicans are first in line to hit the Obama un-employment pinata but they are not a fan of any measure he takes.  Do they think that some of us won't make that connection?  Now I know they're argument is that they do not want those jobs created at the tax payers expense but just who do you think is going to pay for them if they turn it over to private companies?  Are we the tax payer going to get a break on our taxes if we help bond a new school?  Then have the school built by the brother-in-law of the Delegate that supported the bond in the state house?  Will will not pay more taxes if our county levies a new bridge?  Only to see the bridge collapse when the baling wire it was held together with snaps and the cousin of the county manager isn't to be found.  What about toll roads? Am I going to be able to write off the tolls I pay going home if they toll I-81? Again, I feel piss down my back..but the forecast said rain!?!?

Tom Pendergast loved Harry S. Truman for his stubborn populist stripe.  Pendergast loved Truman because he wanted to build roads in rural Missouri.  Truman campaigned for County Judge (more like a Mayor) on the platform of roads.  Once in office the roads were bid to private..not government..companies.  Care to guess who won most of those contracts?  Why Pendergast Paving Company.  It was not, it has been proven, Truman's vote that got the companies the jobs, but it sure looked that way to the people of rural Independence, Missouri. The unfairly voted Truman out of office, but later regretted him sitting at home with Bess when they need Pendergast kicked out.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Spoken Like A True Thin Man, To A True Fat Man

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/28/greater-fools-didnt-built-that/

This article caught my eye after reading up on the greater fool theory from Sunday's THE NEWSROOM.  What kept my attention was the shear hubris of Mr. Haverly, which is endemic of most on the right.  It is particularly blatant in Mr. Haverly's case because from the looks of it, he has been shaving for a few months, and is the product of having been the "fat man" for many years.  His resume is impressive enough but if examined from say the view point of a "liberal" it is pretty easy to see the "skinny man" even if he is wafer thin.

By no means am I out to attack education.  I am after all in education, but let us first look at Mr. Haverly's. According to the snapshot resume at the bottom of his article he is an alumnus of American University.  That is nothing to scoff.  He most certainly received one of the best, if not prestigious, educations afforded to the less than royal in America..shall we say average "fat man." He no doubt studied under some of the best in the country in his field, and he no doubt worked hard in his classes.Using Reagan's "thin man, fat man" example I would, however, like pose a set of questions to Mr. Haverly.

Would not those that preceded Mr. Haverly to American University be considered the thin man?  They are in fact the ones who founded American's reputation.  Mr. Haverly can only add to it. It is after all the university's reputation, along with the connections made there by Mr. Haverly are mostly likely what got him his job as a Congressional aid and ultimatly his writing job.

The student is, in fact, only as good as his teacher..or professor, so are they not the thin man?  Yes, the professors of American might drive Volvos and sport large salaries, but hard time are not soon forgotten by many academics.  My guess is plenty of times as lowly graduate they hoped their Pinto station wagons would start so they could get home from the library and eat a PB&J.  What of the teachers Mr. Haverly had in high school? Grade school?  What did they drive? What did they eat?  Even if Mr. Haverly went to the best private schools in the country, the answers would not much and very little. Mr. Haverly did have to clean something of economic principles to understand who Ronnie Reagan was right? They studied Reagan so Mr. Haverly can quote him in a blog

What of the Congressman that Mr. Haverly worked?  Is he not a thin man in the sense that Mr. Haverly left his office with plenty of political experience to write for a political blog such as The Daily Caller? Will The Daily Caller not turn thin when a better, more lucrative, less stressful job appear?  Going with Mr. Haverly will be all of the experience, connections, and insider information he picked up.  What of that job?

Conservatives (if you want to call me a liberal on this issue I will not take offense....call me a bleeding hearted liberal for all I care on this one) forget that they stand on the shoulders of those that come before AND the heads of plenty more. My question to those who are "self made" or the "fat man" is always: Did you really earn all of that?  Did you sweep the floors of American University so that others like yourself might enjoy a clean classroom?  Did you restore your own hard drive when you crashed it a week before finals?  Was it you that keep the heat on for those cold Washington nights and the AC blowing on the muggy days in July?  Was that Mr. Haverly behind the counter in the dinning hall serving food to the kids who barely notice? My guess is the answer would be "No" to all of the above.

Those who sit in ivy towers, like Mr. Haverly and plenty of other conservative (let's not be too mean spirited here), are quick to quail those who make the argument I just made with comments that typically contain the words "bitter" or "try harder." Even these are false when looking at their own record.  Words like "bitter" and "try" are usually spoken by people who are far removed from those in which they speak. They know little of those who take a job so they can afford college. College,for them, at a near Ivy was a given. The money for it was an after thought.  They find the notions of trying to get a job foreign. They have always had one lined up. Their parents may only know such words from the lofty side as well, which puts them further from the Pinto station wagons and PB&J days of even the professors they admired at the Ivy (or near Ivy) League schools.  It puts them further from those who truly see flipping burgers as an opportunity from picking fruit, or cleaning lady as a way of grounds grew and out of the weather.

The Mr. Haverlys of the do not stop those people who happily scarf baloney and see a good day as their car starting.  Yeah, we thin men of the world might be a little bitter.  We might look up every once in awhile and want what you have, but then we see how you look down on us a lose all interest.  Why? Because we wouldn't dare look down at someone who is working as hard or harder than us.  We liberals, or at least those who haven't forgotten where we come from, do not stand on the heads of those below us.  While we recognize that we stand on sholders, we typically are reaching down to help more onto our own.  That very fact is the difference between a conservative and a liberal..or at least those of us who haven't forgotten where we come from

Sunday, August 26, 2012

A Rant On Conservative Radio..DON'T DRINK THE COOL-AID

Moderates,

My object here at FTPM is to be as moderate as I can and attempt to gain some form of understanding in the political realm. I try to listen to both sides of a debate and glean from them my understanding of the issue at hand.  Saying that, I cannot help but rail against what I heard Wednesday on the Rush Radio out of North Carolina (don't ask me the station or the show because I was so baffled by the conversation that it escaped my memory). As the conversation went further I could not help but feell sorry for those that called in as the chugged the conservative cool-aid.  One lady even called to to denounce government subsidized healthcare.  She later went on to tell how she used government subsidized healthcare to pay for her physically handicapped child.  That cool-aid must be some power stuff.  I'm sure glad it's not been passed to me.  

The conversation centered around the idea of government spending.  Understandably the host and all of those that phoned into the echo chamber were against any form of government intervention that would cost money.  No surprise there.  What I failed to understand was the dislike of the conservative host for the bank bail outs and saving Wall Street.  I realize that I am late to the table on this but it really struck me the other day how absurd their argument was. 

Wither they like it or not, Republicans are the party of business.  If you look at the majority of Republican measures from Bush's tort reforms to Eisenhower's building of the military industrial complex they have benefited big business.  Just looking at the occupations of say the last 5 Republican Presidents one would see very little in the way of public sector work.  G.E. (Reagan), Oil (The Bushes), and Auto (Romney, Nixon) have been in the White House when a Republican was in office.  So why would conservatives rally against the bailing out of banks and Wall Street?  

The only answer I can gather is that it was simply not their idea, but even that is too simple.  Conservative want us to think they oppose the bail outs because it makes them viable to the everyday citizen. My god look at trickle down economics as your paradigm of hope.  Big business was the only thing benefiting from that policy.  In the words of my grandfather, who was a New Deal Democrat "If it's supposed to trickle down, I'm not even getting wet." It was however, seen as a beacon of hope for the middle class. Sure those at the top will let that money come down to us.  To quote Kevin Bacon in Animal House "Thank you sir, may I have another."

This notion that Republicans have the good of the people in mind is for lack of a better word bullshit.  As for Democrats, I wonder sometimes too..have no fear there.  I simply do not understand the conservative bullhorn speaking out about something that benefits him.  The conversation turned from bad to worse when one caller called in to decry President Obama's plan to build up the nations infrastructure.  The caller say Obama's plan as something so radical that it "blew his mind who someone could agree with it."  To listen to the caller you would think President Obama is so liberal that he swings past socialist, waved communist goodbye and set his sight on some sort of inconsivable set of ideals that the aliens brought to him from outer space.  What the caller failed to hear, or believe for that matter was the benefit to the American economy these measure would make.  The nations bridges are falling apart, our ports need dredging, and the airline industry has yet to fully recover from 9/11.

America is having it's butt handed to it on the world market because it is simply so hard to move products in this country.  Look around the nation and see at where industry is located. It is not out in the open space, it's near a interstate, a major port , or international airport.  Should a business pop up away from a major means of transport, there is quickly manufactured a means of transport.  Take UPS and Memphis.  Forever Memphis's airport was a quiet little regional deal with few flights going anywhere but Chicago and Detroit.  Now it is one of the largest and busiest in the country.  Why?  The government took it upon itself to build a airport to attract UPS.  And while we are on it, who came up with the evil concept of roads being built by the government at the taxpayers expense?  I'll bet you it was that no-good, socialist FDR!  Let me check my book of evil government wrong doers.....Oh it was Dwight Eisenhower...Oh my it says here he was a Republican

I understand the idea that we (the average taxpayer) do not want our hard earned money going into the pocket of some wealthy, underworked, undertaxed CEO.  I even understand how bank bailouts look and are similar to socialism.  Attribute that to the fact that I went to college, majored in political science and had to take a few economics classes..unlike just about all the nut jobs on the conservative airways. What I fail to understand is the mindless wonder of the average listener to conservative airwaves.  I have visions of sheep being led to slaughter whenever I hear people parroting the talking points of Sean Hanity, Rush Limbough (I don't even care to spell his name right) and the like.  Yeah, I probably sound like a parrot of the left at times, but at least I am educated on the subject and have some idea of how things really work.  Anyway, I'm not drinking that cool-aid Republicans so don't pass it my way.  I might just feed it to your dog and have him reading Ayn Rand to your kids for a bedtime story.  

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Patrick Henry Arises!!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/12-ways-republicans-want-to-change-the-constitution/2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/jeff-flake-arizona-senate_n_1771064.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

It is a rare day when my anti-Federalist blood gets as pumped as it did today when I read this article.  While many Democrats would scoff at me for supporting this, I am behind it..at least tentatively.  In fact, I think if Democrats were to look at their roots, they too might be on board.  If a modern Democrat looked at the party and it's origins, they will see a desire for the public to be best represented.  Jefferson, the first Democrat, had the American people in mind, as did Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson.  Indirect election would actually, in my mind, put the election of Senators back into the hands of the people.  It takes some reasoning, but if you follow my line of thought you might just agree

Under the original plans, states elected their Senators in the state houses.  It favored parties that were in power in the state.  This ideally would mean that state officials were more important than they are today.  I am a big fan of close representation which state elections are a prime example.  Ideally, your state delegate is someone from your community.  They are easy to access and are more accountable to their district.  If a state house is Republican, it means that the state is primarily Republican. Simply put, state government is a better representation of the state.

If the state house is a better representation of the people, it picking a Senator to go to Washington would mean that Senator it picks is a better representation of the people.  Granted it does add a middle man, but it would force people to pay closer attention to the representatives they send to their state capitals.  I see people paying attention to a state race more when it means that in affect they are electing three people, not just one. Democrats have always been about close government more than small government.  Jefferson's whole political philosophy is based on the idea of a organic government.  The people representing you should be the people you are closest associated.  The public should not only be educated about the people they are voting for, they should have an intimate understanding of the person.  State elected officials are about the closest you can get, and them have any power.  Adding the power to elect a Senator adds responsibility to the delegates, whom you should have a better relationship.  If you do not agree with the Senator sent to Washington by your delegate, you have every right to vote them out.

There are some inherent  problems with in-direct elections.  The given one being the corruption that comes with it, but it does add positive implications to state elections.  Adding power to the states adds to the responsibility of the state officials, AND the people of that state.  This is something I agree with totally.  We the voting public need to be more educated about those that we are sending to the state capital.  These are people we should already know, so educating ourselves on the political stances should not be too hard.  Knowing too the fact that my state delegate is sending the right person to Washington is something I should take more seriously.  While it might seem less democratic, and something modern Democrats ought to be against, they ought to be behind this.  It gives the power to the people, and taps into the roots of not only the early Democrats but the anti-Federalist nerve endings.  Patrick Henry would be jumping up and down.

Friday, August 10, 2012

What Is Wrong With This Picture? I Got Nothing Except Everything

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/9/former_dhs_analyst_daryl_johnson_on

I heard this article on Democracy Now yesterday and knew right away this was a good candidate for a WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?.  If you look at this the way I did, you will not see much wrong, except the glaringly obvious fact that the government failed to act on information given to them, AND the fact that history has shown this to be true.  This is a prime example of the upper levels of the government failing to heed the warnings of lower level information, and frankly history.  So again I ask WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PICTURE? and say I got nothing except everything.

From a historical context, the idea that hate groups and radical organizations that seek out the destruction of central fibers in our way of life springing up during times of economic hardship is not new.  Many Depression historians will note that groups like the The American Communist Party and the Klu Klux Klan had a ground swell of membership at the height of the Great Depression.  An astonishing number of people who could barely put food on the table, found a way to pay dues for groups that sought to press down economically competing groups of people or sought alternatives to the then broken system.  If the increase in numbers to such groups during the Great Depression is not evidence enough, perhaps the origins of these groups during American Reconstruction is. One does not need to think hard to make the connection between the fears of new economic participants (former slaves) being introduced to a struggling economy (The South) as an impudence for the formation of an organizations like the KKK.  The group's goals at the time (and to this day) was to chase away groups that posed a economic threat to their already struggling class of poor whites.  If race is not your flavor, economics might be.  The American Communist Party dates back to the late 1800's when Communism was a new political theory out of Europe.  Americans who looked for a reconfiguring of the American system as a way to increase their own economic standing flocked to the party in droves.

Fastforward to today, and the ideas are still here.  Neo-Nazis and Communist type groups (OWS) are still dominate in the news, more especially in the light of the tragic shooting in Wisconsin.  The fact that those in the media are treating this increase in groups like this during our very own Great Recession as a new occurrence (or even denying it) is a bit disheartening.  As a quasi- historian, I can see this as an extension of the growth during the Great Recession.  Times are hard, and people are (to use a term from the Depression) "looking for answers." Some seek out groups that wrongly target people that they deem are the cause of the depression like gays, immigrants, and black.  Other look to groups like the TEA Party and OWS that try to change the very nature of the American economic system. Is this right?  I would argue for the groups that seek change over those that target and use hate.  Is it new? Not in the least.

What I have the biggest problem with is the Bush administration's failure to heed the warnings from the Department of Homeland Security about radical groups in the United States.  What is even more troubling is that the DHS was Bush's baby.  Here is a cabinet department born at the hands of George himself, and he is not listening to serious threats being brought to him from his child.  Information (brought to Bush from the department's cabinet member) was present that warned of an increase of hate groups, but that information was ignored almost wholesale.  This represents a failure of our government to protect citizens, when the opportunity arose. The presidential cabinet is designed to advise the President, and in this case that system failed.

By no means am I saying hate groups are a good thing, but they are not new.  Neither is the idea that the government does not heed even the most blatant information designed to protect its citizens.  One can find examples of both in our history.  What is new is the media's failure to recognize that history does tend to repeat itself in similar if not exact ways.  Also new is the idea that an administration failing to heed warnings brought to it by it's very own poster child.  Even Kennedy listened to NASA when it said it needed money and manpower.  From my point of view, there is very little wrong with this picture..except everything.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

When Politics Meets Sports

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/sports/olympics/olympic-runner-from-sudan-seeks-asylum-in-london.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ike-awgu/olympics-2012_b_1738691.html


As we here in America celebrate the Olympics and count the many medals our athletes are winning there is a predictable undercurrent of politics at the London games.  Even before a single event was played, the political implications of the Olympics had started.  Whether it is the South Sudanese runner who came to the games virtually without a country, or the growing number of political defectors, the Olympics represent more than world class performances on the field.  It is a time when strife and politics take a back seat to skill and determination, but as always this isn't the case.

On one hand you have the somewhat mild case of Gaur Marial from South Sudan,  where his country is simply too new.  South Sudan has just recently turned a year old, and in the midst of forming a new country did not have time to form an Olympic track team. Marial was left without a place to train.  Wanting to represent South Sudan, Marial came to the U.S. to train, but was not cleared to leave the country for London because he had yet to become a citizen.  This is less about politics (The United States recognized South Sudan instantly) and more with timing but it brings up the idea that politics does supersede sports, even when it has to do with the United States.  South Sudan is the world's newest country, and the United States had much to do with it, but it does take awhile to become a citizen..Olympic athlete or not.  Marial plans to come back to the United States after competing as an Independent Olympic athlete in London, where I am sure he will gladly become a citizen.

Gaur Marial, South Sudan's Only Olympic Athlete
On the other you have the more sinister cases of political defectors and their home country's attempts to prevent the defections.  Already in London, several athletes (including a Sudanese runner, Cameroonian boxers, soccer players and swimmers) have made their way to English authorities to claim asylum.  This is not an uncommon occurrence at the Olympics or any international sporting event.  The list of defected athletes is too extensive to list here (including a the child of Cuban defectors competing for the United States), but there is mutual benefit for these political vagabonds and the countries that come to.
Gymnast Maria Gonzalez and Coach Yin Alvarez
Both Defected From Cuba And Represent The United States In London
Two things come to light when citizens of one country leave that country for another.  The first is that there must be serious unrest in the home country.  I love my country, and it would take a good deal for me to leave my family and friends in that country.  The second is much less ideological and more cruel.  Actions taken by home countries to keep there athletes range from futile to down right cruel.  North Korea offers cars, money and even refrigerators, while others reportedly threaten to harm family members should an athlete not return.  To me this is senseless.  Why would the country not spend more time correcting what would cause a person to leave, rather than simply trying to stop them from leaving.  Let's face it, would you come back to North Korea for a car?  I don't think all the cars in the world would make me want to come back to North Korea.  Understand, these countries are often dictatorships or very centralized governments, so they simply don't care about the people, but maybe if things were better at home the athletes would not want to leave.
"Come Home, Get A Refrigerator" Said One North Korean Olympic Official
Politics are important. Sports are important.  Every four years these worlds mix in a tense but glorious event known as the Olympics.  Though the Olympics are an event to showcase the competitive talents of world class athletes often times political events take precedence.  From the athlete stymied by the fact that his country is simply too young, to young people striving to make their life better in a new country, there are somethings that are more important than sports.  Even at the event that is supposed to only be about sports.

Monday, August 6, 2012

If It Could Have Gotten Worse For Democrats..It Just Did

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/04/us-usa-politics-tennesee-idUSBRE87302Y20120804


Tennessee is home to two national mule and donkey shows (Shelbyville and Columbia), but these are the only two places you are going to find a large gathering of donkeys (four legged or otherwise).  As I have written before, Democrats in Tennessee in a bad way, and last week's story about Mark Clayton only hurts their case.  Tennessee is, and appears to remain, a Republican state.  In addition to their solid voting Republican, they seem to have a pretty good eye for who is a "good Republican."  So where does that leave the Democrats?  Is there any need for them to bother?  The evidence is stacked against them.  Despite the effort of a few strong willed pockets of Dems, fools like Mark Clayton are not helping the cause, that's for sure, but he is only the latest in a long list of problems for the  donkeys in Tennessee.

Many might say the problems started for the Democrats when ran Mike McWherter, son of former governor Ned McWherter, for governor in 2010.  Granted Bill Haslam did have the backing of big money from the Republican party, it was not even a real race.  McWherter managed a meager 33.1% of the popular vote and won a paltry five counties, all west of Knoxville (and people don't believe me when I say west Tennessee is a different state).  McWherter did not campaign well.  At least in eastern Tennessee he was a none factor.  Part of that could have been that Haslam was the very popular mayor of Knoxville and had the east sewn up before he started.  It is easy to say the cards were stacked against McWherter from the start, but I contend other wise.

Tennessee's last Democratic Senator left office in 1995.  In the U.S. House, only two placards have (D-TN) after the name.  If you leave Al Gore Jr. out of the picture, Tennessee has not played large in national politics in half an century. You could argue the last volunteer to hold major power was Cordell Hull.  Tennessee's state house is held by Republicans, and so is the Senate.  Tennessee went for Bush both times and McCain.  Despite it's Democratic leanings in the west, central and east are Republican almost to a man.  It is a solidly red state, but why?

I think that part of it is that Tennesseeans are for the most part conservative when it comes to money issues, and ultimately those win out. No one (nation wide) is all that liberal on taxes and government money, so social issues are where many votes are won and lost.  Tennessee happens to be a fairly conservative state on those too so the Republican win out.  Republicans simply win out on the G's (Guns, God, Gays) and Tennesseeans go red.  In addition to the issues, Republicans run candidates that are actually Tennesseeans.  Haslam, Lamar Alexander, and all but one Republican Representative is from Tennessee.  The Gores had northern roots, and Phil Bredesen (Tennessee's last Democratic governor) was from New Jersey.  It makes it hard to vote for a guy that isn't from where he represents..or at least it is for my and my high standards.

The Democrats don't help themselves by affiliating themselves with jokers like Clayton, but there is a larger problem.  Democrats are simply not "Democrat enough." In his book BLUE DIXIE, Bob Moser points out the flaws on a regional scale, and the inability of the Democratic party to win majorities in the south since the Civil War.  Political wildcards like my favorite consultant Dave "Mudcat" Saunders are running around out there trying to spread the gospel of the Jackson to the descendants of Jackson and it is a tough sale.  Rather than trying to be real Democrats (something Moser and Saunders would agree is a good thing), Democrats are trying to be Republican-Lite and its not working.

I will leave my comments on the specifics with Mark Clayton to another time, but I will say it is a hard day for Democrats in Tennessee.  Selling Jackson, Jefferson, and FDR (for heavens sake that ought to be easy) is not as easy because of names like Bredesen, McWharter, and now Clayton, but it is not entirely their fault.  Democrats need to step up and be Democrats Stop being ashamed.  After all  we have two national celebrations  for the four legged variety and it was a donkey of the two legged nature that gave power to the valley.  It's time the Democrats remember that, and start recruting some two legged donkeys that are worth more than a broken down four legged.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Democracy And Technology Have A Spoiled Brat For A Child

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/pfeiffer-i-overshot-the-runway-on-churchill-bust-130704.html


The above article has something to do with an apology from a writer about a misguided story regarding the removal of a Winston Churchill bust from the White House.  I'm not really sure of the story, nor why it is important.  What got my attention, and thus made it to this blog, were the scathing responses from Facebook at the bottom.

I have to admit several things before I go further. One of such things is that it is summer, and I am not working. I have time to read these things and get my knickers in a wad.  A second thing (and you may know this) is that it is easy to get yanked into a debate on a Facebook forum or what not and have a whole argument in short sentences.  I've done it, and you may have too.  I'm not faulting the people, but I do have a problem with the system.

I am not old enough to remember politics without the internet.  The world without the internet is something I grasp, but I was not aware of politics until a time when the internet played a role.  I was able (however reluctantly) to see the internet effect politics from the start both in high school and college.  In it's infancy the internet was seen as the center piece of a "new Democracy."  We would suddenly see what people from across the country thought about a policy.  We would have new ways to share ideas, and communicate for the common good.  Then social media springs up as if it were loaded, and it too was going to be the savior of democracy in this new world. In reading the remarks at the bottom of this article, I could not disagree more.

Yes, there have been some successful uses of the internet, social media in particular, in spreading movements like the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street Movement (remember those guys?) but on a daily basis Democracy has devolved into harmful snipes at the bottom of a blog post.  We want to win a debate over complex issues in twenty-five words or less.  We pick fights with people thinking we are smarter than them on no grounds other than what we assume they are.  Democracy (subsequently debate) is about knowing the person you are debating, knowing why they think the way the do.  Carefully thought out counterpoints not smartassed remarks aimed at inflaming the argument.  Democracy thrives when both people are right, and each sees the validity of the other's argument.  In reading the comments at the bottom of the article, I saw none of that.  Lame remarks and cheap shots are far more common than words with substance and valid points. And this is the face of a "new Democracy?"

Any debate is going to have quick lines and come backs, but this is to a new low.  I would welcome anyone to comment on any of my posts, but I would require the be something behind your words.  Think before you type away.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Soon Is Too Soon

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/30/157604072/ever-growing-past-confounds-history-teachers?utm_source=fp&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120731


Since most of the stuff I have been publishing of late has been of a political nature, here are my thoughts on a interesting news story I heard on NPR.  History and Education are both things we are to cover according to our subtitle, so here we go.

Two camps form when it comes to when you should start studying recent history. I fall into the camp of waiting, but there is a point that the market can be saturated with information.  Take the Civil War, and World War II for examples.  There are only so many BAND OF BROTHERS or different aspects of the Civil War you can cover. Yes sometimes you can stumble onto some neat off the wall aspects of Confederate Army strategy, but still. To make matters worse, so many people write simply about wars.  You would think, by looking at the history section of a Barnes and Noble, that all there was to history was war.  Thus we history teachers, have to be as excited about the mass distraction of humans lives as possible.  Hello, there are other things to life besides war.  Many cultural, political, religious, and social aspects be swept aside to write the 999,999th book about George S. Patton published this year.  GEORGE S. PATTON :WARRIOR POET..nah I'll pass. I've got that T-shirt.  The Battle for The Lost State of Franklin..now there is a book I want to read.

I argue that there needs to be a reasonable time for the event to fester..for lack of a better word...or mellow.  Look at 9/11.  Most of the books that came out right after the attacks were narratives of the events and hastily put together information about the war on terror.  These are good, and they are going to be great for historians down the road, but they aren't great from a teaching point of view.  Often times these accounts are biased towards a particular view point (do you think anyone said "gee I feel sorry for those terrorist" in a book published in October of 2011? nor should they).  Bias are easy to see when you read about new events too in the idea that people become more important than they really were.  Take FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS for example.  Those men were not apart of the original raising, but they are the ones that got to go home.  Time cools the tempers and ices the hot.  Richard Nixon isn't all bad in 2012, but he was in 1980.

Secondly, these accounts can sometimes be wrong.  People perceive things differently.  They remember things incorrectly or they simply lie.  If I am at the Selma, Alabama bridge with Martin Luther King, do you think I am going to remember ever detail?  What was Dr. King wearing? Personally, I went to the Rally To Restore Sanity And/ Or Fear.  I can't remember the order in which the guest came on, but if I had to guess I would say Ozzie Osborne was first.  Orders on the battle field get confused, batting orders are reverse. What was said can often times be misheard.  ("Did President Lincoln say "I scored seven years ago?"" someone was overheard saying at Gettysburg) Facts like these need to be ironed out before we teachers going go spouting them off as truths.  What we say sticks..sometimes.. and it best had be right. It is the least we own them

Finally, time weeds out what is important and what is not.  Woodstock was just a music festival three weeks after it happened.  Hank Arron's 755th homerun was a big deal at the time, but he's second on the list now.  "That'll never be reached" many a Braves fan said.  Both events are important to us today, but they have different histories as to how they became important.  We all have events that we say we will remember where we were when they happened, but how many people remember where they were when OJ was acquitted?  I think I was in band class and RNR, but I cannot recall exactly.  I do remember saying "Gosh I had better remember this."  The even was important enough at the time, but it isn't enough for me to remember where I was.

From a teachers point of view I have this to say:
When teaching history, you only have a small amount of time to cover  a lot of information.  You need that information to be as accurate and un-biased as possible. There are certain things that are not open for debate in the history world...The Rally To Restore Sanity took place on October 31st, Jackie Robinson broke into the majors on April 15th 1947.   That goes without saying, and that is what you have to teach your students.  Yes, there is room for teaching them the historical significance, and both sides of issues, but that cannot be done without some time to develop.  Take the death of Osbama Bin Lauden.  We all understand it to be something that will end up in the history books.  What we do not know is just how much of an effect on history it will have.  People 50 years from now will.

Time and sunshine are the best disinfectant.  We are able to see things more clearly, accurately, and better able to teach our students.  There is plenty of history that falls between the cushions that we today can be studying.  We understand that events today are important, but I contend we study what we don't know fully about before we go adding to your slate.

It Say It Enough And Click Your Ruby Slippers It's True

 I guess if you say it enough then it is true.  I think she could work in a few more "anti-Americas"

It'd blow her mind that now less the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin were all considered "liberal". More than a few folks even called them 'radicals.




This is what makes me the maddest.  These are the people we are electing to hold positions of power.

Watch the videos at the bottom of this webpage.  It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative. They are bound to make you mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/tom-coburn-harry-reid_n_1722821.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular#slide=more240836

Mudcat Strikes Again

Cantor's ass is grass

Why Boring People Don't Get Into Politics

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201208/mitt-romney-vice-president-gq-july-2012?currentPage=1

I have written in the past about the politics of scandal,  and the Palin vetting debacle, but this article from GQ takes me to the cleaners.  As I read it though, I couldn't help but ask why we need such serious scrutiny for the Vice Presidential candidate?  Why not the President?  Geeze, if some of these candidates had had to answer these questions, we might have been stuck with W., or even Clinton.

The conclusion I came to was that the VP resonates some form of hope in the future.  Too idealistic? How about the idea that we could potentially be dealing with this guy for the next 16 years. If (though recent treads have shied away from this) the VP stays for a two term Presidency and is elected for two terms? That totals nearly two decades of influence in the American political system.  Granted that has not been the case in recent times, it could happen.  I can think of only one title in the government that carries a longer term and that is Supreme Court Justice.  So getting the VP right is a big deal.  Parties need to take it seriously.

So, the VP vetting needs to be a serious endeavor, but what I continue to wonder about is the focus on the personal aspects rather than the public.  If the VP could be influencing the American agenda for two decades should we not be worried more about his stances on foreign policy and economics and not whether he has paid for sex?  Even though the scandal filled Clinton administration is a shining example of scandal over substance, there is still a case for my argument and her name is Sarah Palin (you know they little girl from Alaska who can see Russia from her house) Think about if McCain had been elected.  I would argue that he would have won a second term, as I predict Obama will, then comes little Sarah's time to shine.  She certainly had the charisma and the flash to be noticed.  She was a good campaigner and connected with the people, so it is plausible that she wins.  Think too about the state of the Democratic party if they don't get President Obama in...who would they have in 2012 that could stop the Republican freight train?  Those factors could have lead to the leader of the free world not knowing the difference between North and South Korea.

I would argue that the vetting process needs to be extensive.  The Vice Presidency is an important office with the serious potential of major influence for a considerable amount of time.  Even with the vetting process as extensive as it is, there still needs to be careful consideration by the candidate, which is another argument for another day.


Sunday, July 29, 2012

Movie Review: So Goes The Nation

Today, I am watching the documentary SO GOES THE NATION about the 2004 election in Ohio looking for bits that I can use in my class this fall.  As I am watching this I decided to try something new.  In the past I have watched movies or documentaries through first, then commented on them.  Today I am going to hit the pause button on the DVD and comment as I go.  It's worth a try, and it's new so here we go.

To open, the film talks about how Ohio was identified early on as THE state that could make or break the election for both candidate.  A soft economy and the states unusually high military population would effect voters and the key issues of the day...hmm, sound familiar?

The first fifteen minutes or so have set the stage for the 04 election.  The Republicans had won the '00 election by sear turn out, and the Democrats where left shaking their head.  Much of that argument I disagree with though the numbers tell the whole story.  More Republicans did turn out to vote in the '00 election, but I think that it had more to do with the candidates and the political climate in out country than it did anything else.  When the people are not happy, they vote.  It's the American way.  So many people wanted anything but the Clintons (for which Al Gore stood) that they would have voted for a sway backed mule rather than vote for a Democrat.

The documentary shifts gears a bit and talks about the candidates themselves.  They focus on how John Kerry refused to fight back when attacked about his war record.  One of the things that surprised me was the fact that Kerry had in place (from previous Senatorial campaigns) a plan or set of retorts to these attacks but refused to use them.  If you where to watch this segment alone you would hear Democrats pretty bluntly say that the only thing that cost them the '04 election was John Kerry.  He simply refused to make an issue out of the negative parts of his service and focused on the good.

Part of this is true, but much of it stemmed from the use of media by the Republicans.  Much of Kerry's problems started on the appropriation bill that would ultimately fund the Iraq war.  Kerry came out and said blatantly " I voted for that bill before I voted against it." One Republican strategist even says in the documentary " We set the bait on the trap, and he took it."  Even as Kerry was uttering his defense for voting against the bill, Republicans were creating an ad that used that quote to prove Kerry was a "flip flopper." Thus the image of Kerry was tarnished and Bush was able to capitalize on the fact that at least the people knew what he stood for. Right or wrong ole Bushy stands. This strategy worked and kept Kerry on the ropes for the rest of the campaign

In the middle of this segment, there are clips from the Republican National Convention giving quotes from Republicans lambasting Kerry for changing his votes and not knowing what he stood for.  One such participant was the Republican's own Mitt Romney who has himself faced the "flip flopper" label in his campaign for the White House in '12.  Just an interesting piece of history coming back to bite you in the ass that I wanted to point out.

After the candidates are highlighted they go back to voter turn out and the efforts of the Democrats to get people out for the vote.  There is a scene where a set of celebrities are brought in from their Hollywood ivory towers to be among the commoners.  A campaign worker is briefing them on what to say if the issue where a person can vote comes up.  The worker tells the celebrities 'They have to go where they are registered."  One of the political-know-it-alls from Hollywood says 'They do?" Honey even my 8th graders know you have to vote where you are registered.  Otherwise you could vote three or four times in different places.  Just goes to show you that politics and movie start don't always go together....cough Ronald Reagan cough cough

The film shifts back to voter turn out and the different efforts to pursue and motivate voters.  This election was the first for which 527 groups had a major role in the grassroots campaign to win voters.  Going into this election, and one of the campaign managers admits the Republican knew they had an uphill battle.  Democrats in the '00 election had out canvased and won that battle on the ground.  Knowing this Republicans stepped up their efforts and it could be said won that battle which helped carry the war. Part of this was due to a lack of coordination by the Democrats between 527s and the national campaign.

For a brief few scenes the film focuses on the issue of provisional ballots and the states Secretary of State not allowing them.  As I watched this, I gathered that even before that issue was decided, the Democrats had already conceded that portion of the ballot to Bush

Annnd then, as if switching on a light, Religion comes out of nowhere to take the lead.  Much of the way the Bush campaign won this battle was the fact that they made divisive issues the key element of attack against Kerry.  Kerry was portrayed as a liberal who was going to bring about a wave of destruction to the Christian-American way of life.  Conservatives came out of the woodwork to make sure this ultra-liberal, gay loving Democrat did not win.  Was this fair? I don't think so, and during the course of an interview a Bush campaign manager even admitted that.  I have long been a fan of leaving moral and religious values out of politics.  It is not good for the country and it certainly is a zero-sum game.  No one wins, when you have people's morals on the line.

Suddenly....out of the corner of the screen you see it...your not sure what it is, but you see it...you know that isn't supposed to be there but it is..."what is that?" That's right. It's the terrorist card coming in to effect the campaign with a vengeance.  This is the one issue, along with the religion card, where the Bush campaign just smoked the Kerry troops.  Bush wasn't able to campaign on his domestic record. He knew that going into the race, so along with the moral issues he brings in the terrorist for a full scale on slot to tear apart Kerry.  Through carefully designed media adds, Bush brought back the fear and terror we felt after 9/11.  Now I am not a big fan of this strategy and I really don't like it being used against me but it worked in '04 just like it works today.  Simply put, Bush made people scared, then soothed them to sleep with his determination to get the bastards that attacked us.  This portion of the campaign came at just the right time for the Bush ticket and they knew it would be the coup'de'tet.  It was simply good campaign strategy..Enough said

Ok. The blow by blow is getting a little old so I am going to wrap up by saying SO GOES THE NATION is a great little film that discusses the '04 election.  It provides a great insight on how people are elected, and shows very accurately how we got stuck with Bush for four extra years.  If you really want to the nitty gritty, point by point, issue by issue coverage of the '04 election this is the film.  Sadly, it could be picked up boilerplate, and put on the '08 and '12 election.  It would be pretty close.

Thought v. Action

http://www.allproudamericans.com/woman-protects-her-privacy-by-any-means-necessary.html


The above news spot talks about a woman in Texas who pulled a gun on a public service employee over the installation of a power meter.  She invokes the Constitution in her defense of private property, but I have to disagree.  As always there is two sides of every argument and when you bring the Constitution, The Bible, or any other governing document there will be.  One person wants to use a particular part of the Old Testament to condemn behavior  while others use the New Testament to condone that action.  Liberals use a more rhetorical interpretation of the Constitution where Conservatives don't.  This issues whoever, in my eyes, is a case where a person want their cake and to eat it too.

Understandably this is not a black and white issue, but at its simplest form it is.  I see this case as battle between thought and action.  Neither is better, neither is worse.  The homeowner wants to use action (pulling a gun) to solve her problems rather than thought (The Constitution). Yes, her action is backed up by thought, but over-arching principle at play is action.  Action over thought is a plausible solution to many problems.  My hand is burning, I pull it out of the fire.  My Congressman sits by and lets a major bill pass that hurts me, I vote him out.  If our society had no laws (say no Constitution), and we could do what we wanted, the homeowner would probably be given a medal, but she might be hung for pulling a gun too.  She'd not have a Constitution to fall back on.

The problem lies in the fact that the homeowner is using the Constitution incorrectly, thus her actions (supported by thought) are fallible.  The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms..for a militia..and it gives us the right to private property...from the government...No government agency was involved (that I know of) in placing the power meters on the house in question, thus she has no right to defend herself with a gun.  Seem too simple..it is..  Scratching your head yet?  Both parties are at fault

The action of the power company employee were illegal.  The employee trespassed on private property, thus he should be punished under due process of the law (also in the Constitution).  The homeowner is guilty of pulling a gun in an unlawful (or at least Unconstitutional) manner.  Still with me? Let's take this instance apart and see if that helps

Case One
I have  NO TRESPASSING signs all over my house.  Someone unconstitutionally breaks in my house.  I have no gun.  They take my TV and my beer bottle collection.  What are they guilty of? Trespassing and burglary. This is the same thing the power company employee did. This employee trespassed, and you could say was going to take away someone's property.

Case Two.
I am sitting on my front porch.  I see an Alabama fan wearing a Bear Bryant hat walking down the street.  I hate Bear Bryant and I pull a Constitutionally protected gun on the person.  What am I guilty of?  Depending on where you live it could be endangering the life of a citizen, or something like creating a public disturbance.  This is what the homeowner is guilty of.  This isn't a lawless society and that Bama fan is due their unalienable right to life.

The case at hand is a combining of both of these cases.  All points are covered under the Constitution, but they were put together improperly by someone who lacks a sound understanding of the Constitution.

What gets me is when people try to use the Constitution. It is not a one size fits your needs document.  In many cases it will even rule against you when you try to use it incorrectly. Of course you have the right to private property.  The homeowner was within her rights to not want someone on her property. She was even within her rights to have a gun.  At the same time she has no right to pull a gun on someone.  She let action win the battle between thought on an incorrect assumption.  What should have taken place was the police were called, the power company employee arrested, and then the power company sued over invasion of privacy or even plain ole trespassing.  We have laws in place for this very reason, and they have been carefully thought out. The legal system is where thought beats action, so my question to the homeowner would be: Who do you have to face in court? A judge, and the judge uses thoughts to governed his actions.

If this homeowner does not like the fact that she is at fault too, she can write her Congressman (which is elected by rules laid out in the???? You guessed it Constitution) and see if he cannot pass a law (for which must be ruled Constitutional by the??? Supreme Court. That same Supreme Court is appointed by rules laid out in the Constitution..Ok I have carried this side conversation on too long) The homeowner in question simply allowed action to rule over thought, which is something I would argue (at least in this case) was not a good idea.  We have a system in place that is designed to handle this very problem.  It's time more people realized that instead of taking the law into their own hands.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Have You Given Any Thought To Your Future?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/british-media-hammer-romney-olympic-comments-103800909.html


I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way to the ballgame last night hoping for some grist for the mill. The show was not a disappointment, and neither was today's coverage of Romney's tour of England.

Hannity had a guest on that was obviously pro-Obama, and was just lambasting her.  From what I gathered, this lady was a frequent caller and even the mother of Hannity's nephews.  I'm not sure of the details, but what I am sure of was Hannity's faith in the Romney Presidency.  I tuned in as the question "Well what is Mitt Romney going to do about the economy?" Hannity listed off 5 or 6 proposals that dealt with the economy.  Between Hannity's incessant stuttering (have you noticed that all these radio people have a stutter? Real professional right? I think it is forced to draw out what they are going to say and fill time), I gathered that Romney was fixing the economy in the first year of his term.  Great, except for one thing.  It is not that simple.  Anyone who is in their right mind has..has..has to..to..to understand that...that..the President cannot get done everything he says he is going to.  I have said this time and time again that there is a tight line walked by any President of any party.  Obama promised the moon, the stars, and a bag of potato chips. To quote Pink Floyd "I'm still waiting!"

All of this lead me to wonder if Hannity, and all of the conservatives have given anything thought to their future in regards to defending President Romney?  I think if they had, they might seriously reconsider him all together.  Insidently, I would have written the same thing about John Kerry if I can been writting a political blog when he was running.  Should Romney be elected, what all we he get himself into?  He's already pissed off one of our major allies with his comments about the London Olympics.  What else might he say?  What else might he do?  I shudder to think about the increase in volume from Hannity and the gang, when President Romney is not able to push through those 6 things he listed that would be done in the first year. What will they have to defend him with?

The major problem, and President Obama has experienced this, on running against someone's record is winning.  It is like the dog who finally catches his tail.  Once you are in office, it's your record that is on the blocks.  Your actions are going to be seconded guessed.  This idea of running as a direct alternative to a candidate is bad for the election process and it is bad for the country.  We need to get back to having elections be about the ideas.  It needs to be the Republican set of ideals against the Democratic set of ideals (Naive is my middle name btw). Should we ever stop seeing things so black and white, we might actually get a President who gets things done.  Why would that President be any better?  Because they won't have a Mitt Romney standing in the corner saying "I would do that better." That President would be able to act with the understanding that the American public (or at least the majority) agrees with his ideal, not just what he said on the campaign trail.

There is a certain amount of show biz (for lack of a better term) that goes with elections. I understand that.  It is, to some degree, about two people duking it out over their ideas of how they themselves think the country should go.  Problems arise,though, when there are jesters in the background who only wave the flag of the king because he is on the throne.  Hannity will defend President Romney, and he will do so by blaming any Democrat who stands in Romney's way, just as he (Hannity) has blamed President Obama for not doing anything because the Republicans stand in the President's way.  Hannity sees the Republicans blocking President Obama's way as noble figures and carriers of the American way.  So goes any party out of power. Their guerrilla tactics are not so bad when they deploy them on a larger force, but when such tactics are used on them it's bloody murder. So I leave you with my only question to Mr. Haninty: Have you given any thought to your future?

Two For The Price Of One

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion-report-glass-steagall/

If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that a quasi-regular title to posts is WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?!? and today I am announcing the start of a new quasi-regular post SOMETHINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Thus today you are going to get a twofer.

There are plenty of things about the banking industry I do not understand.  One of these is the hullabaloe around the purposed reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act.  Here is what I understand

The act was passed during the Great Depression as a mean to separate financial banks from public banks. Such measure would prevent the waves of panic that swept through the banking industry from totally engulfing the private sector.  (A brief aside: The U.S market is a mixture of the Free and Command Economy- just the public is allowed to follow the whims of the free market, while the Government controls and regulates the financial institutions that operate the markets) In the late 90's and early 00's, Republicans forced the repeal of the act, thus binding the two sectors together.  These de-regulations (a favorite term of Republicans) in-turn led to the complex schemes which caused the financial melt down.  What I am failing to understand, and what I assume is wrong with this picture is that now, with talk of bringing back the Act becoming a buzz, is why Republicans are opposed to the measure.

Understandably the Republicans want nothing more than to keep the act of the books because it would mean they were wrong in repealing it in the first place.  Admitting they are wrong is something Republicans do very well, but it is for the good of the country.  Dare our elected officials do anything to benefit the country.  Such a naive thought! There is however a benefit to the Republicans getting on board to bring back the law.  What could possibly be good about bring back a law that your party repealed?  Two words: Political Capital.

If the Republicans were to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, they could claim that they were the party that fixed the economy.  Republicans want nothing more to be the party that "Saved The World." So why would they not seek measure to bring the act back? It is good for the country and good for the party.  Yes it means more regulations but it also means the market is allowed to operate as it freely as it wished.  Yes another of the Republican wet-dreams.


I may not be the quickest mind in the banking world, but when I see a good deal I try to take it.  Even though any Republican that votes for the reinstatement of the bill will take his philosophical lumps, he will have all the more political capitol when they stand for re-election as "someone who cares about main street." Maybe I am wrong and I don't understand fully the implications of what I am suggesting, but then again there is something that seems wrong about this picture