Fox News

We all know that Fox News is the antithesis of fair and balanced but to find out how they view themselves, go to this link . Evidently, they take pride in actually creating the news instead of just reporting it. Isn't there some kind of licensing required to claim you're a news source?

Traditionalists versus Intellectuals

I had a lunchtime conversation with a female colleague this afternoon and the discourse turned to the institution of marriage. There were comments from the gut, intellectual musings, historical references and the inevitable Bush position on gay marriages. I'm not sure where I come out on marriage personally, even though I've been in one for twenty years. What I can say is that there is comfort in kindred spirits and knowing that you don't have to submit to life's trials and tribulations alone. And you know, I think these transcend the sex of the involved parties.

But, I digress. Who can get married and how it all plays out are totally a societal issue as is borne out in the fact that there are many societies that do it differently. Our American society is based on the beliefs (and that's all they are) of Christianity and have served us, and our progenitors, well for 2000 plus years....that is, until now. Are we ready for this change? Apparently some are and some aren't. But that's not really what this post is about?fooled you didn't I?

The baffling part of these types of "freedom" issues is that, regardless of which way you might lean, you probably have an opinion about issues like gay marriage and, I'll wager, our beliefs are inconsistent with our core values. My best example of this is the current administration (naturally). They are, as we speak, touring the country in an effort to convince us that they are the best guys to support the principles of freedom and democracy around the globe. Then why do they want to restrict freedoms here at home by making constraining changes to the very document intended to express just how free we really are? If there are limits to personal freedoms, which there surely are, what are the criteria for them? I would argue that "traditions" are poor criteria but probably the most widely applied and effective to a degree. Traditions allow us to lead our lives in an uncomplicated way. It keeps us from worrying about how to live and the consequences of doing so. As I have said in previous posts, tradition is also a fundamental tenant of conservatives.

It is because of the natural conclusions that you and I are drawing right now that I make this proposal. Instead of using the words Conservatives and Liberals, I recommend that we adopt the monikers of Traditionalists versus Intellectuals. Clearly our conservative half would prefer to live life, never changing, without getting caught up in too much controversy or thought about the rights and wrongs of society or others. In order to break with tradition, you need to have really thought about the "why?s" of tradition. I know I do and that?s why I write this blog.

Some of the things I think about are:

Why don't abortion rights activists all have lots of adopted kids- especially black and Latino ones? That way we wouldn't need abortions and all the unwanted children would be cared for...in the traditional sense.

Why don't all of the pro-automatic gun folks live in places like Harlem? There are plenty of folks there that probably have them (I'm not picking on Harlem it just has the right historical notoriety to make the point) so they'd be in good company.

Why do we give the government all this extra money by buying US savings bonds when we know they'll just blow the money on something stupid like trying to turn Arabs into Europeans? Oh, and why aren't congressional (including executive branch) salaries tied to a balanced budget? Aren't we prosecuting people for spending other people's money recklessly?

Why do we continue to endorse the "faithful" to lead our country and try to kill them all off in everyone else's? (This one I know the answer to?.ha!)

Why do we continue to de-regulate where demand for products and services are consistent and required?

Why do we allow insurance to be priced based on some normal statistical distribution and then let them change the population by tossing out the high risk part (3 sigma)?

Why do we legislate environmental standards that benefit the globe and then give the offending industry 20 years to comply?

So, am I an Intellectual? Probably not quite but I'll bet I've given one hell of a lot more thought to these issues than the Traditionalists.

Oh, I think about other things too but I can?t write them down. How about you?

One Point Plan

This was so right on...to the Onion for a really pointed piece. Even the simple minded 42% of the US population that label themselves evangelical ought to be able to process this.

It's Brightening Up Out There

Here's a clip from an online rag I get:

Silicon Valley added 400 jobs last month. It's only the second monthly job gain since the local economy collapsed back in March 2001, according to payroll data released Monday. While minuscule, the numbers have given some economists hope that the region may be about to emerge from its economic coma. At the same time, observers cautioned that growth will remain slow and that it will be many years -- at best -- before the region recovers the more than 200,000 jobs it lost.

I used to work in the valley. I left right as the dot com disaster was beginning to unfold. Colleagues, at least the ones who could find work, told me that commuting, once a horrific nightmare, was no longer a problem. It doesn't sound like things have changed much. I understand that many people have simply left the area because they couldn't hold on. The valley sports some of the highest cost of living in the country so it takes two incomes to just own a house there typically.

So, lets do the math...800 jobs in 31 months (or 26 jobs/month)...to make up 200,000 jobs would take 7,662 months or 638 years at this rate of growth. Even if we assumed that we could sustain this stellar growth rate from month to month, it would take 498 months or 42 years. Silicon Valley is purportedly the most aggressive and technologically grounded area in the country. My contention is that it is a good indicator of how well the US is performing in the one area we are supposed to excel at. I don't think I could even grade this performance unless they're giving out "z's".

"Economic Coma" is appropriate. The whole country is in one. So Mr. Bush, what corner have we turned exactly?

I'm still hoping that I awaken on November 3rd and hear that all the people who have been apathetic about voting, vote Kerry and he wins in a landslide. A landslide is the only meaningful message we could send to the rest of the world.

The Real Difference between Democrats and Republicans

Many issues we love to talk about in the political arena, while important, are really details to the underlying structural differences in the philosophies of the two parties and their candidates. I recall reading an article by a member of a conservative think tank (yes, I try to keep up) who described the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals as being one of tradition versus change. It was really a well-written article and I wish I had saved the link to it but?I didn?t. He argued that, when given a decision, a conservative would vote for sticking with the status quo or tradition over trying something new. You can definitely see this in the current administration?war versus diplomacy?traditional marriage vs civil unions ad nausium.

Upon reflection, I think the author was right but only with respect to what I would consider temporal social issues like abortion, gay rights, faith-based initiatives etc. that have a utilitarian tendency to change anyway. I have become to believe (I?ll try not to overuse a Bushism like ?believe? too much here) that the structural difference between the two is really their constituencies. How many of you think that America would have become as great a nation as it has without a strong and prosperous middle class? If you feel that a middle class is what separates us from third world countries, you would be correct. If you look at these countries, it?s not so much that they?re poor, although many are, it?s the fact that they have no majority middle class. They have the very wealthy with the very poor making up the majority of its citizens. All successful western countries are based on a majority of the population being in the middle of the income spectrum (normal distribution of wealth with standard deviations off the mean). Countries in recent memory that are achieving majority middle class stature include India and China. I contend that this requirement is independent of the type of government and that any form can either be successful at it or fail at it.

So, what?s the point? The point is that Bush has openly admitted that his base are the wealthy 5% of this country. Kerry has openly admitted that his base is the 85% of the middle class. Any monarch knows that you have to keep the 85% mildly happy to prevent upheaval and my contention is that this is exactly the republican approach: throw a few bones in there for the 85% and grow the wealthy 5 or 10%. This administration demonstrates this time and time again. The interesting thing is how very good they are at obfuscating the benefits of their programs for the wealthy while all making it seem like a good deal for the rest of us.

One last point: if you?re a lower middle class, gun toting, evangelical Christian, the only thing you have in common with George Bush is?well?really nothing. The terrorists aren?t particularly interested in getting to you and you aren?t even a republican target market where funding is concerned. So, perhaps you can help me understand why you support his administration. The other thing I?d like to know is how many Bush supporters have ever set foot on another continent, and being sent there by Uncle Sam doesn?t count. It may explain a lot.

Pension for Pensions

The online times published an article today regarding how large companies are screwing people out of early retirement benefits. Its an interesting article for a couple of reasons. First it clearly demonstrates that, left unchecked, companies will screw its employees (and one could argue shareholders) in favor of its over paid executive staff and secondly, what happens when you get laid off.

As a victim of the telecom meltdown, I have some first hand knowledge of what goes on. Millions, and I mean millions of middle class Americans have been laid off over the past four years. If you've never personally experienced it, I can tell you that is a demeaning and lonely experience. The faucet shuts off, but no one plugs the drain...but I digress. As I rebuild my life after 23 years of loyal service to the same group of companies, I am reminded of two very, life affecting, changes: the first is that I will probably never be able to retire like my father was able to and; I will have to cover my own medical insurance if I ever do get to retire. You see, one of things you lose when you get laid off are you retirement medical benefits.

Seeing the way this country is headed, I only take solace in the fact that you, my dear reader, are not likely to have subsidized health insurance either. The trend has been to place more and more of the burden on covering health care premiums with your paycheck. Mine currently runs $650 per month for the two of us and has an annual deductible of $3200. It's basically only good for catastrophic health problems. If I had subscribed to the HMO, it would have cost nearly $900 per month. Now imagine someone who makes $40,000 a year, which works out to about $2300 a month after taxes. Health care would consume nearly half of their take home pay, leaving $1300 for mortgage, car and oh...food. Anyway, the point is that if I could retire ten years from now and had a home to live in, its likely that, with the current direction we're headed, I'm going to need a minimum of $2000 per month just to pay off property taxes and insurance premiums (oh by the way, my property taxes doubled last year to make up for the lack of revenue from reduced federal subsidies and the unemployed). If I had a million in the bank earning 4% annually (not paying down the principle) I may not be able to make ends meet.

Just think...there are millions of Americans out there just like me (or even worse off) that aren't even on anyone's radar screen right now. All I can say is that we probably don't have to worry about baby boomers retiring. A lot of them won't be able to.

I Guess I'm a Sophisticate

This will be short because it has nothing to do with anything except my ongoing education into all things HTML.

I managed to add a Link section to my blog template page. Its not formatted as the other sidebar sections are. That's a different exercise. I'll continue to post links as I come across them.

One comment I have to make is that the built in spell checker really sucks. I seem to remember making some disparaging remark about in an earlier post but it annoys us illiterates.

Tax Hikes

I almost fell over when I read a headline this afternoon, attributed to Bush, and reported by ABC news. It read, "Bush: Kerry's plans would require a tax hike." Is he serious? Like the largest deficits ever aren't going to require pain and suffering at some point? What world does this guy live in? I don't recall anyone predicting the deficit improving under this administration. Who do they think is going to pay for all of the debt they've racked up? The Russians?

Headlines like this should infuriate true, and thinking, conservatives. Since when did the Democrats become the penny pinchers and the Republicans become the spenders? The biggest problem with Bush's approach is he's missing the "Tax" part of the "Tax and Spend" slogan. Believe me, I understand the concept of more jobs, more productivity equals a better tax base but not if you cut taxes and then fail to improve real productivity.

I have a theory that Bush is dyslexic. When he was a child, he read Robin Hood but got the robbing from the rich part backwards. He's robbing from the poor and giving it to the rich!

One last thing before I post this, I want to introduce you to a great blog published by the BikeGuy. Read his open letter to the President but especially just enjoy the rants. Thanks BikeGuy!

Someday I'll figure out how to post favorite links over on the right side of my blog like others do. Unfortunately, my knowledge of HTML would fit in a thimble and I can't code my way out of a paper bag so, for now, I'll just insert them as I find them.

Mak'n Progress

Another debate, another mouthful of rhetoric from this administration.

Is anyone tired of hearing the President say, "we're making progress" without detailing just how he defines "progress"?

Is anyone tired of this Kerry Senate voting record attack when, in fact, the record of the past four years under this administration could, politely, be called nothing short of abmismal?

Is anyone tired of the endless focus on Iraq...a war that the President himself created and now has become an endless source of suffering for all involved?

Is anyone tired of hearing him say he's working hard when I get maybe two weeks of vacation every year and he's forever off fishing or on respite at the Crawford ranch?

Is anyone inscensed by the media criticising Kerry for actually explaining how he plans on getting from point A to point Z while the encumbent gets accolades for catch phrases and negative slogans?

Have you ever seen this country so divided?

Is anyone tired of this administration's overuse of the term "tax and spend liberal"? I do believe that, if you need to spend (another issue for another rant), the money has to come from someplace. You either borrow it or you increase your revenues. I do believe that it has been the Republicans that have spent extraordinarily over the past 25 years and the democrats that have been left to put the "responsibility" back in Fiscal. You have to pay off the debt somehow.

By the way, while I'm ranting, isn't dictating people's lifestyles diametrically opposed to the notion of "hands off" government?

And by the way Mr. Bush, the folks with the real WMDs, like North Korea, you must just be plain afraid of since you don't seem too anxious to go stomp on them. Going after Afghanastan and Iraq is like invading Jamaica. And I can't even get into the hypocracy of how you've been dealing with the Saudis because its embarrassing. Frankly Mr. President, you embarass all of us.

The Gas Pump

I think you should be able to vote at a Gas Pump. You're nearly forced to pay attention to them, they print little receipts and they're all networked- sort of (but that can be worked out).

The point of this rant wasn't really to seriously suggest this at this point in time, but to really point out the nonsense that's going on with E-voting. Holy smokes, we all trust our financial lives with machines. Something as simple as voting ought to be a slam dunk.

Quit bitching and get it done. It really isn't a hard problem.

Veep Debate

I watched most of the VP debate last night and I sure hope all of you did too. The most interesting part was not the debate itself but what happened today in the "post debate review". I even went to the CheckFact.org site that Cheney quoted. It was hilarious. You'd think the guy would have at least logged onto the site to see what was going on before he plugged it. My review of the site indicates that it is not kind to the current administration. One blurb I read said Cheney had met Edwards at least three times previously when he stated in front of zillions that this was the first time they'd met. Maybe he has more than a heart condition?

Another point I found interesting was an accusation that neither John showed up for some vote in the Senate recently...well, its very hard to be in two places at the same time. I also firmly believe that, if it was an issue where their vote would have made a difference, they would have been there. We should all understand that most Senate votes can be tabulated ahead of time with razor sharp precision and each Senator's staff monitors whether a vote is going to be decisive. Personally, I think the Senators should show up all of the time but, unless you've walked a mile in their shoes (which Cheney hasn't), its hard to be critical...in other words, I'm sure you could make that accusation about nearly every senator. Besides, by his own admission, Cheney stated he was there "most" Tuesdays...what the hell does that mean?

I don't like to say bad things about people I don't know but, from all outward appearances, Cheney is a self serving liar. I was watching the debate thinking of all the things Edwards should have come back with after Cheney attacked his career as being undistinguished. Things like; "Gee Mr. Veep, aren't you the one that just got over a thousand of us killed? Is that distinguished?" I could go on but my fingers would start bleeding. I hope that everyone watching these debates can see the real character differences between these two sets. If not, we're doomed. Thankfully, even if Dubba gets another 4 years, it won't quite be long enough to see him fiddle around while America burns.

The Great Debate on Foreign Policy

So, tell me why exactly this race is neck and neck? Did you watch the same debate I did?


Honestly people, can you really justify why you think the current administration will be better keeping people safe than John Kerry? The republicans spin Bush's foreign policy prowess as his "forte". Did we all forget that the President (who wasn't even elected by the way) didn't know anything about world geography much less foreign affairs. How did this become his strong suit all of the sudden? People, this has been a tremendously expensive education for us and I'm tired of paying for it? George needs to get back with his neat little disfunctional family and get his weiner fingers out of our lives.


As John Kerry is fond of saying, just having conviction doesn't make you a President. You can be certain and be wrong. In this case, I'm certain that whatever George and the neocons do is wrong...its almost by definition.

The Great Debate on Foreign Affairs

So, tell me why exactly this race is neck and neck? Did you watch the same debate I did?

Honestly people, can you really justify why you think the current administration will be better keeping people safe than John Kerry? The republicans spin Bush's foreign policy prowess as his "forte". Did we all forget that the President (who wasn't even elected by the way) didn't know anything about world geography much less foreign affairs. How did this become his strong suit all of the sudden? People, this has been a tremendously expensive education for us and I'm tired of paying for it? George needs to get back with his neat little disfunctional family and get his weiner fingers out of our lives.

As John Kerry is fond of saying, just having conviction doesn't make you a President. You can be certain and be wrong. In this case, I'm certain that whatever George and the neocons do is wrong...its almost by definition.