Rich People Problems

So, Obama is president for another four years. Predictably, there are a bunch of blowhards talking about leaving the US, seceding from the US, or even assassination or armed Revolution. For my part, I'm happy to see him re-elected. In doing so, it's possible that we staved off an armed revolution. Romney would have continued and likely strengthened the policies that were inching us closer and closer to one.

The fact is that we are dangerously close to the same circumstances that did cause the American revolution. We probably have been closer in the past, such as perhaps in the Great Depression, or maybe before the birth of labor unions. But that doesn't change the fact now - the only thing that's changed is the people's willingness to take up arms compared to in the past. But what has also changed is how quickly and widespread information travels.

But let me go back to how close we are to the same circumstances that led to the Revolution. I've spoken before about the East India Company, and its role in the actual Boston Tea Party, and thus, in the American Revolution as a whole. To review, the East India Company had gotten so big that it pretty much owned the British monarchy. They had bought representation, had their own private armies, you name it. So, they had gotten too big for their britches and were about to crash. The monarchy took the taxes off tea from the East India Company while leaving taxes on all competitors' tea. A corporate tax break and a bailout at the cost of all smaller competitors.

Next, we have whining like this:
"People who don't have money don't understand the stress."

...and this:
Papa John's CEO says he'll cut hours in response to Obama being re-elected.
I mean, really? His own math comes out to a cost of fourteen cents per pizza. Big deal... I can dig fourteen cents out of my couch cushions. And have you seen the guy's house?
Casa de Papa John

I won't pick on Papa John too much here, partially because I do love their pizza, but mostly because he isn't the exception, he's actually a good example of the norm in corporate whining.

Call it class warfare if you want... but the fact is that in America, there weren't supposed to be any firm social classes. Remember that part about "no titles of nobility" in the Constitution? Well, we do have those again... just without the official titles. The rich are making sure they stay rich, regardless of whether they are successful or failures. And if they are failures, it's the ones under them who suffer. It's the ones below them who lose their jobs and all sense of financial security. The guy may as well have said, "you peasants don't understand our sacrifices!"

And that mentality is pervading the Republican Party right now.
A Rush Limbaugh rant.

If you're reading the news, it also seems they're trying to find new ways (or revive old ways) of keeping people who don't side with them from voting.
Supreme Court to hear challenge to the Voter Rights Act.

Scared yet? There may be good reason to be at this point, and I don't say that often.

The people have spoken decisively - we prefer Obama's approach over that of the Republicans. The Republicans don't care - they still want things done their way, and only their way. They say the common person is not educated enough to know what's best. Again, that sounds like something we'd hear from a monarchy, not a democracy (or even a representative republic). The rich are basically locking themselves into that status, as though a title of nobility, and are not downwardly mobile. Only upward. Everyone else can go up or down, and that's just capitalism. The rich ones get the bailouts and golden parachutes if they fail. The regular people just get walking orders and maybe unemployment checks.

Obama won! But what does eet mean, man!?

Well, if you ask Fox News, it means that mainstream media (except for Fox News, of course - they're the only ones we can trust) has brainwashed us into a bunch of sheep, bleeting praises of Obama, and that it's the end of America as we know it. If you ask Rush Limbaugh, it means the rich, white men are being oppressed and all the people waiting in line for government handouts (the 47%?) tipped the scales for Obama... and oh yeah, it's the end of America as we know it.

Apparently, Wall Street feels much the same, as the stock market took a dive. I'm anticipating it to continue to dive a bit further down and bottom out for a few weeks, maybe a couple months, then start to go back up as people get tired of not making money. Keep in mind that the market was doing the best it had in a long time under Obama's watch.

Right now, think of Republicans as sullen children who refuse to play with the other kids, because the other kids won't bow to their rules. "No fair! You're cheating! I'm not playing anymore!" Much like in said scenario, the Republicans will get bored if largely ignored and start playing again. Meanwhile, I see Wall Street as a buyer's market. I bought some shares last night, actually. If you want to join in the fun, I actually use and recommend sharebuilder.com. Pretty simple and straightforward, not a lot of bullshit, and I've been using them and trusting them for years. And no, as far as I know, they're not paying me to plug them... although I quite honestly would accept it if they did.

Here's what it actually means: another four years of Obama. Some things will change - I like that he's come out in support of same-sex marriage. And he does seem to be on the right track economically, if the Republicans would stop their obstructionism. On the other hand, some things won't change. I don't like that he's kept quiet about the issues I really want him to address: things like NDAA and the Patriot Act. They need to go - sooner rather than later. But, it's not the end of the world. It wouldn't even be the end of the world if Romney was elected (although I probably would be pissed - I really don't want the fifties to make a comeback)

Obama's not perfect; I don't see him as anything resembling a messiah. But, he's a smart guy with good intentions. I'm sure Romney had good intentions too, at least from his own point of view... but as I've said, he is painfully out of touch. And it seems that the Republican party as a whole... well, any moderate voices have been drowned out by the extremists. And I'm also not saying that all who oppose Obama are racist, but I damn well know there wouldn't be this much fuss about him if he was white, or his name didn't sound middle-eastern.

Anyway, I hope that now the Republicans can settle down and actually play nice with the other side of the aisle, as they took a hell of a beating last night... but I'm not counting on it. Please, please prove me wrong, Republicans.

Of course, the other possibility is a cheerful one: people get pissed about the extremism and whining from the Republicans, they fall into third party status, and the Libertarians step up in their place. Gary Johnson 2016!!! Hey, I can dream... and it is doable.

Election Day

While I was watching the news and Family Guy tonight, I noticed that it seemed like every single commercial was campaign stuff, back-to-back. It all followed a certain pattern: if it was local, it was about who spent the most time in the area, who grew up where, who hated/loved their hometowns, who was more corrupt. I even saw one local ad making issue of the fact the opponent had never married. That's getting rather personal and frivolous, in my opinion.

On the national level, the biggest issue of choice more predictably is the economy. I really wish I saw more about how Obama broke his promise on killing the Patriot Act... but of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by the Republicans, who introduced it and signed it into law. The ones who rightfully would make issue of it were never taken seriously by the media: the Libertarians.

Between the Democrats and Republicans, I find myself siding more with the Democrats. And ultimately, that's who I voted for (my state has early voting): Obama. Contrary to what Republicans would have us believe, he's proven himself a moderate. Perhaps too much for my liking. That's not to say I want an extreme liberal - I do not. What I want is a leader who keeps promises, stands up for what's right, and won't make the country move backwards. Obama has tried, although like I said, I'm deeply disappointed in him for the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I think I've mentioned before that the one and only reason my vote went to Obama instead of Johnson is because I want the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to have a chance to work.

Meanwhile, the Republican ads are reminding me of that one relative or frienemy that we all have. You know the one - they preach responsibility while doing every stupid and irresponsible thing you can imagine, and are probably on welfare while they do so. Nothing against welfare, but to preach responsibility while using welfare like a piggy bank... yeah. Pretty hypocritical.

You see, the Republicans have consistently increased government spending. While increasing spending, they cut taxes, particularly on the rich. This sounds nice, I guess. Work less, spend more.

That's exactly what it is. And we know as working Americans that this doesn't work. Bush started his presidency with tax rebates, tax cuts, followed by a war on two fronts, more tax cuts, and I think more rebates. That there's some "fuzzy math." And this is the party of fiscal responsibility? Really?

Come on, I like keeping my money just as much as anyone else. But, if I get a flat tire on my car, it has to be fixed, and I have to pay for it. Similarly, the government does provide services on a wide range of things. To break it down in private sector terms, the government provides security, insurance, transportation, infrastructure, etc. And as with the private sector, it's not free. Unless you want to tell a soldier why you don't think he deserves a paycheck or healthcare.

We all get several benefits from taxes that we take so much for granted that we don't even see them. And even if such benefits are pointed out to many nay-sayers, they will childishly say, "well, I don't benefit from it," or "I didn't ask for it."

Well, that's the way things work. With Hurricane Sandy, I didn't see any Republicans turning down help from the government. Even Chris Christie was happy to accept help, even going so far as to thank Obama. That took a lot of guts (and I will refrain from making a joke about Christie's ample gut... or does that in itself count as one? Damn). Of course, the more partisan Republicans (and Fox News) turned on him for doing so. But, let's be honest: these same ones that were graciously accepting help were griping about such government programs a month or so earlier. Wasn't Romney wanting to privatize and profit off emergency response stuff?

How does one profit off this? By gouging those who already lost everything?

Anyway, this is the start of election day. If you can do so, vote. Vote your conscience, and know the truth.

Media Bias

I won't bullshit here - media bias is a real thing. And not just in Fox News. It'd be impossible to enforce a rule that the media must report without bias. The media can happily have whatever bias they please. They can do this overtly, or covertly through more subtle means, such as choosing what to report on, or choices of words used when reporting. However, they generally are not allowed to outright lie, else they do risk legal consequences - libel and the like.

The more often complained about bias is that of the "liberal media." I have seen some things to support such a claim, although it's often debatable as to whether it's actual bias, or simply trolling for ratings. Or sometimes, such perceived bias is actually a sense of common decency. People who think of war as a feel-good family show aren't going to want to see pictures of the actual carnage and destruction, along with the very human faces of those suffering the most from it. Therefore, news stories such as that might be painted as having a liberal bias, as many of today's conservatives choose to see the "enemies" as less than human.

Nonetheless, the media bias in this election cycle, as well as the accusations of such, have been amusing to say the least. Quoting Romney is now "liberal bias" coming from the media. One wouldn't expect that from a supposedly conservative candidate, but hey - I'm just a know-nothing know-it-all hack with a blog. What do I know?

On the other hand, we have everyone's favorite, Fox News! They're fair and balanced. It says so right in their logo, so it has to be true. I was watching them scramble on their website to fact check and somehow discredit Obama. I also heard that Fox News is blaming Romney's loss of the debate on the audience. Aren't they the ones the debate is supposed to be about? I haven't found mention of this on the Fox News website, though.

One thing that just rubs me wrong, though. Romney's opportunism as far as the Libya thing. First of all, it's never right to use a tragedy for political gain. This is why I was pissed off at Bush well before the 2004 election came. Anyway, the complaint didn't even have real substance to it - there was so much made of whether or not Obama labeled it as a terror attack fast enough. First of all, yes, he did do so in that speech in the rose garden, although Fox News says that's debatable.

Next, though... what the fuck does it matter? Seriously. People were killed. Does calling it a terrorist attack make them any less dead? It seems like Romney's camp is doing its best to harp on about gestures. Personally, I like my leaders to be more concerned with action rather than getting in a pissing contest over who feels more tragic anguish over such a thing.

But, maybe it's the best the Romney camp has to offer. "Gee, I won't get anything done, but I'll sure do my best to convince you that I cry myself to sleep over it!"

Have I gone nuts or something?

Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?

This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.

On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.

The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.

The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.

The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.

Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:

How the hell can I support Obamacare?

Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?

Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.

Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever. 

As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.

I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.

I'm Calling Bullshit on the Republicans.

As I continue to watch the campaigns, the economy, and the news in general, one thing has become plainly obvious: the Republicans just don't get it. Or if they do get it, they just don't give a rat's ass and are being deliberately deceptive. The Democrats kind of get it, but they are naive and don't seem to get just how deep the greed and cynicism is running. Things truly are getting to look more and more like what we fought the Revolution to get the hell away from - a ruling class is re-establishing itself, the corporations have a louder voice than the people. Remember the East India Company? Yeah, we're seeing a return to that... and those who oppose are being labeled "anti-business" or "anti-capitalism" or "Socialist."

For my own part, I am damned well none of those. I like capitalism, as it is freedom in one of its purest forms. What I'm seeing now though is a corrupted form of capitalism - as I said, a return of a ruling class with a widening income gap while the rich are perpetually whining for more and more. Wall Street is at its highest levels in years - as I write this, DOW is at 13,102. I remember when staying above the 10,000 mark was a big deal. So yeah, the rich ain't hurting. Yet, where the fuck are the jobs? Where the fuck is the money?

The money is lining the pockets of the rich. The money is in off-shore bank accounts and blind trusts. While the rich still whine for more and more. "We need more tax breaks!" Or, something that's also become amusing that I've been hearing about more lately - "Congratulations, employees! We just hit record profits! We will now be cutting your hours/wages/benefits/making lay-off's." It's pure greed. It's not a matter of hating people for being rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich. It's a matter of hating people for being greedy and fucking over the ones that got them there.

Then the Republicans have the nerve to call their opponents hateful. Just because the Republicans are smiling during their speeches doesn't make them less hateful - it just makes them more smug in their hate. When various people are being bashed, they will eventually fight back. Even the most loyal of dogs will bite if it's been smacked around one time too many. And this after they were exposed for plotting to sabotage Obama at all costs! The peasants American people were made into pawns for their damned political game. They hurt the American people so they could blame Obama! These are the men who sold the world.

I normally don't get this angry in my blog posts, but this truly is the purest bullshit. While I do like Gary Johnson, I'm becoming more and more inclined to again give Obama my vote. I wish this election were one just between Johnson and Obama, as I'd consider either candidate to be a victory for America.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012

Obama's Change of Heart

I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan, but I don't hate the guy, either. With this, I'm fairly honest and objective about my thoughts on the guy. Today, I woke up to this: Obama finally voices support for same-sex marriage.

I am something of a cynic, and being that it took him until campaign season to come out and actually support same-sex marriage as opposed to taking the politically-correct toned down liberal position of supporting civil unions but not marriage, I do believe that at least half of his announced change in stance has to do with politics.

However, he does give good arguments as to why he changed his stance. In the above-linked article, he says that he noticed his kids simply couldn't understand why same-sex couples couldn't have the same rights. Makes sense to me. Kids tend to see things much more simply, and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is usually the right one.

But ultimately, what does it matter? I'd like to believe that his reasoning is genuine, but as long as he backs it up in policy, what does it matter as to why he is doing it? American politics really are an extension of American capitalism - the one who is most willing to give the voters what they want is the one most likely to get elected. But, I will be watching Obama nonetheless to make sure his support is more than the all-too-typical pretty words to get votes.

Auto Industry Bailouts

I've been a consistent, albeit reluctant, supporter of the auto industry bailouts. There are a variety of reasons, some of which include being able to compete with the market for foreign vehicles, the fear of mass unemployment of auto industry workers in America, things like that. For or against the bailouts, one would have to admit that there are positive results... though that won't stop some people from continuing to deny this fact.

Auto industry (and Michigan's economy) making a comeback.

I've heard people screaming that this was all done for the unions, that the unions now own the companies. Well, whatever the case be now, it seems to be working... and this coming from someone who doesn't always like unions, someone who supports the Employee Rights Act, much thanks to my own negative experiences with a union.

Yes, I was pissed about the bailouts being necessary. I still remember when the execs spent several thousands to board their private jets and stay in luxury accommodations in Washington to go ask congress for a bailout. Yeah, I was pissed... and while I'm not certain it wasn't counter-productive for congress to send them back home and tell them to come back via more humble means, I'm sure it's what many were thinking. Very simply, if you are running low on money, save it where you can. It's common sense for most of us.

Myself being in the market for a new car hopefully in the near future, I was actually inclined toward a Ford Mustang. After all, who doesn't love those cars? I've often said that my dream car was a '65 Mustang. For a time, the bailouts kind of cemented that with me, as Ford was the only company who didn't take one. I also liked that they were bringing back the muscle car look. While Mustangs to my knowledge have always been a muscle car, they kind of lost the look for awhile, I think.

But, I saw that other American car manufacturers were also stepping up their game. I loved the Dodge Charger, then in researching that, I learned about my more contemporary dream car, the Dodge Challenger. Are you getting this, Dodge? BLACK. DODGE. CHALLENGER. Dammit. Ah well, to each their own. It's all good ol' American muscle.

The point is that good things have come from those auto industry bailouts. A lot of people like to pin it all on Obama, naming it an example of his socialist agenda. Let's not forget though that it was George "Dubya" Bush that got the ball rolling on these, and he said he'd do it again. Looking at the seeming success of these bailouts, it's almost like watching that once-irresponsible kid finally graduating college with a good degree. Let's hope this apparent success continues.

Obama on Security

Despite what I may think of him on other aspects, I do have to give Obama props on security. At least to a greater extent than with Bush Jr.

For those who may have missed it, just before the State of the Union address, two hostages were rescued from Somalia. It's also not the first time that Obama has succeeded where Bush Jr. has failed. Let's not forget bin Laden being taken out of the equation and the hostage "negotiations" with Somali pirates in 2009.

Bush did have opportunities for heroism like this. Remember Daniel Pearl? Remember that 9/11/2001 happened toward the beginning of Bush's first term, and he never did catch bin Laden? In fact, he stated (paraphrasing) that bin Laden wasn't really a priority of his.

The argument could be made (and has) that bin Laden was far from the only concern of ours. However, he did kill a few thousand people, and tends to be responsible for some pretty massive attacks. Just because he wasn't throwing everything he had at us didn't mean he wasn't planning something bigger and more significant.

This illustrates Bush's short-sightedness. He didn't put a lot of thought into his policy, he just focused on the here and now... at the best. At the worst, he was deliberately negligent and aided enemies of the US. He did seem pretty interested in "preventing" an attack from Iraq, thus putting us at war on two fronts. But he didn't seem too concerned about preventing more attacks from bin Laden?

What I do know is that a group of terrorists - the ones who bombed Madrid in 2004, stated that they wanted Bush to win re-election. They said that he was too stupid to beat them, and that the Democrats showed a lot more cunning in eliminating them and turning otherwise likely allies against them. The truth in that statement has become very apparent.

That's not to say that I really like what Obama's doing. He has disappointed me on a number of other things in regards to national security. Didn't he say that he would eliminate the Patriot Act? Didn't happen. And of course, there's the NDAA.

Remember what the wise man (Benjamin Franklin) said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

State of the Union

I don't really plan on watching the State of the Union - I almost never do. But, I can generally predict what the main focal point is. This one will be damage control, and probably more than a little campaigning for re-election. The traditional State of the Union address seems almost pointless. It seems more than anything like a chance to put a positive spin on the happenings of the year in question. Kind of like a performance review at your job... if you did your own performance reviews.

One of the biggest focuses I think will be to put a positive spin on the economy. Now, despite what either party says, it took more than one president to fuck that up. Clinton had a big part in it, Bush Jr. took Clinton's ideas and ran with them, and Obama... I guess he's trying, but he's not really getting it right. It would take one cocky bastard of a president though to fix the damage already done, and the damage that will continue to happen if several groups/businesses/lobbyists/politicians have their ways.

Everyone has an agenda of some type, and most are rather self-serving. I was hearing from a consultant that one of the first questions they are asked is how to outsource... how to move operations overseas. I've explained how this is self-destructive in a previous post, but let's review. The more jobs that are moved overseas, the less money Americans have to spend. If Americans aren't spending money, then businesses in America aren't making money. It's that simple. It looks great on short term profit reports, but such things fail to take in the big picture.

There is also the fact that unemployment numbers are artificially going down. If you were laid off and couldn't find a job by the time your unemployment benefits ran out, you are not counted as unemployed. I'm not sure that would be the same as saying you're employed, just that you don't exist as far as these stats are concerned. A rather biased article on the subject

Of course, that's not to say such artificial inflation of the economy is anything new. Remember Bush's hazy definition of manufacturing jobs?

The news isn't all bad, though. It was recently announced that GM topped all other automakers in the world for sales. It's nice to see an American brand doing this. While I have mixed feelings about the bailouts, it does seem like the automakers have made good use of this. Hell, for my own part, I'm really wanting to get a Dodge Challenger when I can afford one. Figure, that nice classic muscle car look, and all that horsepower... go for a nice sleek, black color. That's a different story, though. Of course, if Dodge wants to give me a free one for the plug...

Anyway, it's just not easy to get excited about a State of the Union address. I think that right now, people just aren't feeling all that optimistic. We've been told that things are rough but getting better for over a decade now. I think it's safe to say that Americans as a whole just want results now.

Well, that concludes the "Raven" State of the Union. You're welcome.

Gingrich and the Republican Primaries

I am, as one can probably imagine, paying at least passing attention to the Republican primaries... as I'm sure everyone is. Republicans want to know who they think will replace Obama, and Democrats are curious who they'll be up against. That's not to say I'm watching the debates. I'm fine with just reading the highlights in the aftermath. They are all politicians, none of them really doing anything to stand out for me... well, not in a good way, at least.

Today, I think I'll mostly be pitching a bitch about Newt Gingrich... one of the biggest hypocrites in Washington. When asked about his affairs in a debate, he went off at the moderator who asked. While perhaps normally, I'd say everyone has a few skeletons in their closets and should be allowed to forget about them once in awhile, I would say that this is not the case with Gingrich. Am I holding a double standard here? I don't think so. Here's why:

Gingrich so far has had at least three extramarital affairs... that we know of. It seems like each time he asks for a divorce, it's when his soon-to-be ex-wife is sick. This is the same guy who led the charge against Bill Clinton on Capitol Hill for having his affair with Lewinsky. He spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton for lying under oath when he shouldn't have even been under oath. An affair is a civil, not a criminal, matter. You know how a case gets thrown out when cops find something under illegal circumstances? Ie, searching without a warrant and the like? Well, they were trying to bust Clinton for perjury on, again, something he should not have even been put under oath for. He would have been well within his rights to laugh and flip them the bird when they tried to put him under oath. The affair was, by all accounts, consensual... and not even Hillary was asking for the investigation.

That's not to say I'm a huge fan of Clinton... he's the one that brought in NAFTA, which I think is stupidity. Letting foreign policy dictate economic policy is just stupid, and part of the reason we're in our current mess. Back to Gingrich, though.

What makes him a hypocrite is that while leading this moral crusade against Clinton, Gingrich himself was having an affair. That's why I don't feel mine is a double standard. If he can't even hold to his own morals, do we really want to entrust him with the highest office in the land and the Constitution? I sure the hell do not.

Gingrich is bitterly partisan, a liar, and a hypocrite. Much like a number of the kings of old that our founders fought and died to escape, he holds himself above his own laws. I'd say he deserves everything he gets - every bit of ridicule, every reminder that he's presented with. I'm sorry to say, but this is not a good guy. This is not one who attempts to learn from his mistakes, or apparently not one who even tries to be fair, just, or decent.

Back to the Republican race as a whole, it's reminding me of Kang and Kodos posing as Clinton and Dole on the Simpsons, running for president. They're all pretty much the same to me, and if this is the best the Republican party can present... well, hope they're ready for Obama having a second term.

The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.