Blacks Voting For Obama Because He's Black

In response to my previous post I joined a forum related to it and on it was a heated discussion about how blacks are racists because they voted for Obama based on the color of his skin. In response I wrote back:

Look folks.... Let's get silly with this to make a point. Imagine you're a midget (or Little Person as it were) and you've spent a good chunk of your life feeling put down by your taller peers. You have personal experiences where you felt like you were literally and figuratively passed over for a job. People, literally and figuratively again, looked down on you for much of your life. Regardless of all of that you still managed to make a life for yourself.

Then, out of nowhere another little person comes along to run for President. It seems to me only natural that you'd look at this person and think, "This is someone who must understand my unique challenges in life. This is someone who likely sees the world from the same perspective I do."

Is it any wonder that in these sorts of cases that such thinking would happen? Many blacks in this country--rightly or wrongly--have felt oppression. They've felt racism first-hand, second-hand or just read about it or heard about it. When a chance comes from someone like them to, for once, get into a position to make a difference, what is the huge surprise that someone would vote for such a person?

Now, let's contrast that. I believe the same can be said for a white person voting for another white person. HOWEVER, it's also a bit more likely that the white person voting for another white person doesn't do it because he feels like the white candidate is the only one who can understand his perspective on oppression, racism, bigotry, etc. As someone who has had the benefit of being in the vast majority he's less likely to have had issues with this. Thus, if the white person does vote for another white person purely because he's white then it stands to argue that this selection could quite easily be a result of racism. A minority doing so is doing it in hopes of change, in hopes of someone being able to educate the world about their unique issues.

To me these things are pretty simple to follow. You see people, you reap what you sow. If we truly lived in a society that was devoid of any hatred, of any racism, of any lesser thinking of those different from ourselves then this wouldn't happen but since we don't live in that utopia then it does happen and it's not surprising or complicated.

A Moment Of Reality At Fox!

Last night on the Bill O'Reilly show noted right-wing commentator and author Bernie Goldberg, with whom I have virtually no views in common, took Bill to task over the so-called fair and balanced claims made by various personalities on the network. They were discussing why Fox News is often the target of other media personalities.



(Facebook link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztDUgCqXSc&feature=player_embedded)

When one of the most out-spoken of the party starts questioning the ethics and honesty of Fox News it's worth mentioning. O'Reilly, for his part, had his blinders on as usual. He tried to let Sean Hannity off the hook simply by saying he makes it clear he's a Reagan conservative. That doesn't excuse the blatant lies Hannity tells his viewers regarding the Reagan legacy as I've mentioned here many times. Just yesterday on his radio show he was again going on about Reagan's strength against the Soviet Union and how Reagan fought the Soviets with nothing but strength. Again, that's a flat-out lie and it's nice to see someone--anyone--on the right start to call out Fox for their continued misrepresentations.

I Needed A Surrogate To See Surrogates

This week found me checking out the new Bruce Willis movie Surrogates. The movie starts with a rather compelling concept of humans living life through the use of hyper-realistic robots. Of course in this world no one's surrogate is overweight, old or even has a wrinkle. The surrogates all have great hair, perfect skin, perfect bodies, etc. The only signs of anything artificial are the flat looks they all tend to have and, distractingly at times, a stiff walk.

The first 15 minutes of the movie had me won over. They sold me entirely on the creativity and concept. I was ready to be taken on a nice journey. Instead I just got taken for a ride.

The film isn't bad. It just has as much heart as the surrogates do--which is to say, none at all. It's a flat-line. There's lots of incredulous special effects that do nothing to move the movie forward and the story itself is, at the same time, both convoluted and predictable.

It all felt like a cheaper version of the Will Smith version of I, Robot. That wasn't a great movie and it annoyed the hell out of Isaac Asimov fans but it was a heck of a lot more enjoyable than this film. It even boasts James Cromwell who was the inventor of the surrogates in this film and the robots in I, Robot. Still didn't help and he's less impressive here.

Much could have been done with the entire curiousness of the whole surrogate thing but instead we just get a bland homicide movie. Doh.

One More Twist On American Exceptionalism

I last wrote a little on the misconstrued concept of American Exceptionalism as put forth by right-wing pundits.

I wanted to follow it up with a few images to give a visual to what it is that these so-called experts just skip over whenever they talk about this situation as if it just exuded nothing but pure wonder.

American Exceptionalism came into being as a by-product of slavery. Its birth came from the blood, sweat and tears of a people who were the property of more fortunate Americans and seen, until quite recently, as three-fifths of a person. For some this view still remains.

American Exceptionalism couldn't be possible without hard work. Everyone would agree with that but then we don't like to think about the fact that much of that hard work was being done by children.

Think about this--in 1842 Massachusetts passed a law limiting the work day for children to just 10 hours a day. We didn't really address this issue until 1938.

American Exceptionalism doesn't seem to care one bit about our environment and I'm not talking about being green or a carbon footprint. I'm talking about wholesale blight. Today pundits lament an inability to put up wind farms off our coasts. Gee, why would anyone mind?

When the point is profit at the cost of nearly everything else the lines get a bit blurry, or is it just the smog making them harder to see?

Much of the blight that was created came right out of one company--Standard Oil--that ruled industry with an iron fist. By the early 1900's Standard Oil controlled 91% of production and 85% of sales of all oil products in the United States. Countless millions were under its thumb and even the government couldn't reign it in until it broke it up into 34 different companies in 1911. Almost nothing in the country could be done without it in some way being controlled directly or indirectly by Standard Oil. 70 years later the government would break up AT&T in the same way ushering in an era of phone innovations and price savings previously unimaginable.

American Exceptionalism was never more prevalent in the rise and prosperity of the Robber Barons. Students should spent far more time learning about this period of our exceptional history. These were men who sought profit above everything else and made sure nothing and no one got in their way in their pursuit of owning all they possibly could reach.

After all of this "greed above all else" mentality is it any wonder we ended up in the Great Depression? There is no way like the American way.

I'm sure everyone living in "Hooverville" felt just great about American Exceptionalism. Of course today's pundits would tell you all of these people--their ancestors in some cases--were all just losers or represented the laziest among us.

We started with slavery and nearly 200 years after this great American Exceptionalism we still hadn't seemed to fully escape its grip.

It wasn't American Exceptionalism or capitalism that ended these travesties in our country. It was only through the power of the people and the sword of government that these things were mainly driven into exile. Remember that the rose-colored glasses that the pundits wear seem to keep them from seeing our own history when they speak of these things. Our country was the way they wanted it to be for most of its existence. It's an existence few of us would tolerate today. I say we owe it to everyone to remind them.

American Exceptionalism Isn't Immortal

Today on Rush Limbaugh's radio show he spent some time deriding President Obama over, as usual, just about anything the man does, ever has done and ever will do. There's nothing new in that for Mr. Limbaugh. During one segment he spoke about how Obama doesn't understand the concept of American Exceptionalism.

He points out that America is a great nation because, while we are no different in our DNA from those of other nations, our government design provides us with the means and freedom to achieve in ways not seen outside of America.

You know what? For the most part I agree with Rush on this. There is a great benefit to being born in America. Our system has provided us with a foundation that allows us to create and prosper that seems to dwarf similar efforts in other governments.

Where Mr. Limbaugh and I diverge--and I suspect it's the same point for many others who share my view--is that this advantage is not perpetual. It is not something that just happens as a by-product of calling your nation "America". Contrary to Rush's claims the real value of this exceptional-ism only really started paying dividends in the 20th century. We weren't a world power until after World War I. We didn't become one of the top world powers until well into World War II. Thus, the benefits of this choice of government took 160-170 years to take hold and has only been operating at full speed for about 65 years.

Rush Limbaugh would have you believe that our nation started excreting golden eggs 30 seconds after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Perhaps we should remind him that our country was marred by slavery over the next century along with a myriad of other inequalities that cast a very dark shadow over any concept of exceptional behavior.

Just because our system of government provided a windfall unique in all the world to a generation or two does not guarantee that the wheel will keep on turning this way. I firmly believe Rush Limbaugh is doing far more harm than good in the goal of keeping this dream alive. By telling everyone that we're in the midst of it now denies the basic facts of reality. It's my view that we are living on our past deeds at this point. China owns a huge chunk of our country now. You have top Ivy League students going there to teach English because the only jobs here for them tend to involve malls or fast food chains. Where a generation or two ago our family could read about our top status across countless metrics we now read about our lagging behind in nearly all of them.

We're becoming a fatter, sloth-like populace, that works more hours and gets less from it than the generation before us. We have to worry about health care. We have to worry about pensions vanishing. We have to worry about things our older family members could take for granted. In my youth America dominated nearly every market. We made the best of everything. We provided the best steel. We produced the best cars. We created the best technology. Now we make almost nothing except pharmaceuticals. Yep. We're great at creating Viagra and Zoloft. That really fits our "can't be bothered to get off the couch" populace. I wonder what my grandfather would have thought of my trying to explain Restless Leg Syndrome to him?

It's clear to me that Mr. Limbaugh feels compelled to tell his listeners that we are still #1 in every way. To do otherwise would be to admit that he missed the large ringing bell extolling the end of our exceptional-ism. It started eroding, in my view, during the 1980's as a direct result of the Me, Me, Me attitude that President Reagan ushered in, unchecked and unhindered, by the pundits of the day.

The fact is that we still have the advantages of our system but that it's in our best interest to realize that the golden age of that benefit is now behind us and slipping away. I completely believe that we can get it back but not if everyone around us continues to act as if we haven't lost a step after all this time and that the only danger to it is in the form of our current President. Acting like a bunch of football fans with large foam #1 hands isn't going to address the problem and it's time the Limbaugh's and their fans recognize it.

Please Explain How This Is Fair And Balanced?

For fans of Fox News (which I watch myself in addition to most of the other networks) the term "fair and balanced" often gets offered up as a reason for watching. I've been skeptical of those claims from the outset but the network's latest move has gone entirely off the rails of believability and, at this point, I'd like any current fan to provide some sort of explanation as to how this doesn't disqualify them entirely from being able to make that claim.

I'm talking about an ad the network ran in Friday's Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. The ad (seen here) asks, "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?" It's referring to coverage of the 9/12 march on Washington.

The bottom of the ad says, "We Cover All The News." The main problem with the ad is two-fold. First, it's entirely 100% blatantly incorrect and, quite frankly, a lie. Every one of the networks out there covered the story quite heavily. The difference between the other networks and Fox News is that the other networks covered the event. They didn't promote it as Fox News did which, quite frankly, isn't what fair and balanced news organizations are supposed to be doing.

Second, what fair and balanced news organization runs advertising that attempts to ridicule its competition over the coverage of an event? This ad really makes little sense--except from one perspective. No one who watches the networks taunted in the ad will buy any part of this assertion by Fox. Why? Because they watch those networks and saw the coverage with their own eyes. The only people who will buy into this ad are Fox News viewers who watch nothing but Fox News. I have absolutely no doubt that my Republican friends who swear by Fox News will, in short order, ask me--with a straight face mind you--why the other networks didn't cover the event. They'll know this to be true because Fox News keeps telling them that the other networks didn't cover it.

I caught a rebuttal from CNN's Rick Sanchez that's worth watching. In it he applies Congressman Joe Wilson's now infamous words to Fox News saying, "You lie." He points out the huge hypocrisy of the ad by denoting that their own network mentioned CNN's coverage of the event and ran footage of Bill O'Reilly commenting on it specifically.

This sort of thing is just going to continue to drive home the point that Fox News is anything but fair and balanced. Frankly, of late the coverage here--most notably the ramblings of Glenn Beck--remind me of the lunacy I used to encounter on late-night public access channels years ago complete with people suggesting that aliens were beaming brainwashing signals into our skulls from a distant planet.

Look, I support what Fox News is doing. They have every right to do it and, as I've stated before, I think it was pure brilliance on their part to provide a solution to a totally unserved market. What I will not support is their effort to brand what they're doing as news reporting or that their approach is fair and balanced. You may buy into that but you can't possibly construe and argument that supports that position. If you watch it and enjoy it that's great. Just don't try to tell the rest of us that it's anything more than what it is--an interesting network that tells a segment of the market exactly what it is they want to hear. Nothing about that qualifies as fair and balanced.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/cnn-ad-hits-back-at-fox-n_n_292158.html

More Lies From Sean Hannity

On Sean Hannity's radio show Wednesday he played a speech from Ronald Reagan after returning from a commercial break. I only caught a piece of it so I thought I'd go listen to the segment again but it turns out that to get copies of his radio show he charges you monthly to be a so-called "Hannity Insider". Oooh. No thanks.

I believe the speech was from 1982 that he gave at CPAC called The Agenda Is Victory. In it Reagan speaks out against run-away deficit spending and the need to control it. Hannity followed up the snippet with his typical reverence no matter how misinformed that reverence might be. He tried to suggest that if only President Obama would follow the wise words of his predecessor that the country might return to the right path.

The only problem with this is that it's like playing a speech from a bank robber espousing the virtues of security-free banks and not telling the audience about the bank robber part.

Nothing about Reagan's strong words in the speech paralleled the reality that he governed by. Every single President from Franklin Roosevelt up to Gerald Ford had reduced the Gross Federal Debt. Ford managed to increase it a measly 0.1%. Then came Reagan who, after all the talk of curtailing the debt ran it up 20.5%. His successor, George H. W. Bush ran it up another 13.1%. His son is the only other President to run it up by adding another 18.6%.

What you see in all the data is that starting in 1981 through the 80's the debt ballooned in ways never before seen. It then heads back downward during Bill Clinton's tenure and then back up again with George W. Bush. Hmm. Why is it that we're supposed to believe the Republicans have any credibility regarding deficit spending when the last Republican to avoid running up the debt was Richard Nixon?

The speech in question spoke specifically about Federal spending and he made a point of mentioning that, "In 1980 alone it increased by 17 percent" (from $504 Billion to $591 Billion). Scary stuff right? Well, Jimmy Carter increased Federal spending (adjusted for inflation) by 17.2% and this is what Reagan was really talking about. However, during his own two terms he increased it 21.9%. No other President comes close to that number until you get to George W. Bush who raised it 18.9%.

Again, I have my issues with the Left and media bias that exists there. However, the Left doesn't have people like Sean Hannity openly, and dishonestly lying and misleading their listeners with information like this. Simple research tears apart much of what Hannity says and this is yet another example in a long list of such transgressions.

The moment I heard the snippet I jotted down the details because I knew there was a very strong chance that Hannity was trying to sell the audience a bill of goods. You can bet that when Hannity invokes Reagan that the odds of getting reliably factual information out of him is virtually nil.

You can find all this information here.

In the President's Secret Service

I'm nearly finished reading "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect." It's a book that sounded fascinating based on an interview I saw of the the author, Ronald Kessler, that he did on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The book is supposed to be a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of the Secret Service. Initially I found it quite enjoyable and blew through a bulk of it but the further I've gotten the more I've grown disappointed with it and downright skeptical.

The stories he tells are mainly old stories that simple web searches can provide or that many of us have already known for some time. He, for example, treats President Obama's smoking as if it's a big secret.

However, my biggest gripe with the book had less to do with the general lack of depth and more to do with partisan stories that began to hit you over the head like a ton of bricks. Running down them all (and I'm 80% through the book):

JFK - A womanizer (I've never heard that before! hehe) who made the Secret Service's job impossible.

Lyndon Johnson - A disgusting womanizer who treated the Secret Service like dirt and saw them as hired help there to help alert him when his wife was enroute to his current location (often with a mistress).

Richard Nixon - A strange fellow with no love for his wife and with a womanizing Vice President.

Gerald Ford - A great guy who would give every agent a run for their money physically and who did everything he could to help them out.

Jimmy Carter - A despicable fellow who was all show and with a hillbilly family. He saw no value in anything the Secret Service did and micromanaged them to the point of not letting them use tennis courts without his approval.

Ronald Reagan - A wonderful man. He emits Glade air freshener from his ass when he walks and writes out checks to strangers so often that the Secret Service worries about the danger of his pen on his health. Nancy is mentioned in about a paragraph.

George H. W. Bush - He and Barbara are the two best people ever to grace the White House. Barbara does the laundry for agents and makes sure they wear hats, even George's, when it's cold outside. Bush went on chocolate chip cookie hunts with agents while Vice President. As President he'd stay in Washington on Christmas for the sole purpose of the Secret Service being able to spend that day with family.

Bill Clinton - I'm just getting into it and already he's made out as a total disaster. He's late purposely. He keeps the whole country waiting because he wants a hair cut. His wife is a complete monster firing people if a cloud flies overhead. We even are told what a complete jerk Al Gore is and how cheap he is. He also borrows money from agents but at least pays it back. His wife Tipper, who most people are highly-suspect of, is the only one that gets a passing grade with a side-handed compliment about water-spraying agents.

Do you notice a trend here? With the exception of disgraced President Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew every other Republican is just a pleasure to deal with while all the Democrats are the lowest order of people who care nothing about the poor agents assigned to them. They're cheap, inconsiderate, lazy, manipulative, arrogant, backwards, etc.

I put the book down at the point I'm at now and went to Google. I had a hunch about the author and wanted to see if I was right. Wikipedia tells me: "Ronald Borek Kessler is an American journalist and author. He is chief Washington, D.C. correspondent of the conservative news and commentary blog Newsmax.com."

Great.... Newsmax? I've been on that site. It's a pile of crap. It's about as balanced as FoxNation. Looking over his stuff there now I find, "Obama's CIA Actions Belie 9/11 Words", "Obama's Speech Remarkable - For Wrong Reasons" and "Gun-Toting Demonstrators Pose No Threat". This last one from the guy writing about the Secret Service and how hard their job is and yet guys walking around with exposed semi-automatic weapons in crowded, emotional settings are no threat?

Now I have very little desire to finish. It's not a balanced book full of journalistic integrity. Instead it's a chance for a partisan hack to take pot-shots at political opponents under the guise of superiority in the form of Secret Service agents doing the reporting. My fault. I should have done my homework on this before I bought it. Live and learn.

A Link To Sure Failure

A friend sent me a link about dating tips for women that I found quite entertaining.

The article says the following:

Always look great, whatever your income. Gorgeous hair and some lipstick with rags will still turn his head. You have the advantage. You are the woman. Look your best as you could meet a potential Mr. Right anywhere at any time.

Isn't this a bit fake? What if you're the type that really enjoys comfort? What if you find make-up a hassle and you're comfortable with your natural look? I've got news for you. Many men see women who do this all the time and think, "Boy would I like to bang that." We don't think, "My, what a wonderfully prepared woman she is." Mr. Right is right regardless of this myth. Mr. Right might like you dressed to the nines one day (when he bumps into you at an elevator near work) or be totally enamored with you in a dirty, torn sports-shirt (while spotting you at the laundry room at your apartment complex). The best advice I can offer is to be yourself at all times.

Never reveal information you don't have to. An enigmatic woman drives men wild.

Interesting thought. When men encounter women who try this approach we immediately start thinking she has loads of skeletons in the closet and we're not very interested in house cleaning.

Keep dates brief, but your men interested. Less is always more.

I tend to find that less is less and more is more. A good time is rarely made better by simply cutting it off right in the middle. All that does is make us think we misread you and move on.

Try and stay in shape and involve some fitness regime at a gym. However much you hate it, your Mr. Right loves your body as much as your mind.

People come in all shapes and sizes. Be in shape because it's what you want. Be in shape because it's good for your health. Don't kill yourself at the gym because you want to try and fool a shallow guy. Once you find the right guy think about going to the gym with him if you're both into that.

Let your man pay. If he is interested, he is interested enough to ensure you eat well and get home safely in a cab.

And be sure to move back to 1950 at the first opportunity. You do all this crap to find Mr. Right and then you blow it because you don't want to go dutch at the first event? Maybe this Mr. Right is looking for someone who's evolved enough to not be motivated by outdated gestures. These sorts of rigid rules always make me laugh when the woman follows them and then ends up with a guy who expects her to do all the cleaning, cooking, babysitting, diaper changing and pretty much everything else of note.

Ensure you receive flowers. If he doesn't know what a florist is, dump him.

Which brings us to this amazing nugget of "wisdom". So you do all this stuff to get Mr. Right and you dump him because he prefers to send you chocolate or takes you out to special places on special occasions instead of spending $50-$150 on something that requires attention and dies in three days?

Never ever sleep with a guy until he has fallen for you. Sex early in your dating game plan will ruin everything.

Yes, be sure you lock him up before you risk showing him that you suck in bed. Put off all your own needs for months just so you can play games with Mr. Right. I hate to break it to you but you could spend years with the guy and if he's very much into oral and you're not you're going to have a really hard time justifying why you just wasted years with Mr. Wrong because you read some idiotic rule on a website.

Always keep a guy waiting and never turn up early. It is a lady's prerogative.

Especially when that lady is a complete bitch. You just know from experience how much we all love waiting for an hour while you drive up the share price of your favorite make-up company. My guy friends who had women like this all got even in the end. Don't be surprised when you find yourself waiting while they're out "working late" for the third time this week.

Never be available when he wants you to be. Never be at the end of a phone when he calls and always let him leave a message or two first before replying.

Wow, I already want to break up with this heartless cretin. In fact, now I want to cheat on her too.

If he is available Tuesday, you are available Thursday.

That's okay. Thursday is my "golf" night--yes even in December in Maine. Can you imagine marrying this kind of manipulative jackass? When we do get together on Friday I'd drive out into the middle of nowhere, ask her to get out to observe the romantic view, and then drive off to find real companionship back on Earth.

Weekend shopping trips with girlfriends are sacred and not available for dates.

I'm sensing a rather one-way sort of vibe here. Halfway through this list and so far not one thing that a man can view as a real positive at least one that's not entirely superficial or a rapist. Are you looking for Mr. Right or a sale at Lord & Taylor?

Keep your man standing on quicksand by shifting landmarks and goalposts constantly.

This one had me checking the posting date to be sure it wasn't posted on April Fool's Day. Honey, you're just not worth it at this point.

Ensure you are a good kisser. Men will walk away if you cannot kiss. Practice on a mirror if you have to.

In all my years I've never met anyone who said they got their great kissing skills from lots of mirror play. If you're practicing on a mirror things are not likely to improve from here. Oh, and we'll totally forget the kissing thing if you're good at giving head but since you won't sleep with us we've got nothing else to go on so we've got no choice but to dump you at this point.

Never ever talk about previous boyfriends, particularly their prowess in the bedroom. Your ex-boyfriends are your business only.

Okay, finally, one rule I can get behind here! Amazing. Fourteen rules and finally a hint of light. Good luck with the latter part of that equation. I've never once met a woman who doesn't, sooner or later, tell you every last detail about all their past conquests.

Never assume anything about your date until you choose to know him better. You cannot always tell by looking.

You know why this rule exists? Because you've spent an hour putting on make-up, an hour choosing a dress, an hour practicing your lines, an hour just keeping us sitting in the other room and then an hour lying to us about your entire life experience before cutting the night short after all that work. Oh, and because you're a manipulative bitch. That's why.

If any man shows the slightest signs of possessiveness or insecurity, run like the wind. Life is too short for boys.

Don't worry babe, you'll have done us a big favor. Thanks.

If his shoes or hygiene are a disgrace, dump him.

His shoes??? He's got it all. He's your type. He makes you laugh. He makes you want to have kids with him but somehow you think he can't buy a new pair of shoes? The guy would buy a new pair of shoes but he blew all his cash on a $200 dinner, $80 for flowers and then there was that nice tip for the violinist that you'd have dumped him over if he didn't pay to have him play for you.

Never talk too much about your father and how your date measures up in comparison.

Okay, so no sex, no ex-boyfriends and now no father info either. Since our dates are going to be abnormally short anyway I guess this isn't that big a deal. You should know in advance that we also don't care to hear about your mother and what she'd think of us either so we're glad to offer you that small tidbit too.

Never ever come across as too available or too desperate. He will run a mile. He is the one doing the chasing.

How on Earth would we ever get that idea when we can only see you once every Equinox and then only if we've recently replaced our footwear? By the way, running a mile from the last woman who read this crap is why our shoes look the way they do.

If the guy in the corner is gorgeous, go get him and create the need in him for you. Never wait for men to come to you because you may watch him leave with someone else.

You go girl. Go get that gorgeous guy. Pay no attention to his protestations that he's gay. You control the needs here. He's just misinformed.

You may well have all the bodily functions of a man, just try not to demonstrate them early on.

We somewhat catch on when you spend 20 minutes in the bathroom every 40 minutes.

If you want a child, don't mention it on the first few dates.

Hell, why mention it ever. Just stop taking your pill when you're good and ready and we'll just have to get over it.

Never ever criticize his mother unless you want to remain single.

I really feel for this poor soul. She clearly has gotten the short end of the dating stick and, no doubt, has been a subscriber to Cosmo for life. There's also no doubt in my mind that her breasts are fake and her BFF will be her plastic surgeon. Any guy who is that sensitive about his mother should be the cause of another rule not a reason to avoid one.

9-9-09 Is One Of The Best Things About 9

I saw the movie 9 this week and the synergy with the date it was released (along with many new wondrous things from The Beatles) is, sadly, one of the best things to talk about with regard to the effort.

The most notable positive of the movie is its amazing look. It's an absolutely fantastic movie to look at but in that regard it reminded me of the purely tepid Titan A.E. from a few years ago. All make-up and no substance.

The main problem with the movie is that you really have no idea what's going on--and neither do the characters--until right before the end of the movie. The entire thing is one big reaction to on-screen stimuli. I poke you. You flinch. That pretty much is how this movie reacts.

The first 15 minutes of the show are quite entertaining as you're caught up in the wonder of the whole concept. It's fine that you have no idea what's going on at this point. That's rather typical. That it goes on for the next 90% of the movie is just sad. When it all does resolve the resolution falls entirely flat.

The film is also filled with lots of subtle (and some not-so-subtle) references to other films, stories and mythology. I got the feeling that the film was trying very hard to tell us all something but apparently the makers are all much smarter than I am--or are they?

Obama's Speech And The Crossed Line

President Obama spoke to the entire Congress last night and to much of the American public about his plans for health care. I had to catch a repeat of it as I spent the night at a weekly event I attend.

What I saw was a re-invigorated Barack Obama. This is the man his supporters elected. Where he disappeared to for these last couple of months I cannot speak to. I just know he had disappeared and last night re-appeared.

This was the type of speech that was called for. It covered most of the bases and pointed out some glaring realities. There were many telling moments. The opening and closing statements were so inspiring and emotional that even Karl Rove credited them as positives. He deftly pointed out that his plan for health care would cost less than either war or the tax cuts passed by many of these same Republicans under President Bush.

It wasn't pitch-perfect as he did sweep tort reform under the rug and glossed over some of the details but it was better than his past efforts. Mainly his speech was an attempt to bring together his own party and tell them the time for bickering is over and it's now time to get the job done. Bravo.

His speech last night made the Republicans that sat stone-faced during key fundamental truths look like pouting children. The President made it clear that many of the attacks on health care reform have been flat-out lies. It was during one of these exchanges that the crossed line materialized.

South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson, in response to Obama's insistence that the plan he supports does not cover illegal aliens, yelled out for all to hear, "You lie!" This severe breach of respect for our President is unprecedented in my memory and one that all Americans should condemn. Should anyone have done this during a similar even to President Bush the conservative shows would have demanded their head on a platter. Someone clearly got to Congressman Wilson to read him the riot act as he apologized, quite profusely, just 90 minutes after the speech. However, to me this speaks volumes about the degree to which this breakdown in our mutual respect for one another has reached.

To call the President a liar, on national television, during a major joint-session speech is, simply, unpardonable in my view. It's a breach of ethics that underscores a much bigger problem that needs our attention sooner than later. I've said before that I'm done with playing nice any longer with people who claim to be informed only to then tell me their only source of information is conservative radio or TV. Fans of those shows are being duped and I'm tired of being civil about it. Looking the other way while you act like morons is what allowed this low-brow act to happen.

No more folks. I watch Fox News. I visit Fox Nation's website. I listen to Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity (and some lessers) on 1210-AM here. I watch Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly on their shows. I catch bits of Fox & Friends when I'm up in the morning. I also watch shows on MSNBC, CNN and enjoy The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. That gives me a pretty wide point of comparison. I've got news for you. The only people who can suggest Fox is fair and balanced are those who take it on faith that the other channels aren't. There's no way you can tell me this if you've spent any real, unbiased, objective time watching the other channels.

Stop with the nonsense. Stop with the hatred for hatred's sake. Do your own homework and move on. In the last several weeks I've been approached by a number of conservative supporters asking me to accept their various commentaries. I've listened and responded. When I've asked them to comment on hypocrisy I've found in my own research on those subjects not even one of them has had the decency or the balls to get back to me. This tells me they don't have a valid response and prefer to disappear without the humiliation of admitting they've been duped. It's gotten so bad that now a sitting member of Congress thinks nothing of screaming out like a lunatic in the middle of a Presidential speech. His incredulous comment actually did some good. It crystallized the point many of us have been trying to make about the sort of people the President has had to deal with. Your party lost. The poor sport thing is getting old--fast.

As Obama Caves I Join Him

We elected Barack Obama to bring this country "Change You Can Believe In". What's happened so far is that we've gotten a President who doesn't seem to be able or willing to really lead this nation. Whenever the Right gets a chill he runs over to them with a blanket--or so it seems.

The entire health care reform debacle has everyone, including me, up in arms. It's clear to me from empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, first-hand experience and factual reporting and research that our health care industry is flat-out broken. Americans are being forced to declare bankruptcy over medical bills every 30 seconds and those are just the ones actually declaring bankruptcy. Now we have news that shouldn't surprise us but, frankly still managed to stun me with regard to the number, that California insurance companies have, since 2002, denied 21% of all claims with one denying 39.4% of all claims.

The industry warns us that these numbers are misleading because they don't represent actual denials of treatment to patients. Uh, nice try there. No, they can't actually tell patients, as much as they'd like to, that they can't receive care from doctors. Instead they're just telling them they're not going to pay for it. Gee, thanks for that clarification. That makes things so much better doesn't it? Remember, that's 39.4% of claims rejected by people who actually have insurance, or should I more accurately say, thought they had insurance.

In the face of all this there was a bright light. Seeing that the private sector had lost its way the Democrats embarked on a plan that did fit the claim of change we can believe in and talked up a reform plan that included a public option. This would force the industry to cut the waste and greed that has worked its way into their current setup if they planned to stick around to compete.

I had decided that the public option was the best possible way to go forward and found out I wasn't alone. Nearly a hundred members of Congress joined me by sending the President a note that they wouldn't sign a bill that didn't include the public option. It's about time frankly.

Anyway, now that the Right has seemingly lost all common sense by buying into the complete snow job that the conservative commentators are feeding them, the public option seems pretty dead. I called my own Congressman, John Adler, to tell him that if there was no public option then he'd not get my vote in 2010.

I think I've now decided that there are alternatives. Senator Olympia Snowe is pushing a "trigger" solution for a public option that would only institute such a plan should the industry fail to meet certain metrics. My problem with this is that, first, the metrics aren't mentioned and I suspect they'd be so ridiculously watered-down by the Right that the insurers would have no problem staying ahead and, second, even if they did approach this trigger Congress would experience a shift in the meantime and the entire concept would be scrapped before it ever got a chance to be put into action.

However, I'm still willing to entertain such a risky proposition if a plan could be put forth that still achieves real reform. I believe that might still be possible one of two ways. First, there's the path of major regulatory control over the industry. The government could regulate the health care industry much the way it does other industries and force some real change. Second, and more radically, they could do what they do with power and turn the health care industry into a public service. It would all still remain privatized but in partnership with government.

What I don't want to hear in this upcoming speech is simply a request from the President that we all just accept minor changes in the system that will do little, if anything, to change this entirely broken system.