Bin Laden is a right wing extremist. So was Hitler.

OK, that's an oversimplification, and could be rightly considered hyperbole. But it's more accurate than claiming them as leftists, for the most part. Let's examine the evidence.

NRA. The Republicans really seem to like guns, and national defense seems to be their largest spending priority for the federal government. We know that Bin Laden and Hitler also really like(d) guns and a strong military. (We have to consider Al Qaeda's terrorist cells as the closest that Bin Laden can get to his own army for this analogy.) It's not really a priority for the left wing in modern America. We don't want to disarm the country, but some registration and regulation seems reasonable. Not a hot button for us though.

Religion. We all know that Bin Laden claims the mantle of religious leader for the dominant religion in his area. Hitler was fond of comparing himself to Jesus. Glenn Beck claims to talk to God, and every Republican candidate for years not only makes a point of mentioning their faith, but they imply (not very subtly) that anyone who doesn't vote for them isn't a good Christian. (I actually got to rebuff such an argument a while back with Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, which I had heard in church 3 days prior to being told that liberals hate Jesus.) Now, Republicans aren't the only good Christians any more than Bin Laden is a good Muslim, but they all advertise themselves as such. Republicans work to hide, with varying degrees of success, an anti-Muslim bias, whereas the others hate(d) Jews. (I got some truly appalling e-mails during the Presidential campaign. Clear racism, even before you get the "Obama's a muslim" lie in there.) Liberals? Pluralism is a good thing, believe what you want and worship your way. Here's what I believe, learn from it if you are interested.

Civil liberties. Religion gets introduced into textbooks despite hard scientific evidence to the contrary. Laws get passed in the name of public safety or national defense that allow the government to take an increasingly intrusive role into peoples' privacy. This is true whether Texas teaches Creationism or Afghanistan teaches only the Quran. Whether Bush puts warrantless wire tapping in the Patriot Act or Hitler has the Gestapo watch the populace. The degree is completely dissimilar, as is the level of evil. But there are similarities. (There are also similarities between a bicycle and a Harley, please don't think I'm calling Republicans vessels of pure evil.)

It's too easy to mention at this point that Hitler had all the liberals, socialists, and communists killed. For that matter, intellectuals. They were also killed in Afghanistan.

Economic policy. Here's where it gets sticky. Bin Laden's economic policy is up for question, but the Taliban had a pretty hands off policy. They even let business people make heroine! That's laissez-faire at its finest. Hitler? Actually, Hitler's economic policy was largely left leaning. Also, it worked. Now, he went way too far in the end. But he took over a country that was almost bankrupt after WWII, that had printed so much money that people literally wallpapered with it, and 10 years later he was taking over Europe. So although he was a bad guy, he was initially very popular with Germans because his left wing economic policies brought back prosperity and almost eliminated unemployment.

My apologies for having called him a right wing extremist. Only his bad parts were right wing.

Also, before I'm accused of horrible things, I don't think all conservatives are evil. Most of them I just disagree with, politely, and occasionally enjoy a spirited debate with. Some are evil, but so are some on the left.

Thanks for reading. Now go get into a political debate!

What I believe, and why.

What I believe, and why.

I think it's important to know not only what you believe, but also why. You should be able to defend your viewpoints with facts and logic, and if proven wrong you should be able to change your points of view, even if it means changing sides on an issue you feel strongly about. To that end, here are my views on a variety of things. You'll find that yes, I am generally speaking a progressive, liberal type. Here's why.

The deficit- Big scary number. It certainly is. Is it manageable? Yes, for a little while. We're paying our debt, we have good credit. As long as we raise the debt ceiling and prevent a serious monetary disaster we have some time to get it under control. What the government lacks in that regard is income. We can cut some programs, but Texas has recently proven that after you cut all the programs you can still run out of money. OK, they haven't cut all the programs. Police, firefighters and teachers are only cut back, significantly. But that's ok, cutting teachers won't lead to more uneducated people becoming criminals, which is good because there aren't enough cops any more if they did.

The deficit is Bush's fault. There, I said it. He said “we have a surplus, let's give everybody a tax cut.” That sounds nice. Quietly, he added “especially if you're rich. You get a big one.” Now, I didn't make enough money to notice my tax cuts. (Woohoo! I saved $40 this year, thanks George!) But if you cut teachers in my kids' school, that I'm going to notice. Or policemen on my block. I want my family to be able to walk around safely at night, you know? And then 2 wars? Come on, ok, give back the tax cuts. Seriously, you were already being taxed at the lowest rates in decades, it won't hurt. We can't afford it any more! Ok, well how about just the really rich people? I'm still upset that Obama rolled over on this one.

Uncle Sam ran its credit cards up a ways. We're still paying on time, but man a raise would help. That would be taxes. The Bush tax cuts created more debt than even the horrifying and cruel Ryan budget would cut. What, Ryan has tax cuts for the rich in his plan too? Good thing the middle class and poor don't mind suffering the burden of paying for government on their own.

The government has responsibilities. National defense. (That could theoretically end at our borders, but that can be another discussion.) Police. Firefighters. Public schools. Regulations to ensure that governments and corporations are not permitted to commit atrocities against humanity, in the name of governance or profit. Meat inspectors aren't in the Constitution, but I'm glad to have them. The government has to pay for all this stuff, and it does so through taxes. Let's all just agree to complain for a few days in April, and then do our fair share. Because I can't afford to hire my own police force.

I wonder how many billions could be saved in law enforcement and generated in taxes if we legalized pot. The end of Prohibition was one of the government's budgetary strategies that worked hugely. Just a pragmatic thought. And no, I have no interest in smoking it myself.

Economic policy- The conservative movement is constantly telling us that business creates jobs, and creating the most advantageous business environment possible is the quickest way to create jobs. There is a degree of truth to that, until it becomes more profitable to eliminate jobs. American employers have no loyalty to their employees whatsoever. If it is cheaper to find unskilled labor in China or skilled labor in India they will do so. No amount of lower taxes will change that, not that many corporations pay significant taxes anyway. (Case in point, GE this year paid $0 in taxes on billions in American profits. If I need to cite my source you need to read a newspaper.)

Lower taxes, it should be mentioned, do generate a little bit of economic activity. Any time the government puts money into the economy it does. Lower taxes allows the wealthy to buy an extra Mercedes or plot of investment land. And to save more, or invest in gold, which does NOT generate economic activity. Spending money on infrastructure or cops or teachers generates economic activity far more effectively, because cops, teachers and construction workers can't afford to save as much, thereby putting a higher percentage of those dollars into the active economy.

So if lower taxes are not the sole answer Republicans turn to deregulation. They say that corporations will police themselves, despite centuries of history proving that corporations will treat anyone horribly if there's a profit in it. (Child labor, slavery, Standard Oil's monopoly, the “company store,” the sale of cheap booze as medicines, exploding Ford Pintos. Feel free to add to the list.) Deregulation of the banking industry caused the stock market crash in 1929, the S&L crisis in the 80s, and repeal of Reagan's new regulations led to the Bush depression a few years ago. (Those are just the instances I can remember off the top of my head.) A lack of government oversight allowed Bernie Madoff to become the most successful con artist of all time, and dozens of banks to write fraudulent mortgages. Too much deregulation is a bad thing.

I believe that the government has to invest in the future. If we want to compete globally, we have to invest, heavily, in education. I want my kids to have a good future, and I'm not sure an underfunded public school can do that great a job. My little girl is in a kindergarten class of almost 20 kids, and I have no idea how her teacher keeps up. It looks like herding cats in there some days! Smaller class sizes would help, but it's not in the budget. Research in pure sciences used to be funded hugely by the government, but that's being cut again. Patents on computers and manufacturing tech were funded by the USA and we turned that into a huge economic advantage. We don't do that any more. Children who go to college become adults who make more, contributing more to the economy and paying enough in taxes to pay for the education. (See the US after WWII, when all those GIs got the Montgomery GI Bill.)

And yes dammit, the government needs to invest heavily in the next big American industry. It won't be cars, we've done that, well, and now the Japanese and Koreans and Europeans do it comparably well, if not better. High tech is good, we do that well and it's harder to outsource those highly skilled jobs, but India is catching up, and Japan and Korea? Maybe clean power startups can do it. (It would also help decrease our dependence on foreign oil.) Small business startups, sounds like a Republican dream, but I don't think they're sincere about that.

Education policy- Conservative thinking lately has been that underperforming schools should be punished. If their test scores suck, take away federal funding. This resembles a schoolyard bully stealing lunch money from poor kids and then making fun of their clothes. Invariably the at risk schools are in economically depressed areas. The kids who attend these schools are disproportionately poor, have only one parent at home, don't get adequate nutrition, and just don't stand a chance against the big wide world. They are probably just being coddled by overfunded schools though, let's have tests and punitive measures for schools that don't fix it.

If there's anything we should invest in, it's our kids. If we don't, America will not be a superpower for long.

Religion (and yes, abortion)- I'm pretty sure Jesus would have been a liberal. I don't necessarily think he would have been pro choice, but I think on most other issues he would have been a serious tree hugging liberal. He spent his whole life in the company, and service, of the dregs of society! “It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.” Oh, he was very big business! “Blessed are the poor.” Let's end welfare!

He gave up all his worldly possessions and shared everything he had with the people who followed him. Early Christian communities had serious communist tendencies. It should be noted that I am most certainly not a Marxist, nor do I think Communism would ever work no matter how effectively it was instituted. People need incentive for doing a good job. If everything is communally owned, people get lazy. Also, we like owning stuff. I do anyway! I'm just pointing out that Jesus led a very un-Republican lifestyle.

Regarding abortion by the way, I think it's an abominable form of birth control. However, it's perfectly understandable in some circumstances, rape, incest and threat to mother's life for instance. Also, the pragmatist in me knows that in countries where abortions are illegal, they get done illegally, and usually at far greater risk of death to the mother.

Gun control- I'm in the Army, and have enjoyed a gun or two. So under no circumstances would I support a law that outlawed firearms. However, you don't need an AK-47 assault rifle for hunting or self defense. Nor an M16, nor anything on full auto. You should also be required to register your firearms, just like your far less deadly car. That way if it's ever used in a crime, they can link the weapon to the police report you filed when it was stolen, and boom. Extra evidence to use in tracking the criminal. You support law enforcement, right?

Oh, and if the shadow government that's constantly watching you is why you need a room full of ammunition, allow me to burst your "crazy bubble." That's the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and they're watching you because you're breaking the damn law. If you were just a schoolteacher they would leave you alone. (Also, you wouldn't be able to afford so many weapons, we don't pay teachers very well. But that's off subject.)

So go hunting, go to the range, hell, shoot some crap in the yard if you live outside the city limits and have a large piece of land. Do so safely of course. Just stop being crazy.

National defense- We need it. There. Strong defense is important. The strongest in the world? Sure, we can do that. The most powerful the world has ever seen? Ok. Done. The world's cop? Um, hold on. A strong presence worldwide, including permanent bases in Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, and Turkey? No, we don't really need that, do we? I mean, we deployed people to Iraq from mainland USA, even before we deployed 1ID from Germany. We certainly need allies in all regions of the world, and cooperative agreements so we can use their air fields in case we get in a scuffle with Libya. But, and I'm a guy who LOVED being stationed in Germany, we don't need permanent bases in every country we've ever visited. Really, we have the biggest Air Force and Navy in the world. We can get where we're going. Let's save billions annually. We can apply it to the deficit.

Immigration- OK, so there's a country directly south of us that is poor. Got it. We could build a wall. Surely none of them know how to dig! We could increase border patrols, but let's be honest. It's a lot of border, we can't pay for that. Not really. We could make it harder for them to get jobs here in the US! Maybe that would work!

How would we do this? It's already illegal to hire illegals. Hmmm, maybe we could enforce those laws! Strictly! If you fine a business $10,000 per illegal worker, I suspect they will get very serious about checking those documents. If they have them, and they're not obvious fakes, business owners are covered. If not? They broke the law, make them pay. Heavily.

Oh, and since agriculture will die off without migrant workers from Mexico, let's streamline the process for getting work visas. Industry needs a legal way to hire enough workers, and generally speaking Americans really won't do those jobs. There was even a takeourjobs.com website a year or two ago inviting Americans to do the job of a migrant worker. When the union president was on the Colbert Report he said 3 people had inquired.

I guess when it comes down to it I like practical solutions. I'm not too concerned about idealism, except I'm uncomfortable with any society that can abandon its most disadvantaged. I want a country that will invest in practical long term solutions, and I'm not too greedy to pay a few extra dollars on April 15. Although I do think that if you don't have a legitimate financial care in the world you can probably afford to pay a higher percentage of your income than I can. I also feel that this rant has gone on quite long enough.

These are all my opinions. If you really are curious about why I feel something, or want some source references about something in particular, mention it in the comments and I can dig something up for you.

Thanks for reading.

Shutdown averted. But.

So the government shutdown didn't happen. As a guy who's still getting paid, I'm kind of glad I was wrong on that one. As a guy who spends a lot of time researching economic facts, and politics, I'm a little less than thrilled. Allow me to explain.

The Republicans won the House back in last year's midterm elections based on a few things. They promised jobs, they promised tax cuts, and they promised to cut spending in Washington. Two of the three I think they actually even planned to do. Fox News started the Tea Party as a means of rallying the populace to the cause, and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity praised the Tea Partiers and their patriotic goals every night on TV. I remember watching it on Fox News in the chow hall on my base in Iraq. So some new Congressmen and women march into Washington with a clear objective. The Tea Party, meanwhile, is excited to a fanaticism that America hasn't recently seen in politics, which gets sticky. The Republicans had already instituted a “don't compromise or work with the Democrats ever” policy, but with the Tea Party going they would now be unable to compromise at all, even when they wanted to. Which, let's be honest, is now necessary if government is to happen.

President Obama, usually an intelligent man, didn't seem to notice that. So the Democrat proposal was a pre-emptive compromise. They want $61 billion in cuts, let's offer about half that. That's the best we can do. This is a strategy that sometimes works while buying a car, because you don't have to buy the car. You can walk away. But there has to be a budget, and by starting out with a compromise the Democrats gave away all the power. Again. Do you remember the roundtable health care reform discussions? My favorite was the time that John McCain made a point, and while waiting for Obama to reply he got his angry retort ready. He already had his angry face on as the President said “good point John, we should fix that.” That was one confused looking Senator. But why did we have the attempt at compromise? Nobody crossed the aisle. Republicans who do are vilified by Fox and lose their next primary, and they know it.

Instead of starting off with a compromise figure, the Democrats needed to take the lead and try for once this century to control the tone of the debate. I would have loved to see President Obama on TV telling people that John Boehner wanted to eliminate jobs and destabilize the economy. That Eric Cantor was tired of unemployment dropping to levels that we haven't seen since the economy crashed under Bush. Explaining that while he understood the suffering of the long term unemployed, the Tea Party wanted to make sure rich people got tax cuts, so we might have to cut back on things like infrastructure projects that create jobs. We might have to fire some teachers, and Border Patrol agents, and meat inspectors. We don't want our meat inspected anyway, who ever hears of food poisoning these days? That's the debate I should have seen, and I feel robbed. Because all I heard about was the deficit, which is the bogeyman this year. Everybody needs a bogeyman, Bush used terrorists to great political advantage, this year it's the deficit.

Is the deficit a problem? Sure, has been since Nixon removed us from the gold standard, Reagan tripled the deficit, and GWB handed Obama the largest one ever. But being in the military has taught me some things, and one of those is that tactically, you worry about the thing that will kill you now before the thing that might kill you in a minute or ten. So is the deficit an IED a few hundred meters in front of our economic Humvee? No. It is an IED on the road. Just not this road, and we can still turn before we hit it. But there's an IED right there in front of us, daisy chained to the one that hit us three years ago. (Daisy chaining is a tactic wherein insurgents place several IEDs in a row in order to catch more than one vehicle, or catch vehicles not hit in the initial blast.) This IED is known as unemployment, and it's still big.

Are our unemployed still having a hard time finding work? Yes, although corporate America has returned to record profitability. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment is “little changed” at 8.8%. Output in the last quarter of 2010 is up 4%, 5.9% in manufacturing, while labor cost decreased 0.6% and 2.7% respectively. Yet by the July-September quarter of 2010 corporate profits were 12% higher than before the recession. (http://www.telegram.com/article/20110410/NEWS/104109883/-1/NEWS04) It seems that while the recession was in full force our workers got more efficient, or maybe they just started working more hours for less pay. Either way our economy started producing at or above pre-recession levels without the commensurate hiring orgy that would seem to naturally accompany such success. It seems those profits haven't trickled down enough yet to result in hiring. So what do we think will happen when the government pulls $38 billion out of the economy? $38 billion is 760,000 $50,000 a year jobs. (I know it's not that simple, some of the money would have bought office supplies, some would have been spent repeatedly, thereby skewing the figures. Bear with me.) Of course, that budget only applies to the next 6 months, so double either number. Unemployment is about to go back up. Remember to thank your Congressman in November of next year. Alas, they will find a way to blame Obama. I just wonder what buzz words Fox News will introduce to the debate.

Thanks for reading.

Why there will be a shutdown.

“So be it.” Why the government will shut down.

With these words John Boehner summed up his attitude toward what his budget plan will do to the economy. On 15 February he was asked about the jobs that his budget would eliminate, and he responded with “If some of those jobs are lost so be it. We're broke.” He stated that the federal government had added 200,000 jobs, and it those to which he was allegedly referring. He was wrong, the government had increased civilian employees by 58,000. (This was in part due to layoffs at the Post Office, the new hires were 140,800 without Post Office layoffs, still well short of 200,000.) So maybe he's just willing to eliminate 58,000 jobs. (Facts from PolitiFact, using figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) With unemployment so low, our economy can absorb that loss easily, right?

Ah, but here's the rub. $61 billion divided by 200,000 jobs would mean each worker earns $305,000 a year. (Calculator, iPad.) So even his initial incorrect figure must be wrong, how many jobs will this actually cost? According to Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, a lot. Her words, which I found on Daily Kos. “I checked with budget expert Scott Lilly of the Center for American Progress, and, using the usual multipliers, he calculated that the cuts - a net of $59 billion in the last half of fiscal 2011 - would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That's nearly 1 million jobs - possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.”

So Boehner doesn't care at all about your job, or the economy. None. He can look up these figures as easily as I can. Bear in mind that he's really passionate about huge tax cuts for the wealthy. We have to remember that as we consider his priorities and our own. If you're reading this and happen to be a doctor or lawyer, by the way, remember that unless you make over $250,000 you got a tax cut under Obama, and even if you make more than that the first $250,000 you make is taxed less heavily than under Bush. When I say rich I mean rich, not upper middle class or comfortable.

President Obama, in keeping with what he always does, has been trying to extend the olive branch of compromise. He should realize by now that it doesn't work. They want $60 billion in cuts, he offers $30 billion in hard cuts, they say no. They want all or nothing. No negotiating will help. The Democrats in the last decade almost always give up and roll over, so Boehner expects to win the showdown. He can't wait to cut federal jobs, but in order to cut that much money he'll have to cut programs too. What kinds of programs? Paul Ryan has been saying that no program will remain untouched, so the Department of Education, National Park Service, EPA, law enforcement, the Interstate highway system, food stamps, education loans, and anything else you can think of that the government does to help its citizenry will be cut. And that's just a start.

Paul Ryan has already presented a budget proposal for next year. Maybe you've read about it in Time or the New York Times, or on the Huffington Post where it's been vilified as a horrible idea. The gist of the idea is this. Mr. Ryan wants to cut trillions of dollars from the budget. Trillions. His plan seeks to do this in several ways. First, by limiting Medicaid and Medicare payments. In the future. He looked at a way to save billions, and made it effective only for people currently under 55 years old, so the AARP doesn't riot in the streets. (From Fareed Zakaria's Time article on the Ryan budget, except for the AARP editorial comment.) But do you really believe a 55 year old man will pay taxes to prop up Medicare and then not riot in the streets when Paul Ryan hands him a voucher and tells him to go buy some private insurance? The voucher will either increase costs to the government or to the retiree. Probably the retiree, and probably to a degree that will financially cripple the retiree.

Another way he predicts the deficit balance is by predicting that his bold tax policies will lead to 4% unemployment, for the first time in well over half a century. Some of Europe's more conservative countries recently enacted austerity measures that resemble the Tea Party proposals. In Britain, austerity measures were predicted to increase confidence, leading to consumer spending, hiring, and an economic golden era. But, their economy stalled and government deficits are going up. Ireland had accumulated unsustainable debt trying to bail out banks, which sounds familiar. So they imposed massive budget cuts. The following quote, and much of this information, comes from the Paul Krugman article referenced here. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=2&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-AD-032511-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

“Ireland offers an admirable lesson in fiscal responsibility,” declared Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, who said that the spending cuts had removed fears over Irish solvency and predicted rapid economic recovery.

So how did that work out for Ireland? Simple. Their interest rate has doubled, and their unemployment stands at 13.5%. And Boehner wants to follow that lead.

So that's why the Republican budget is bad enough for Democrats to grow some backbone and say no. Well, to some degree, they're still giving in to $30 billion. I really don't want a shutdown, I need to feed my family. And if there's no government to pay me, they can't very well go get food stamps either. But this extremist budget plan needs to be stopped. I'll have to skip this month's car payment for sure, and credit card too. We do what we can. So be it.

Thanks for reading.

Buzz words, or why Obama can't possibly be a Nazi.

Buzz words.

Socialist. Nazi. Obamacare. The Republican propaganda machine has done a remarkable job of framing the public discourse. Liberal is not a bad word, yet it's pronounced as an insult by every talking head on Fox, regularly. They're taking an idea, boiling it down to a scary phrase, and using it to influence how people feel, rather than think. Because if people thought they would be less likely to just accept Fox at their word.

OK, we've all heard Glenn Beck call Obama a Nazi, or a Socialist. Jon Stewart likened it to a form of Tourette's syndrome wherein poor Glenn just couldn't help but shout Nazi every few seconds. No, it's just propaganda and lies. Here are some definitions from dictionary.com.

so·cial·ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun

1. a theory or system of social organization  that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Is health care reform Socialism? Are the ownership and control of the means of production owned by the community as a whole, or by the government specifically? No, private insurers continue to fleece the public and for-profit hospitals continue to charge exorbitant fees for Tylenol. Was GM a Socialist government takeover? No, the government stepped in and purchased a controlling interest in the company, and then sold the stock in an IPO once bankruptcy was averted. Just like private industry does all the time, except the government had to step in because nobody else who could, would.

com·mu·nism   [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Just had to get that one out of the way. We can see that Communism was a derivative of Socialism, probably more extreme and even less justifiable a buzz word than Socialism, although only just. I haven't heard this one as often, by a stretch, but when it pops up it's nice to be aware of the great scare from several decades ago.

Regarding the Nazi analogy, as farcical as it is, I should probably debunk it. From www.nazism.net.

Key elements of the Nazi ideology

National Socialist Program

Racism

Especially anti-Semitism, which eventually culminated in the Holocaust.

The creation of a Herrenrasse (Master Race= by the Lebensborn (Fountain of Life; A department in the Third Reich)

Anti-Slavism

Belief in the superiority of the White, Germanic, Aryan or Nordic races.

Euthanasia and Eugenics with respect to "Racial Hygiene"

Anti-Marxism, Anti-Communism, Anti-Bolshevism

The rejection of democracy, with as a consequence the ending the existence of political parties, labour unions, and free press.

Führerprinzip (Leader Principle) /belief in the leader (Responsibility up the ranks, and authority down the ranks.)

Strong show of local culture.

Social Darwinism

Defense of Blood and Soil (German: "Blut und Boden" - represented by the red and black colors in the Nazi flag)

"Lebensraumpolitik", "Lebensraum im Osten" (The creation of more living space for Germans)

Related to Fascism

In practice, Nazis were far right extremists who exterminated opposition from the left, not just the socialist and communist parties that existed within Germany at the time but also people they considered “liberal elites” and “intellectuals.” For a fascinating insight, the book Defying Hitler by Sebastian Haffner is a fascinating and terrifying insight into Hitler's persecution of intellectualism and liberalism. http://www.amazon.com/Defying-Hitler-Memoir-Sebastian-Haffner/dp/0312421133/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302104997&sr=8-1 And if you replace the phrase öst-Juden with Muslim, you can see remarkable parallels with current Republican schools of thought.

So what's my point? Reasonable, rational people never believed that Obama was a Nazi, right? One would hope not, but where are Glenn Beck's viewers coming from? We've all seen the Tea Party signs of Obama with a Hitler stache right? It's fear-mongering and lies and propaganda and it needs to stop. No Democrat votes in a way that would please a real Nazi, they vote Republican, like the Klan. (Remember David Duke? What, too honest?) So when you hear people using buzz words instead of thinking, call them on it. If they use a phrase that rhymes or they sneer when saying “Obamacare,” remind them that catch phrases are for people who don't really understand the issues, and the health care reform bill that passed was largely based on Republican legislation from the Clinton era. Then call them Nazis, just for good measure. Playfully, don't get into a fight.

Thanks for reading.

*Anything not specifically cited as being from another source comes either from my brain or the news I read and listen to daily, specifically NPR, CNN, The New York Times, Foreign Policy, The Economist, and yes even the admittedly biased Huffington Post. I watched some Bill O'Reilly last week too, but that wasn't pertinent to this posting.

The budget crisis.

The budget crisis.

Paul Ryan has figured out how to solve the budget crisis. He figured it out and sent it up, and it's not acceptable to the other party and he knows and doesn't care. He has decided to go ahead and make the hard decisions that will force America to balance her books, and then blame Obama for disagreeing with some of those hard decisions. Ok, that's why the Tea Party gained some power. (Would it be rude to remind people that they only gained some power, and were solidly defeated in many elections?) So I can sympathize with Mr. Ryan, and Eric Cantor, who believe that it is their job to fix the deficit. They even know how to do it, by gutting the programs that Democrats like.

They could save billions by pulling the military out of Europe or Japan. We just represent symbolic partnerships there. The initial invasion of Iraq had the 3rd Infantry Division from Georgia while leaving the 1st back in Germany; we don't need military might all over the world. We could legalize, and tax the hell out of, the milder recreational narcotics. I say this as a man who never had any interest in even trying a joint during college, although I certainly had friends who did. I say this as a pragmatist who would rather see pot become an economic asset than remain a drain on government resources in both law enforcement and incarceration. We could place protective tariffs on imports, although I realize that's a double edged sword. Or we could drastically cut benefits in Medicaid, future benefits in Medicare, and save literally dozens of dollars by eliminating NPR. (Ok, the NPR budget is more than dozens of dollars. But as a percentage of the budget there are a lot of zeroes after the decimal point and before an actual number. The percentage of my meager enlisted pay that it represents would be, let me get my calculator, well over two cents.)

Ok, so what's the danger? What is my biggest fear, don't I want a balanced budget? Wouldn't I like to see the federal debt reduced? Of course I would. In the long term I demand it. How would we do this? Well, austerity measures like Paul Ryan proposes have already been introduced in Europe's more conservative countries, as well as states like Texas. Should we check on them? Britain tackled its deficit issues as soon as their stimulus programs had worked, and fixed the economy. Their fragile economic recovery was greatly helped by the elimination of public sector jobs and the removal of millions of dollars of government spending in the economy. I'm sorry, that doesn't sound logical. Oh, I meant the economic recovery stalled and things like unemployment are back up. My mistake, I'll try not to repeat it with stateside conservative economic miracle, Texas. After years of very, very Republican leadership Texas had cut its government down to as small as possible, and dropped taxes to the lowest levels imaginable. Good job Texas, you must be plugging along smoothly! Oh, last month Texas had to fire a bunch of cops and teachers, and raid its rainy day fund, in order to prevent bankruptcy. Oh, and by prevent I mean "delay until August." I'm sure they'll figure something out.

Ok, so austerity measures are a likely, nothing is ever certain, but likely way to head to the double dip recession. (Incidentally the same thing happened when Republicans took over Congress in the late 30s. That was the end of the New Deal, and also the end of unprecedented economic growth. Wikipedia!) So how, then, should we balance the budget? Well, some things are simple. Legalizing pot really would help, just like the repeal of prohibition helped end the Great Depression. Yes, really, read some history! I sincerely loved being stationed in Germany, but we don't need any permanent bases there. The Cold War is over folks. The same applies to Japan, although I hesitate to include Korea. I'm pragmatic. But how else? These are good ideas, but what about long term ideas? Ok, here's where things get a little dicey.

End farm subsidies, especially for ethanol. Ethanol takes almost as much energy to make from corn as it produces, and once it gets to the pump it loses out to gas. And why are we subsidizing farmers? They enjoy a higher median income and standard of living than the rest of America, why are taxpayers adding to it?

Get rid of the middle man and have the government make college student loans directly. Why assume all of the risk and none of the profit? Why let student lenders make millions in risk free profit? That leads me to education.

Ok hear me out. We need to spend some money, quite a bit, for maybe five to ten years before we see it pay back. Think about it like an IRA, you never see that money until years down the road, but then you'll be glad you have it. Education for the masses. Serious investment in education at all levels is what propelled America to become the world's pre-eminent power in every way. The GI bill after WWII created an enormous body of college educated taxpayers. People with college educations tend to make significantly more money, and pay more taxes. (This last part might not be true in Texas.) Investment is the name of the game here.

If we worry about a debt crisis that will overwhelm us in 20 years, then let's take some baby steps now toward slowing that problem, by educating a work force that will earn enough to end the problem. The middle class is currently squeezed, hard, when it comes time to send kids to college. I'm pretty solidly in that bracket, and with 13 and 16 years respectively to save enough for my kids' tuition, I can say with all certainty that it won't happen. No chance. My kids will, however, go to college on my post 9/11 GI Bill. Another military benefit. But if you aren't military, and you are in my tax bracket, you earn too much to get your kids a Pell Grant, but not nearly enough to pay for school. If the government issues student loans at ridiculously low rates, if it invests heavily in affordable public universities and tech schools, if it makes it possible for kids with not enough money to make a decent living at a skilled job, it will reap the benefits in markedly higher tax revenues for decades to come. Oh, and it might help to reduce poverty and racial inequality, if you're into that sort of thing.

Thanks for reading.

Free market economics.

Free market economics.

Now, the current way of thinking that the right is feeding us goes as follows. The free market creates jobs, taxes stifle the free market, regulation stifles the free market, and that is how the government stifles job creation. This is what Reagan famously referred to as "trickle down" economics, the idea that allowing the market free reign to create opportunities for the rich to enrich themselves will also provide the circumstances for the wealthy to create jobs by spending more money and investing in their own businesses. I can't argue honestly that they are totally incorrect; any way the government injects money into the economy will stimulate it. However, as a guitarist I've learned that there are good ways to practice, better ways to practice, and flawed ways to practice. Flawed practice can help, but good practice is so much more effective. Let's go.

Does the money trickle down? Yes. Does all of it trickle down? No, if it did it would be "shower down" economics. Trickle is accurate, because once some money gets diverted to offshore accounts, international investments, real estate speculation, and savings accounts, yes, some of it will be spent locally, thereby stimulating the economy. Is this as effective as targeted government spending? No. Traditionally towns spring up near military installations because soldiers have money, but not so much that they can afford to save most of it. So all the soldiers on, for instance, Ft. Riley in Kansas spend their money locally. (It should be mentioned that pay adjustments relative to the civilian sector have changed the situation somewhat since the beginning of the professional, all volunteer military. But that's not pertinent at the moment.) People paid a living wage by Uncle Sam spend it, and stimulate local economies. They generate them where they don't already exist. If we give a tax break to the commanding general on Ft. Riley, or even what we can call a well deserved raise of $1000 a month, will that affect the local economy? No. He might buy a car or a bigger house. Or he might just invest it in his retirement fund. If we extend that same raise to all the colonels and above on Riley the same applies to each individually.

Let's argue that instead of giving 100 colonels a $1000 raise we give 1000 privates $100. Would the 100 officers inject $100,000 a month into the local economy? I think we can agree they would not. But would 1000 privates? Oh you better believe it. Their families would eat better or go to an extra movie. Maybe they'd blow it on a motorcycle. But almost all of them would spend it locally, every time. And would that money trickle up? Absolutely! Who do you think owns the motorcycle dealership or the Chili's or the movie theater? So the government improves the lifestyle of 1000 privates by a small but noticeable amount, the economy gets a noticeable boost, and even rich folks see profits go up. Everybody wins.

I realize that making it a raise for privates is less frightening than leaving the wealthy at their current tax rates and spending the money on roads. It's the same concept economically but taxes are a big buzzword. Here's a reminder. Taxes under Clinton were lower than under Reagan, taxes under Obama are low than under GWB. They've been going down steadily for over half a century.
Wait, did I just say that the economic collapse under the Bush administration happened despite lower taxes than under the economic prosperity of the Clinton years, or Reagan, or even Eisenhower? How can that be true if low taxes are the only way to save the economy? Simple, you have been lied to. A dollar of tax cuts generates less than 40 cents of economic activity. (I'm sorry I can't remember the exact figure. If I find the article I'll try to post the link.) A dollar of unemployment benefits generates over $1.60 in economic activity. (Again, same article from back when Republicans were blocking unemployment benefit extensions. That's why I can't remember the exact figures, and why unemployment is the specific program.) So, clearly, if economic recovery had been a Republican priority they would have done it with targeted spending.

Do taxes stifle the free market? Despite the nasty rumors to the contrary, no. Not really. If an employee will generate income, you will hire him. (Or her, the traditional gender neutral pronoun in English is masculine, just go with it.) If that employee costs more than the revenue he will generate, you will let him go. How do taxes figure in? Simple. Employee salaries are tax deductible. They are not figured into taxable business income. Exempt. Free. Tax holiday. Got it? So if you own a business, pay yourself $80 thousand, and your company pulls in $90 thousand, its taxable income is $10 thousand minus legitimate business receipts. You still owe personal income tax on $80 thousand, but that would have been true if you worked for McDonalds. Um, as a manager? I don't know if Mickey D's pays that well, I'm guessing no. How about taxes preventing investment in your business? Computers and a company car, are they tax deductible too? You bet. If you don't want to pay income taxes, ever, just go spend every dime of profit on legitimate business expenses on the last day of each year. It would work, although you might have a whole lot more copy paper than you need.

Does regulation stifle the free market? Absolutely, and thank God for that. Because if I know anything, I know that child labor, slavery, and no meat inspections were profitable. Standard Oil made a fortune before anti-monopoly regulations. OSHA makes workplaces expensive, even more expensive than paying the families of some people who die in unsafe working conditions. What about banking regulations? Even with them Wall Street managed to package sub-prime loans as grade A investment packages and destroy our economy. Imagine what could have happened if Reagan hadn't put in new regulations during the S&L crisis in the 80s! Oh, Bush repealed those. That was the problem, got it. Almost forgot. I like the airbags that Uncle Sam makes car companies put in my car, and as a daddy I like the Latch system that attaches to my safe, government regulated, car seat. Remember the Ford Pinto? Now with exploding rear bumpers, great fun at parties! I'm glad for building regulations that make surviving a tornado in Oklahoma or an earthquake in California a statistical likelihood.

I think tomorrow I'll correct all the scary Republican buzz words like Socialist and Nazi. Liberal is not a dirty word, nor is it actually linked to elitism!

Thanks for reading.

I'm a little worried about not getting paid.

I'm honestly a little concerned about not getting paid.

I've mentioned previously that I'm in the Army. I honestly love my job. I'm a guitarist in the Army band, which allows me a unique opportunity to serve my country and play my guitar simultaneously. It has, so far provided over a decade of reliable paychecks and government health care, both of which are the reasons I re-enlisted the first time. Now I'm just pretty sure I'll stay in as long as they'll have me. I like being one of the good guys, and I honestly believe that members of the US military are the good guys.

However. I'm in Iraq, sending money back to the States each month to ensure the my kids get things like food on a regular basis. This is not only a good thing, it's a moral and, I'm fairly certain, legal obligation. And one I may not be able to fulfill if the government shuts down. Oh I'll have to go to work each day. But I won't be able to send food money to the family, and that's a huge concern. I know that the unemployed have had to fight this battle many for years. My heart bleeds for them, really. But there's no place to go sign up for food stamps here if my paycheck next month is $0.00. It will be difficult to call all my creditors from Iraq to say, hey, I can't pay you until they pay me. Call Boehner.

I feel for him. He's stuck between not having any way to win with the budget he has proposed, and not having any way to get re-elected if he compromises. The Tea Party will be directly to blame if I don't get paid next month.

Since I brought the Tea Party up, let's tackle that issue for a moment. Lower taxes are their answer to everything. Taxes are lower now than at any point in the last 50 years. So it would stand to reason that the economy is better than at any point in the last 5 decades, right? Oh, is that not the case? It is true that lower taxes stimulate the economy. I can't disagree with that, however, I will point out how much less effective lower taxes are than targeted spending. The argument that the Rockefellers will spend more, thereby creating jobs, is only a little bit true. Because Donald Trump may build a skyscraper, but he will also buy stocks and put some into banking, maybe save a few million, all actions which contribute little to the economy. Building a highway or hiring cops and teachers improves, respectively, interstate commerce, security in areas that need safety for economic growth, and education for the next generation of business, scientific, or political leaders. Will some money trickle down? Sure, and the dog under the table usually gets a nibble. I'd rather see my government invest in the future than in people who are already unbelievably wealthy.

If our roads were as nice as the German autobahn, we could have higher speed limits. It would decrease shipping times and, since long drives would be shorter, it would lead to fewer sleepy drivers causing accidents. Shippers could deliver more goods in the same amount of time, leading to increased productivity. I've driven the autobahn at 145 mph. I would never drive an American road at that speed, even if it were legal. It's too dangerous, because we won't invest in it. However, the investment would pay for itself in the long run. But not as much as high speed rail. Germany does that better than we do, too.

American technological dominance was guaranteed for the last half of the 20th century. Why? Because the US government, frequently under the auspices of military advancement, funded technological research at an unfathomable rate. The reason research programs are always on the chopping block is because the money we invested was astronomical. Did it pay off? Absolutely. Silicon Valley because source of astonishing revenue, and names like Apple, IBM and Microsoft became world leaders in high technology. We took the world from tube radios to microchips and superconductors in 50 years. Because the government invested in it. And then they reaped the benefits in increased tax collection, from more productive, higher earning citizens.

And now the Tea Party wants to fix the deficit, right now. Few credible economists see the deficit as a significant threat; many see government cutbacks as a quick way to a double dip recession. (I would like to thank the oatmeal.com for their handy guide to the use of the semicolon.) Government cutbacks, the $61 billion that Boehner is being told he must generate, will remove $61 billion from the economy. That's how it works. Boehner is on the record saying "so be it" with regards to the jobs that will be destroyed by the Republican plan. So be it. So he'll let the government shut down. With me as a government employee, I'll play the example. Shut down. I don't get paid. I don't send money home, my family goes to family and friends begging for food. Since the military changes my state every few years, we don't live near any family, so they go get food stamps. I hope; states are cutting back on those programs this year. I don't pay the car payment, or credit card, or student loans. I get hit with late fees, my family is hungry, my credit takes a hit, all because the Tea Party won enough votes to scare the Republicans out of any chance of being reasonable. Sending up an unacceptable proposal and refusing to negotiate isn't reasonable. And my life may well get very bad in a month or two.

Thanks for reading. And if this happens, please remember what they did to me next election season.

Anti-Environmentalism

Anti-Environmentalism

Ok, so here's an argument I get. Global warming doesn't exist, because the world has actually cooled down, or the world does this naturally every few centuries, or it's all attributable to dragon flatulence. Ok, carbon from volcanoes, maybe not so much the dragon thing.

So what?

Dear Mr. Conservative, are you trying to tell me we should continue to pollute? Maybe we should leave the trash for the next generation? Because although my daughter is cute now, in 15 years she'll be an adult and will have had time to find a solution to the fact that the Pacific is a cesspool and can now be smelled from Kansas? Are the pollutants killing off fish in the Gulf of Mexico a good thing? What, precisely, is your objective by raising the grim specter of "maybe global warming doesn't exist?"

At this point global warming becomes a red herring. The thought is, pin the whole environmental movement to one issue, debunk it by any means necessary, discredit environmentalists, go back to polluting as much as we want. And yes, I'm talking about American industry and big business. Not because I hate capitalism, on the contrary I think it's great and applaud American ingenuity and industry. It's because industry has consistently shown that in the absence of regulation, it will take short term profits over long term sustainability almost every time, regardless of the consequences or the devastating consequences to people other than the CEO or large shareholders. Does anybody remember the Pinto? It would have cost $11 per car to retrofit a part that would have prevented explosions in rear end collisions; it was cheaper to pay victims a standard cash settlement based on the percentage of cars Ford researchers thought would explode. How many people died in blazing infernos to save Ford $11 per car? That's not the only example, it's just one I read about the other day while researching the fine vintage automobile I want to buy when I get out of Iraq. Pinto? No.

Back to the issue at hand. Discrediting environmentalists on one issue distracts from so many other issues. I offended someone once by pointing that out. I asked if he was saying we shouldn't recycle, or that destroying mountains for cheap filthy coal was a good thing, or whether or not he missed acid rain. Nope, he did care. He just wanted to point out that he thought my side was wrong. Maybe we are, I don't know for sure. I'm not a scientist, although a lot of them seem to think we are collectively ruining the planet. I could be wrong. Just so long as he acknowledges that all of the goals of the green movement are good things whether the Earth is heating up, cooling down, staying the same, or having cookies and milk before bed, I don't care.

I'm willing to be wrong as long as the greater good is still served. Save some gas, install some wind turbines, don't throw your trash out the window. There are lots of good reasons, I don't care which one you believe in.

Thanks for reading.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is good at his job.

I would like to state for the record that I believe that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a host of other conservative talk show hosts are amazing at their jobs. Really really good. Their job, of course, is to convince the Republican base that voting Republican is in their best interest, and get them scared enough of any other outcome that they get out and vote in strength. Those guys are good at that. What they are bad at is facts and legitimate debate. They state opinions as facts, they employ logical fallacies, they misrepresent statistics, and sometimes they just use scare tactics and lies. These are master propagandists at the height of their powers. And there's no effective was to fight them. There's not.

The human brain has an interesting reaction to fear. Have you ever woken from a nightmare, realized that it was just a bad dream, and then stayed awake for hours? Of course you have. I, myself, have on several occasions woken from a dream where my kids were in some imagined peril, and been unable to sleep until I checked on them asleep in their beds. It's silly, of course. My dream has little to do with the kids and is probably based on Dad's own insecurities about keeping them safe in a big scary world, but that's the power of the fear response. That's why these talk show hosts do everything they can to scare the audience. Scary scary! Nazi! Socialist! Kenyan! (Note the subtle racist slant to that one.) Why can't he produce a birth certificate, what is he hiding? The insinuation of some evil conspiracy plays right into the minds of people who want to believe there's a reason to get rid of Obama, or who want to believe deep down in their souls that environmentalism is a conspiracy to inconvenience them and drive down the prices of their stock in landfill futures. It's all a conspiracy against big business! They want to wreck the economy! And facts don't work against people who buy into this garbage.

I have a relative who forwards me these scary, ridiculous emails regularly. Sometimes I go through, correct all the lies, and send them back. So begins the debate, and we have a ball. But really, I won't ever change his mind because he doesn't want it to be changed. He votes Republican because he likes guns, so he believes that gun control doesn't work. Or that registration for firearms just gives "them" a way to find you when the super volcano under Yellowstone finally blows and destroys all government control west of the Mississippi. Seriously. Fear response leads to an irrational need for a way to maintain control in this incredibly unlikely scenario. So he has guns. That's ok, he's responsible with them. But if his guns were registered, and then stolen and used in a crime in the next state, there might be some additional evidence at the disposal of investigators looking for a murderer. He never responds to that argument. It doesn't fit his world view, so it doesn't exist.

So tell your dittohead co-workers that Limbaugh lies if you want. Heck, prove it to them with some quick Internet research. I'll probably do some of that right here over the coming days and weeks. Explain to the guy with the Glenn Beck T-shirt that Obama can't be both a Socialist and a Nazi, because the Nazis hated the Socialists to the point of killing them all. He won't believe you, and might not understand your argument. But the poor person whom "Beck-fan" is regaling with tales of Glenn's goodness? That might be the person to catch before they get on board the crazy train. (If I just got Ozzy Osbourne stuck in your head you're probably about my age. Sorry for the song bomb.)

Thanks for reading.

Why Libya?

Why Libya?

An old associate of mine recently posed this question. Why was it ok to invade Libya but not Iraq? This presents, to me, several interesting points.

First, we can all agree that Saddam and Moammar both represent humanity at its worst. Then again, there are horrible dictatorships all over the world, from Sudan in Africa to Myanmar in Asia. Some have even, historically been our allies. (Like Saddam in Iraq, and Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there's no need to rehash cold war alliances. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, as it turns out.) By that line of reasoning, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy holds little water as an argument for the invasion of Iraq, and Qaddafi is a bad guy holds similarly little influence on my thinking. So let's look at the threat that each poses to America and her allies and interests.

Saddam Hussein was boxed in by a NATO enforced no fly zone. It was pretty effective, when combined with UN embargoes, at keeping him from rebuilding his military might or committing genocide again. And yes, we all know he gassed the Kurds prior to our implementation of the no fly zone. But we hadn't given him and chemical weapons since the Reagan administration and there remains no proof that he had the ability to make his own. They do have a shelf life. The argument that he was just waiting for the right time to use them washes out the moment our guys rolled into Baghdad. When would the right moment have been if not then? Presumably before we caught and executed him, right?

Saddam, despite rumors to the contrary, did not sponsor terrorism. He was a greedy selfish despot, but not a very good Muslim. Not even by the warped standards Al Qaeda and similar groups adhere to. He was pretty westernized, wore suits, and demonstrated his religion only enough to prove to his country that he was Muslim. That's why terrorist groups, especially Al Qaeda, shunned him.

Iraq presented no threat to our economic interests, nor those of our allies. They have no industry other than oil, and they had to leave the spigot on if they wanted food. It was true then and it's true now. Any threat they could have made was imagined.

Qaddafi is a horse of an altogether more dangerous color. He has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades now, to the point that under the Reagan administration we bombed him. There seems to be a lack of intelligence on what his real military capabilities are, but at one time he had spent billions on building a massive army. Whether that was maintained during the embargo years is a question of speculation but it remains prudent to assume he still has some capability, or did until NATO started bombing the heck out of his defenses. And no, he's no military threat to the US directly. But he could supply arms to Somali pirates or use his influence through northern Africa to destabilize the region in ways that could affect us and our allies.

Which brings me to economic destabilization. Qaddafi could, single handedly, raise the price of our oil. Now hear me out, I'm not going where you think I am. We have all seen what inflated oil prices do to us as individuals at the pump. And how they affect shipping costs. And eventually the price of things like food, paper, diapers which have to be shipped to the store. It puts pressure on everybody's wallet, making us buy less. Which does what to our finally beginning to recover economy? Yup, guarantees the double dip recession that we all fear. (At least I hope we all do. I think the Republicans are going to cause it but that's another day.)

So those are all the reasons we stop the genocidal monster in Libya, but not the ones in Sudan. Or Myanmar. Or...

Thanks for reading.

Opinion polls.

"Excuse me, could you answer some questions? In your opinion, does 2+2 really equal 4?"

Opinion polls are dangerous. I have a co-worker who took statistics years ago, and is fond of reminding people that there are three levels to lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I frequently debunk forwarded emails from friends and relatives by going straight to the source of a poll or examining, closely, how a question was phrased. 80% of Americans responded to a poll by saying that Obama had no legal right to be President? Wow, that's stunning, who did the poll? Ok, a polling agency named after the guy who owns it, what else does he do? He hosts a conservative talk show in Toledo. The poll is listeners calling into a radio show. Ok, that's hardly scientific, it's probably a good sampling of the most biased and paranoid conservative voters out there. So this qualifies as a statistical lie.

Which brings me to my next point. A poll about facts isn't a poll of people's legitimate opinions, it's finding out what percentage of America is failing the test of life. "Could you answer a few questions" is the American media equivalent to a high school civics pop quiz, and our populace is failing. Not only failing but being deluded into thinking at their incorrect knowledge is a legitimate opinion. Opinion polls on Obama's Presidential legitimacy are only legitimate if you poll legal experts who have seen the necessary documentation. And since the (conservative leaning) Supreme Court has upheld Obama's presidency, I think we know how that poll would turn out. My opinion on global warming? Not legitimate unless I do research and base it on scientific findings from other people. Even though we covered it in my college chemistry class, I am not an expert.

So as you get stuck in debates with co-workers, friends and well intentioned relatives who want to save you from the creeping evil that they truly envision Liberalism to be, I'll try to give you some ammo to shoot their argument full of holes with. Be calm, don't take it personally.

Oh, and cite your sources. They hate that.

Than for reading.

Here we go.

Here we go.

So I've decided to become more politically active. I've noticed in the media that there tends to be a conservative leaning in the way things get reported, even down to the myth of the liberal media. I have co-worker who insists that CNN is an extreme left organization, even when Lou Dobbs was spouting birther nonsense daily from a CNN pulpit. MSNBC? Yes, liberal bias. CNN? From what I've seen slightly right of center, although there's certainly room for interpretation. That, when combined with the lies of the Republican propaganda machine, is what gave me the impetus necessary to begin this little journey into truth.

Let me start by saying that everyone has the right to an opinion. Opinions are never, in and of themselves, wrong. However, opinions based on lies and misinformation are a problem to me. Also, opinions on factual things aren't opinions, they're just an outward and visible expression of whether or not the opinion holder is wrong.

If you wish to comment, feel free to do so. I'm looking for civil political debate, so if you're trying to correct me on some facts please cite source material. Rehashing Fox talking points to prove me wrong is a waste of time and will be deleted, as will insults leveled at me or any commenter who says anything in a civil fashion, regardless of the position they take.

By the way, for those who are interested, here's a little background. I'm in my late 30s, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, have four years of college behind me and am working to finally finish my degree. My major was music years ago and I've worked as a guitarist now for over a decade. My employer is the US Army, and I'm on my third deployment to Iraq, as of this writing. Being in the Army does constrain me somewhat in a legal sense, as there can be repercussions if I am openly disrespectful toward my leadership, whether that's my own commander or GEN whoever or the President. Fortunately I mostly agree with this President. My kids are what I'm most proud of in the world, I love my job even when I hate hate hate being in Iraq, and I used to be a solid Republican. That should cover the pertinent points.

Thanks for stopping by.