However, this is still some bad news for an already reeling Republican party. I, as most did, believed that Jim Tedisco would win the special election in Upstate New York, especially after he took the lead in the vote count. However, he somehow lost. Al Franken is also likely to join the United States Senate from Minnesota, after a fishy ‘victory’ over Senator Norm Coleman.

And now this. The Democrats have large majorities in both houses, as well as the Executive Branch. When Specter switches, and when Franken is seated, then they will have a filibuster-proof majority. Now, this isn’t as bad as it sounds. If any defectors jump ship on an imprtant issue, then the Dems can’t hold the line. However, on a particularly thorny issue, they can pull party politics and push through some of what they please.

But the news isn’t all bad. With 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House, the ball is squarely in the Democrats’ court. With Obama at the helm and Congress a lock, any major issues that happen in the country will land at their feet. If Congress votes itself a payraise, the Republicans can rightly claim that the Democrats had control. If taxes spike, the same thing. If welfare increases, then the Democrats could get the blame.

But in the world of celebrity politics, it might just take Olbermann and Jon Stewart to offer some faux reason why it’s President Bush or Dick Cheney’s fault and everyone will fall in line. Who would want to agree with Dick Cheney, anyway?
originally posted at www.jumpinginpools.blogspot.com

Related Writings

• Mike Huckabee is So Cool
• Who Will be the Next Secretary of State?
• Why Do The Poor Overwhelmingly Support Democrats Who Abuse Them?
• Is Merit Pay Anti-Union?

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Specter

Especially in the Pashtun areas of the south, American and ISAF presence is far too limited. About 70% of the population of the country are friendly Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. Only in the south of the country, about 20% of the land area of the country is the volatile Pashtun regions. One of the problems is that the Pashtuns in Pakistan, supported by al Qaeda and elements of the Pakistani intelligence services, are supporting the Taliban.

While these extra troops may help the situation, the President and his staff must make sure that they also send a strategy. General David Petraeus is well-known for executing a counter-insurgency effort in Iraq that turned the war around. We must make our focus on protecting the population, not just eliminating the Taliban. We must split the population from al Qaeda and the Taliban and give them reason to side with us. If they want to fight alongside us, that’s great, but we cannot give them weapons in case they plan to use them against us. It was this strategy with the Awakening in Iraq that helped the Iraqi-Coalition forces defeat al Qaeda and their allies.

These 29,000 extra troops, along with a potential of thousands of European forces, could help turn the tide. We must make sure that we do not give up the fight. Out of Afghanistan came the plan to attack the United States. With a power vacuum and the return of the Taliban, al Qaeda will not only come back, but come back with the belief that they have defeated the United States.

Originally posted on Jumping in Pools.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Dog

I believe this is a dynamic which exists–and a question which can be asked–all over the country, and among both major parties as I’ll describe below, but I want to start by localizing it to provide clear examples of what I’m suggesting and asking.

Living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where the majority of our elected officials at the city, county and state government are always Democrats because democrats vastly outnumber republican voters in this area, I’ve begun to wonder if there isn’t a battered-woman-like dynamic helping to keep the party support so high here.

It’s a fact that people who rent rather than own homes, people who frequent bars and people who smoke are all disproportionately poor, undereducated and single.

And at the same time in this region, the poor and undereducated are overwhelmingly registered democrats despite the fact that for years our democratic leaders have passed tax after tax and fee after fee that targets and hurts most… the very people who keep supporting them.

As an example, in the past year our city has begun charging landlords a $12 fee per rental unit they own, a fee that won’t ultimately come from the landlord’s pocket but rather will be passed down to the renters themselves.

Our county has added a 10% drink tax to alcoholic beverages (our normal sales tax on goods is 7%), and our state has increased the “sin tax” on tobacco products which raised prices by up to 25%.

The city justified their landlord registration fee with the argument that it will help to pinpoint and clean up “trouble spots” where landlords aren’t being held accountable for the condition of their properties or the behaviors of their renters.

That may be true to some degree, we won’t know for some time if it works in that way or not. What we do know right now is that it will add to the monthly rent of thousands of people who are fighting to just survive day to day, and it will cause more people with less than perfect credit from moving to, or staying in, the region as landlords feel they must become more strict on who they accept as renters to avoid further persecutions from the city.

In other words, whatever good the fees may do in the long term, there are serious harms that they are doing already. And disproportionately, those harms are visited upon the very same people who most often vote for the party candidates who are beating them over the heads.

A similar scenario exists with the county’s drink tax, which has been touted as the only alternative to an increase in property taxes for residents. Beyond the fact that it was a false proposition being made, how is it ever fair to target specific groups of people with taxes rather than applying them equally to all people?

The tax isn’t on all alcohol sold in the county, but only on “poured” drinks. Meaning drinks ordered in a bar. And who spends the most time socializing in bars? Young adults and poor people. Again, the very people who vote for them are being targeted with unfair taxes and fees by politicians… yet people keep supporting them over and over.

The state taxes on tobacco products… more of the same. Once again, the people most likely to use tobacco products are living near or below the poverty line, are undereducated, single or under 30 years of age. And in this region, those are all groups that vote heavily towards the democrat party–the very party that keeps targeting and unfairly taxing them further down the economic ladder.

These are only 3 recent instances, there are more which further and unfairly target the poor, undereducated and elderly. I’m not listing all of them because my point isn’t to fight individual taxes or fees, or to argue whether specific revenues are needed or not. Though I will add that I believe any non-blanket tax which targets specific groups seems unconstitutional to me.

But my point, or rather it’s more of a question, is why do the people in my region who are being targeted the most by Democrats in power continue to support and put Democrats in power? I include myself in this.

Is it the same in other regions? Is it unique to Democrats, or do republican heavy regions see a similar beating from the Republicans they continue putting in office as well? My guess is that this isn’t specific to my part of the country, and that it happens across party lines too.

I know at the federal level Republicans had the opportunity to truly advance the conservative and religious right agendas from 2000 through 2006, yet they failed to do anything meaningful with either, so it seems safe to assume both parties are guilty of biting the hands that feed them.

When I reflect on my own voting choices I think there is a combination of factors, from opposing far right ideologies to simply being willing to overlook the continued beatings from my own party that have culminated in my ongoing support for people that I believe unfairly target select groups for oppression.

Every election cycle they apologize for having to “hurt” some people and then they blame the “other side” for blocking them from doing the things that need done or acting in the ways we believe they should, and we accept it.

We take the beatings, then tell ourselves “well, he said he was sorry and that he’s going to change”… and we keep supporting the same people time after time.

Is it a broken system because there aren’t viable alternatives to the 2 major parties in most regions?

Is it fair to be mad at the politicians who keep doing it, or should we be mad at ourselves for letting them get away with it over and over?

Am I the only one who feels like a dog that’s been beat too much?

Image Credit: Source reurinkjan of Flickr

Related Writings

• Specter’s Change and the Next Two Years

Technorati Tags: Democrats, targeting, taxes

Covering The News

Having been jilted (canceled on) by CNBC’s Rick Santelli who was scheduled to appear as a guest, the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart took less than 9 minutes of air time to not just mock Santelli and all of CNBC, but he also illustrated a point on what’s wrong with much of the “news media” today.

Trading access for honest reporting

It is an occupational hazard for news gatherers that’s as old as the notion of noting and sharing news itself. News gatherers want access to news makers because it’s the easy path to getting the scoops and quotes that nobody else has.

Unfortunately, sometimes that access comes at the trade-off of candid reporting. Who is going to keep giving you access if you keep making them look foolish?

So, news gatherers with great access to specific news makers can become inclined to ‘pitch them softballs’ rather than ask the more important in-depth questions, or to shape the story when they tell it in a way that won’t offend their news maker, all at the expense of giving the public a candid story.

The good news (pun intended) here is that access is rarely an absolute requirement for solid, in-depth reporting. In fact, with smart research (clue sniffing) and an understanding of the beat they cover a news gatherer can dig deep and drill out the facts to develop a good story with.

That’s exactly what Stewart’s staff at the Daily Show did when compiling this piece. They sifted through hours and hours of video to find numerous instances displaying CNBC talking heads smoozing and softballing with CEO’s (and thieves) rather than drilling for the true stories. That’s what makes the bit funny, but it also shows part of the problem with news coverage today.

The lines between access and enabling are too often blurred. Allowing a CEO to send spin through your media when you know the facts contradict what they’re saying, all so that they’ll continue to appear as guests does not lead to good reporting, and doesn’t benefit the people who are looking to you for the story. It’s not just dishonest journalism, it’s a disservice to your customers–the information consumers who believe in you to tell them the facts and truth.

There is another issue which may even be at the core of trading access as well, and that’s the blurring of lines between factoid reporting and feature story telling in recent years.

Nearly every news gatherer in all mediums today has become a feature story teller and allowed, likely encouraged, to inject interpretive commentary into their reporting.

There used to be a clearer line between factoid and feature reporting. Newspapers and Broadcasts maintained a balance between the two for an even mix.

Perhaps it was seen as providing a better user experience for consumers who can more easily relate to conversational story telling over the raw who, what, where, when, how and why format; but it’s also further slanted coverage along ideological lines and fosters an environment where news gatherers are seeming to give less concern to getting all of the facts out than they are with inserting their personal bias through carefully chosen words and phrases.

And this isn’t just a CNBC problem, I haven’t been able to take FOX News nor half of what I hear from CNN and MSNBC seriously in years either. As for Newspapers, I’ve all but given up on the brand publishers and go straight to the wire services for my news. It’s not perfect, but it’s a far cry better and wastes less of my time reading fluff and self-serving pieces.

Feature stories are fine when used in addition to factoid reporting, but we don’t need them on every story.

If a car bomb blows up a Coffee Shop in the Middle East, tell me that. Tell me the who, what, where, when, why and how–and leave your commentary on what this may or may not mean to the latest round of peace talks between So-And-So and What’s-His-Name for your 20 minute round table discussion over at Meet The Press on Sunday. I don’t need it to understand every news story.

It slants the news coverage and wastes my time. If I want personal commentary on every topic, I’ll go to the blogosphere and get it from my peers on a format where I can rebut or discuss the opinions being shared. That’s what the blogging medium excels at.

It shouldn’t be a question of blogs vs. newspapers

This argument has been brewing for quite a while now and some respected journalists have even weighed in with commentary online, but it’s a pointless debate.

Bloggers, even those ambitious enough to enroll in Citizen Journalism classes and workshops aren’t the threat to good investigative journalists. They’re a threat to feature story tellers who fail to go deep enough into the stories they’re covering to make their product better or more vital than perspectives from blogs.

The average blogger has a job and it isn’t blogging. Blogging is what they do in their limited free time. They get their information from the wire services, news sites, other blogs and Press Release distribution outlets and then blog about their interpretations and opinions based on the minimal amount of information they’ve received. They rarely go any further to gather facts because that’s not what they need or want to do as bloggers.

However, journalists for the most part, have the training, experience and resources to report the news far better than almost any blog writer can. Their job is getting the story right and relaying it to the public. They have the resources and time to go deeper into it so that their final product isn’t opinion based on minimal information.

But, why should the public pay attention if they fail to go deeper into the story and create a better product than blog writers are able to?

Access alone doesn’t equal news-worthy. Being employed by a news production company isn’t itself attention-worthy.

Getting to the bottom of stories and providing all the facts, or as many as can be found, in a understandable and unbiased fashion is news reporting and what should be separating more journalists from bloggers.

Anyone can watch the wire services, other web sites or Press Release distributions for information to regurgitate. Educated research and the resources for  follow-ups and fact digging is where journalists have the advantage, if more of them were using it wisely maybe more of us would still be paying attention.

I’ll end this here because The Daily Show is about to start…

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: daily show, journalism, news, reporting

I would completely disagree with that assumption.

Having spent years in a union position myself while working for the USPS. I can’t think of a single reason why unions wouldn’t also support a merit based pay scale that is fair to labor and management.

Despite the opinions of many, unions aren’t designed to simply “get everything they can” from management. Unions exist to protect workers from exploitations, period.

Have there been abuses by various union leaders over the years? Absolutely. Like any organization run by people, unions are susceptible to being mislead by the greed and even malicious human faults of their leadership.

However, that doesn’t mean that every union leader or local is under such negative influence.

A merit based pay system which doesn’t rely on artificial testing scores–which are bad for our children–nor unobtainable objectives–which would be unfair to the teachers; seems on the surface to be something that teachers’ unions could accept and quality teachers could excel with.

Having belonged to one of the largest and strongest unions in the nation while at the USPS, I never witnessed anything that made me think the union was acting against management or efficiency reforms.

In fact, of the few instances where an employee acted out-of-line and I wrongly expected the union to circle the wagons to protect them, what I actually saw was the union ensure the employee received proper representations and that any disciplinary actions were within the parameters clearly spelled out in the labor agreement that both the union and management had accepted.

In other words, the union acted to protect the employee from exploitations, but not from deserved disciplinary actions. It did what it was supposed to, but no more.

I saw first-hand during my time with the USPS that unions can and do perform a vital function in the workplace, but that isn’t to block management just for the sake of blocking management as many people wrongly believe.

As the President talked today of rewarding teachers who excelled I didn’t hear anything that I felt a union would necessarily oppose provided those rewards weren’t created in such a manner as could be used to exploit teachers who didn’t always excel.

That’s the balancing act that must be performed with a rewards system for fairness. It’s perfectly acceptable to reward the best, provided you don’t also punish the average.

It isn’t about protecting bad teachers or blocking the rewards of top teachers. What the unions should be concerned with is simply protecting the majority of teachers who are going to fall into the “come to work and do their job” category. Those who neither excel nor under-perform, but do what they’re supposed to every day.

As long as that protection is included in any reward or reform systems going forward I don’t see the teachers’ unions objecting too loudly to them.

Related Writings

• Specter’s Change and the Next Two Years
• Obama Getting on the Job Training
• Obama’s Starting to Sound Better
• Hopeful The Change Will Be Revolutionary, But Obama May Blow It Yet

Technorati Tags: merit pay, Obama, teachers

So where does the credit lie? For President Obama, who has been appointed “savior” of the United States? Well, no. What about Tim Geithner, who has taken time out of not paying taxes in order to rescue us all? Well, not him either.

It was George W. Bush.

While some of his policies initially weakened the dollar, some of his last policies in office helped the dollar rally and may be able to make our economy stronger in a couple of years.
How did he do it?

1. By helping to inflate the banking industry, we got a jump on other countries. And while this spending may have been too much, it was able to keep the dollar from collapsing.

“The U.S. was one of the first nations to respond to the weakness with aggressive monetary policy measures. So it could be one of the first countries out while Japan and Europe might be the last ones out,” said Kathy Lien, director of currency research at GFT, a foreign exchange and futures brokerage firm.

2. By pushing forth pro-drilling and pro-alternative energy policies, he made it clear that the United States would try and solve its own energy needs. This helped bring down oil prices, which helped strengthen the dollar.

Unfortunately, today we are spending well beyond our means. If we continue this, inflation will rear its head again and we will face a declining dollar.

Originally posted at Jumping in Pools.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Fighting Against Problems

We’re all passionate about something, and often passionate about numerous things. Maybe you care most about reversing Global Warming, or want legislation that restricts or bans abortions, or maybe your passion is for getting Nipple Clamps to be socially accepted as fashionable outer-wear.

Whatever the causes may be, there’s probably something that matters deeply enough to you that you would be willing to get involved and be active on some level.

So here is my question, when you are active, involved and participating–are you spending your efforts fighting against the problems you see, or for solutions to them? There is a difference in the two approaches.

I recently wrote a review of The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones, and he touches on this in a much more eloquent way than I ever could when he puts it simply as seeing “issues vs. solutions”.

Issues are often equated to problems and promote thoughts of the  more negative aspects of society which can prompt people to tune out your message while solutions represent hope and the better characteristics of society; all suggesting that the perspective from which you begin and focus your efforts has a direct impact on “if and how” you will gain support and bring about the change you desire.

Working for Solutions

When you begin by expending energy fighting against the problems of your cause, rather than working towards the solutions you setup a situation where anyone who thinks or feels even slightly different than yourself is naturally placed on the defensive.

And that forces you to become more aggressive, and ultimately everyone is fighting to win–often silly–semantic debates rather than working to find practical solutions that could be agreeable to all.

I’m guilty of this myself. I’m deeply passionate about Green Technologies. I believe they offer not just a cleaner and safer future, but a far more economically sound future that offers more–and better–jobs for people of all backgrounds; from laborers to CEO’s.

Yet I’ve spent far more time engaging with those who oppose change and want to continue relying on limited and dirty energy than I have spent helping to actually advance Greener solutions.

Because I’m typically positioned firmly against the continued reliance on fossil fuels, I’ve framed much of my activism from that perspective. I’ve wasted time trying to “win the debate” with others who are as deeply rooted in their positions as myself, rather than investing my efforts in helping those willing to listen to understand how shifting to green technologies will benefit them, their communities and our nation on multiple fronts.

Problems or Hope

I don’t think any of us needs to change the topics we believe strongly in (well, maybe those of us supporting Nipple Clamps as acceptable outer-wear), but it sure wouldn’t hurt the cause if some of us spent more time being for solutions from the start and wasted less time and energy being against the problems or our opponent’s positions.

So, what are you passionate about, and are you fighting against the problems or for the solutions?

Related Writings

• I’m Decided, It’s None of the Above

Technorati Tags: Activism, debate

Back in December some representative sent me a copy of “The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems“, and I feel terrible that I can’t recall who it was that sent it to me to give them credit–so if it was you please drop me a note and I’ll make up for my lax memory in a future posting.

It took me a while to get to the book between the Holidays and my already large reading list, but I finally did and just finished it this week and really wanted to share it with everyone here.

It’s no secret that I’m passionate about a Greener future, and I’ve talked numerous times about how I view the divisions between those who want to work towards more Green and those who fear it as just some false idealogical agenda, or fear some unknown adverse effects from becoming more Green are so frustrating to me because I know these fears have been invented and propagated by self-serving Industry and individual entities.

However, like many of my peers, I acknowledge that when I engage in this discussion I do so from my own narrow perspective and position. And while I believe it to be correct, the approach typically isn’t very constructive or useful to progress.

Which is why The Green Collar Economy has me so excited. Van Jones really went the extra mile in thoughtfully explaining how all interests will be better served by a Green future.

He doesn’t pander to any single group, but rather conclusively shows that the Business Community, (often elitist) Environmentalists, Labor Workers and Groups as well as warriors still standing on the front line of Civil Rights activism can and will all share in better times and advancements of their individual agendas by working together on Green solutions to our problems.

From the very first page Jones makes it clear that his vision of a Green Economy is not about eating Tofu, but rather about wearing hardhats. It’s about guiding Government into being a partner rather than a babysitter to individuals and Industry. And it isn’t about forcing any group or Industry into changing, but rather making clear how willingly changing is going to increase their bottom lines so that they will make better choices on their own.

And he shows exactly how the financial troubles we’re living in today are directly connected to the dirty paths we’ve been traveling, as well as how the long-term solutions to our economic woes are directly connected to walking cleaner and Greener paths tomorrow.

Regardless of your political leaning or what you believe on Global Warming, pro or con, I believe you’re going to find ideas and concepts in this book that will cause you to pause and reconsider your established positions.

So check it out and be sure to come back here and let me know what you think of it.

I really hope some of you will check out this book. I’m providing links to it on Amazon.com for you, but I’d also encourage you to just visit your local library and grab it if you don’t want to pay for it.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: book review, green collar economy, van jones

And so, what will our government do about it? We’ve increased our border patrol along the Rio Grande and have sent some National Guard troops, as well. However, the plans for the southern border fence have been scrapped and we’re still at a loss about what to do.

Originally posted at Jumping in Pools.

And now our own reports call Mexico close to a “failed state.” Mexico’s government has sent troops into violent areas, only to see the attacks continue. Beheaded bodies are found frequently and local officials are corrupt.

What President Obama can do:

* Deploy up to 50,000 additional border patrol and National Guard troops along the border in order to stem the flow of illegal drugs and aliens.

* Ask Congress to complete the southern border fence, reaching from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico.

* Sell the Mexican military our excess or outdated recon planes, armored personnel carriers, and perhaps some modern UAVs to patrol their troubled areas.

* Deploy UAVs along the border, linked to local military and border patrol stations.

* Ask Colombia to send some anti-terrorism experts to Mexico in order to stop the cartels and stem the drug trade.

* Announce the establishment of military tribunals for non-citizen drug cartel leaders suspected of murder in the United States.

* Announce restrictions on Mexican goods if additional drugs are brought into the country.

Whether the new President will do this is another thing. However, any actions he takes should consider the integrity of our borders and attempt to work with the Mexican government against these agitators.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Republicans in the Senate have been delaying the passage of the Stimulus Bill by feigning shock and fear-mongering to the American people over various portions of the Bill which account for far less than 10% of the entire spending.

Now, certainly the amount isn’t my issue. I don’t want a penny of wasted spending because those are my pennies and I want them used wisely.

But lets be non-partisan and objective for just a moment and look at it realistically.

This stimulus plan has 2 honest objectives, both of which are critical to seeing our economy rebound and prosper into the future.

First, it must create a lot of immediate new jobs for today. The so-called “shovel in hand” jobs that you’ll hear elected officials and pundants speak of.

And second (and equally important), it must create trained workers for tomorrow. This means investing in ourselves and our children on a sincere scale. The jobs of tomorrow do not require strong backs and brute force capabilities, they require strong minds and efficient time usage if we’re going to compete in the global markets.

You can’t separate these two goals. Newly created jobs are great and put people to work today, but those bridges, roads and building we’re updating and creating are temporary projects, and these new jobs will vanish in a short period of time.

At that point we had better be ready for what will be required from our work force or we’ll find ourselves in the same position and without infrastructure rebuilding to rely on again for stimulus job creation.

So when I hear Republican Senator’s ranting about the Pell grant and other educational and scientific projects inclusions in this plan its like listening to someone scrape their fingernails on a chalkboard.

The only positive to these Republican stall tactics is knowing that our young people who are affected most by them are engaged and paying attention to what our leaders do and say now. These delays, and those committing them will be remembered and ‘rewarded’ appropriately in their individual re-election bids.

Honestly, I’ve written ad nauseam on my disdain for wasteful Washington spending, but I have yet to hear from Republicans in this pseudo-standoff of a single thing in the Bill that doesn’t fall into one of the two prime objectives of the plan, and many fall under both objectives.

For example, one Senator has gone on and on about the spending in this Bill for upgrading some federal vehicles. This same Senator supported giving taxpayer’s money to the auto-industry in a bailout package, but apparently he has a problem with asking them to work for taxpayer dollars like this specific project point would? Yes, I see that as feigned outrage.

A group of Senators want cuts from the Bill to IDEA funding for special education and Title I education funding targeted to economically disadvantaged schools, arguing these have no place in a Stimulus Bill.

Any sane person can understand how investing in education does train tomorrow’s workforce for the actual challenges they’re going to face, and if we’re still looking at this realistically, the funding will create teaching jobs right now. So these portions fo the Bill actually fall within the scope of both objectives and certainly belong in a sincere stimulus plan.

Another Senator was on a CBS show today and cited funding for the national park service, the census bureau, cleaning up abandoned mines and providing funding for the US Marshals service as areas she wanted to see cut from the Bill.

Is she serious??? Every single one of those creates and funds jobs. Exactly which part of creating jobs and work as an objective for stimulating the economy does she not understand?

Oh wait, maybe she’s one of those Republicans, yes, there are a few who are using this delay and these individual items along with their fear-mongering slanted descriptions in order to impose their personal agenda of forcing federal funds from this Bill to be permitted to be used for religious teachings and activities.

For them, including educational funding in this Bill is perfectly fine, just as long as those dollars can be used to benefit and spread their mythological beliefs.

This is all partisan, idealogical GARBAGE AS USUAL!

This is hurting our nation!

I hope this is remembered at election booths from coast to coast in the coming years.

NOTE: I am commenting, not reporting, on current events, therefore have refrained from placing specific names in this posting. The officials I refer to and their words and tactics are easily found by anyone who cares to learn them. My goal is not to call out any specific persons, but rather to point out the ridiculous actions of our leadership and their lack of leadership regarding the stimulus plan right now.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: stimulus bill, Washington