Profound Revelations

The Rubberband Theory of Human Nature

2011-07-27T09:10:00.001-04:00

Wow! It's been a long time since I've written in my blog. Thanks to everyone for your requests for more meager words of wisdom. Well, I finally have something else to say.

The world is radically changing, and changing fast, and I don't just mean climate. Since December 2010 the geo-political map in the middle east and Africa has, and is, going through a massive political and social realignment.

This brings me back to my rubberband theory of human nature. I believe that people not just in the Middle East and Africa but anywhere will put up with a lot of crap for a very long time. Each injustice or act of oppression just stretches (picture pulling on a rubber band) the human psyche and core belief system just a little further. The more injustice or oppression encountered, the more the rubber band stretches, further and further, the tension increases dramatically. This is a tremendous amount of collective stored energy.

This stretching and increased tension on the psyche and core belief systems of any particular culture or group of individuals may last for years or decades, until a trigger event, even a relatively small event causes the rubberband to explosively snap back, abruptly releasing its energy all at once. This collective stored energy is what causes dramatic change such as the change we are seeing today. In the case of the Middle East turmoil or "Arab Spring" as it's been called in the media, the event, or trigger can be traced to one individual. Wow! the power of one lone person can trigger the masses to act. Tens, and hundreds of thousands of people almost simultaneously decided they had had enough. Essentally they decided they would all reater die then live like that any longer.

The trigger event in the Middle East/North Africa region can be traced to one sole event, one insignificant individual that finally snapped, caused a domino effect that caused the rubberband to abruptly snap back and release the massive stored energy in hundreds of thousands and millions of people in the region.

In December 2010, a 26 year old man in Tunisia was selling fruit from a cart to support his family. Due to the high unemployment this was one of his only options. The police came around and knocked his cart over and harassed the fruit seller. In a desperate act of dispair and protest against government oppression, the man set himself on fire.

This one lone act of self immolation was the trigger that caused the collective energy of millions to snap. This one lone act triggered a revolution that brought down the opressive government in Tunisia. The more oppressive the government became, more and more people reacted (snapped back). This massive amount of stored energy brought down the government and created a new society.

This one successful event bring down an oppressive governments in one country after another, and started the domino effect that brought down the dictator in Egypt and caused massive ongoing unrest and protests in Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, Libya and others. Some governments fell others were forced to make massive concessions. These events are still playing out now.

The advent of instantanous 24 hour news cycles, facebook, twitter, camera phone photos and video helped to provide the spark that released the stored energy in millions of individuals in the region.

Thus the rubberband theory of human nature. The energy released continues to send shock waves throught the region.

What an interesting time we live in.

Your comments or additional examples are always welcome.

Tom Dye, The Safety Guy

The Politics of Education

2010-03-16T14:43:00.000-04:00

AUSTIN, Texas - A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

For those of you who don't know Texas has the largest number of school age children in the nation and most school book publishers are in the state. So, when Texas wants changes, these essentially become the curriculum for the entire nation no matter how wacky or bizarre it may be. Elected officials on the school board "vote" for changes and adopt standards.

I find the entire concept of "voting" for changes in American History to be a bizarre notion in itself. History is history, it either happened or it didn't. We don't get to change it just because we don't like it, or personally agree or disagree with it. It is what it is. Beside what do a bunch of elected school board officials know about American History anyway? Aren't these people the product of these same school systems?

We were always taught that history was written by the winners. I wasn't aware we had another revolution. Even that doesn't change the facts because it still happened weather you choose to acknowledge it or not. Beside during the last election these "Conservative, Republican Fundamentalists" lost by a landslide. So now we are letting these wing nuts re-write American History to suit their personal bias and alternate realities?

Seriously, this is one of the greatest crimes attempted to be perpetrated on American Society in recent times. This is nothing more then a throw back to the Nazi Propaganda Ministers and their revisionist views of history.

If this nonsense is allowed to stand we will do nothing more then create an entire generation of anti-intellectual UN-informed idiots with no accurate understanding of the complex processes that shaped and continue to shape this great diverse nation.

Per Huffingtonpost.com, Below are some of the most egregious proposed changes the "Elected" school board is trying to ram through.

The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum's world history standards on Enlightenment thinking, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

"Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state." “I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.

The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

"Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include 'how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.' The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States."

"They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about 'the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.'" The Dallas Morning News noted that "high school students will learn about leading conservative groups from the 1980s and 1990s – but not about liberal or minority rights groups."

"Board member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, objected to a standard for a high school sociology course that addressed the difference between sex and gender. It was eliminated in a 9-to-6 vote. She worried that a discussion of that issue would lead students into the world of 'transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else.'"

"Members voted to polish up references to the American 'free enterprise' economic system and removed most mentions of 'capitalism,' a word that board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said has a negative connotation."

"Board members also rejected requiring history teachers and textbooks to provide coverage on the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while the late President Ronald Reagan was elevated to more prominent coverage."

With all five minority members dissenting, the conservative-dominated panel voted 10-5 to endorse the proposed standards after rejecting an effort to specifically mention that Tejanos were among the fallen heroes of the Alamo. "I am very distressed," said Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who sponsored the unsuccessful amendment. "Until we are ready to tell the truth about history, we don't have a good history or social studies textbook."

Here's a novel idea, instead of elected individuals determining what school children are taught and obviously injecting their own personal belief systems and alternate realities into the mix, why don't we have experts do it. Yikes! what a crazy thought that is. But seriously..

Wouldn't it make more sense to create a national student curriculum advisory board composed of this countries greatest experts in the field, e.g.- Top university scholars and other nationally recognized experts to create a curriculum for students based on the facts instead of personal, political or religious bias? Wow! what a concept it just might be crazy enough to pull off.

What do you think?

Regards,

Tom

Will the Coffee Party Movement be a transformative force in American Politics or is it Doomed to Fail?

2010-03-02T11:10:00.004-05:00

The Coffee Party Movement has only a few basic philosophical premises, and it is made clear in their Mission and "About Us" Statements. The Mission Statement says: "The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them."

I have already posted an overall view on how the coffee Party started it can be found here: http://profoundrevelations.blogspot.com/2010/02/coffee-party-usa-political-storm-is.html

This time I am exploring another point of view that explores the basic premises and core beliefs of the collective individuals that bind us all together as citizens of the United States of America.

The simple mission statement of the Coffee Party Movement is filled with both great promise with equal parts extreme peril.

Whether the Coffee Party Movement continues to grow extremely rapidly as it is now and becomes a major force in American politics (which I sincerely hope it does) or fades away to become just another footnote in the history of American political movements will depend on how well they are able to understand and channel basic political belief systems coupled with Sociological insights. These factors need to be properly channeled and balanced on a razors edge.

Don't get me wrong I am a huge supporter of the Coffee Party Movement and I contribute regularity in the forums. I post under the user name Tom. The purpose is this post is strictly to inform Coffee Party Members and potential members of the perils and pitfalls of a purely grass roots movement.

The Coffee Party's greatest strength is they truly believe in Government and the collective will of the people. This belief is also the greatest pitfall as individual members may believe that with enough honest discussion everyone else will see their point of view. This belief or mirror to reality is an illusion and is doomed to fail. Am I insinuating that the Coffee Party Movement will fail? Absolutely not. As long as we understand the basic core belief systems of American's and their political beliefs, we can avoid these pitfalls, only then can we prevail and become a major force in American Politics.

Who are the individuals who make up the entity we call the Coffee Party Movement? My personal observations after reading virtually all the posts in the forums, and contributed to many is, .the Coffee Party Movement is made up of every stripe of the political spectrum.

There are obviously a few Conservative Republicans, some Conservative Democrats, and a large mixture of Moderates (or Centrists), Independents, Pragmatists, Progressives, Liberals and even a few individuals who lean towards Socialism. I think it's fair to say that a majority are Independents and Centrist to Liberal Democrats. This is a pretty diverse group.

For such a diverse group with radically different points of view, and who believe in different and often opposing plans for action the group is truly amazing civil in their interactions and discussions in the forums. Different points of view are discussed and debated with little name calling or disrespect. The different opinions on beliefs and what sort of activism we should be doing is truly all over the board. I actually believe that this is one of the major strengths of the Coffee Party Movement.

How refreshing to be able to have a civil discussion with people of different beliefs and not to have to fear that you may be shouted down or ridiculed in the process. To be honest I actually find it hard not to spend an inordinate amount of time on the site just to read and contribute to the latest posts that I find to be interesting for whatever reason.

Now for the potential pitfalls of such a diverse group. Let's look at some specific examples:

If I were to have a debate with a person of equally strong but opposing political beliefs e.g.- an Ultra Conservative Republican or Tea Party Member Vs. a Progressive or Liberal Democrat, and I laid out a respectful, honest dialog, and presented indisputable facts, the other person will eventually come around to my point of view!, Right?

Wrong. This belief is absolutely false.

Sociologists and Psychologists have done numerous studies on the political belief systems of Americans. It has been pretty well established that these opposing belief systems are almost hard wired into a particular persons thought processes. It is almost as if we were to both look at the exact same picture we each interpret it differently depending upon our own version of reality.

A more real world example of this is I have a really, really close friend he is a guy in his mid thirties and he is a hardcore Conservative, maybe "Conservative" is not a strong enough label, I like to think of him as more of a Libertarian Tea Partier. We have had thousands of hours of intense political discussions, and neither one of us has budged not even one inch in our belief systems. I am certain that most everyone has had a similar story in life so I won't dwell on it any further.

The point is Sociologists have done studies that conclusively show that that if you receive information no matter how well laid out or scientifically proven, individuals with strong belief systems will reject it out of hand if it does not match their particular view of reality. Religion and politics are very similar in this manner.

It has also been determined that it doesn't depend upon rather we trust the particular messenger or not. People who absolutely do not believe in climate change would not believe either Al Gore or Newt Gingrich delivering the same message. They will just look for someone else who espoused the same beliefs as them, and latch onto those facts, no matter how unsubstantiated they may be.

Of course, this is really an example of trying to convert someone such as a hardcore Tea Party believer and converting them to even a "Centrist" Democrat. Seriously, it won't happen, no matter what you say or do.

The founding fathers who formed this nation did not have political parties, those came later. The founding fathers were however of two opposing political beliefs, One camp was called the Federalists, who believed in a strong central government and the other camp was known as the Anti-Federalists, who believed in a weak federal government with stronger states rights and powers.

These opposing beliefs were so strong that the United States Constitution was almost not ratified if it were not for what was known as "the great compromise". For those readers not fully familiar with the "Great Compromise", the great compromise as defined by Wikipedia - "On July 16, 1787, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise for a bicameral, or two-part, legislature consisting of a lower and upper house.In favor of the larger states, membership in the lower house, as in the Virginia Plan, was to be allocated in proportion to state population and candidates were to be nominated and elected by the people of each state. A census of all inhabitants of the United States was to be taken every 10 years. Also all bills for raising taxes, spending or appropriating money, and setting the salaries of Federal officers were to originate in the lower house and be unamendable by the upper house. In exchange, membership in the upper house, however, was more similar to the New Jersey Plan and was to be allocated two seats to each state, regardless of size, with members being chosen by the state legislatures. Members of the Upper House, or Senators, were elected by the State Legislature until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators by the people". The compromise passed after eleven days of debate, by one vote—five to four.

It is not too much of a stretch to say that many of us are descendants of these opposing political beliefs. The Tea Party members instinctively believe in a constitutionally limited Government (Anti-Federalist belief system) which in reality, and historically never really existed, as the Federalist's won the argument. Meanwhile Democrats instinctively believe in a strong central Government (Federalist belief system). These two opposing belief political philosophies cannot be rectified by honest and open political discussion.

So is there any value in letting these individuals draw us into a debate? How can we counter their influence in politics and make our voices heard as the voice of reason to a majority of American Voters?

Doe's this mean that with civil discourse and honest discussion, we can't bring anybody over to our way of thinking?

Yes, we can.

While many on the far opposite of the political spectrum will not come around to our way of thinking, a majority of individuals do not have a particularly strong opinion on any particular issue. These are the first time voters, non-voters, Independents and disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats.

These are the individuals without hard wired beliefs and convictions, and these are the people who the Coffee Party Movement can attract, and persuade to become a united voting block of believers in the Coffee Party values of a free and fair Government, civic participation and honest dialog. If it is approached just right you may even be able to reach a limited consensus with members of the opposing political belief system on some issues, but not many.

The Tea Party tactics and protests have left a lot of people on edge. The extremism expressed by the Tea Party movement make many, many people uneasy. The opposite end of the spectrum are the Liberals also leave individuals uneasy because of their unbending uncompromising stance on certain issues. Many people view this as just as extreme, but on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

A good example of a major figure who was part of the Liberal Democratic wing was the late Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy of Massachusetts a.k.a. - The Liberal Lion of the Senate. He was either the most loved politician in modern times, or the most hated, depending on your political beliefs. Doe's this sound anything like a certain new young President?

In simpler terms, Most Tea Party Members and Libertarians believe with every fiber of their being that the only form of Government should be a free market economy with little Government regulation, while Democrats, just as strongly believe that "Unregulated Capitalism is the greatest threat to Democracy".

Many, Many, people in America believe that America's politics are hopelessly broken. Our elected officials can get virtually nothing done, no matter how much philosophical agreement is apparent between the parties. If one or the other agrees or disagrees it shows signs weakness, and factors into their perpetual re-election prospects. All decisions are based on polling numbers, and spin doctors. Big corporations and special interests donate amazing sums of money, and and receive face time with our elected officials that we could never imagine.

How many of you had tried to meet with your elected official? How did that work out for you? These are the beliefs of a majority of Americans, and this is where the Coffee Party can have the greatest and most long lasting impact on reforming American Politics. These are the people who are most receptive the the Coffee Party's message and mission.

These are the individuals who believe or want to believe in American Politics, they are willing to compromise and are open to new ideas. These people are open to both sides of an argument and are willing to hear both sides of an argument and form their own opinion based upon the facts presented.

These are the masses who are totally disgusted with Washington Gridlock, Obstructionism, and Special Influence. These are the people who crave for something more and have always believed that it was not supposed to be like this. They have most likely given up and are prepared to sit out the next election and the next one after that.

These are also the individuals who may have enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama and believed in his message of "Hope" and "Change" and are now disillusioned and demoralized because President Obama has been unable to fulfill his promises or implement his vision for America.

This gridlock is obviously mostly due to the obstructionist policies of the Republican Party and corporate and special interests in Washington, and the yes, the Democrats as well for being paralyzed over fear of losing the next election. All this, coupled with the bizarre spin from certain media outlets like Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and special interest groups have given rise to, and legitimized the fringe elements like the John Birch Society and the Tea Party Movement. These minority elements were were-co opted and encouraged by powerful political and corporate interests making for a confusing political landscape at best.

This is where the Coffee Party's message resonates loud and clear with a huge majority of Americans, this message of civil and respectful discourse, non-obstructionism and a belief in Government is what most Americans instinctively believe in. Without sounding too partisan, this is what Barack Obama meant when he said "We are the ones we've been waiting for".

So how can the Coffee Party really make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans? What could possibly be done to at least bring all these desperate groups to the table and at least talk with the goal being to have an honest and respectful dialog, to attempt a more complete understanding of each others wants and needs? Is it possible to at least talk compromise, and actually get something done?

This is the million dollar question, and it just happens to be another basic premise of the Coffee Party Movement. This statement is included in the "About Us" section of the Coffee Party website. I believe that this is the most basic, trans-formative and idealistic political statement of all. It is also by far the most important..... It is: "We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions."

Wow! these are powerful and trans-formative words, should this come to pass it will change the landscape of American politics as we know it. It is also the most difficult to achieve.

This is the one area where we can find common ground with even the Tea Party Movement. After all Special Interests and Corporate Influence do not necessarily coincide with their beliefs either. After all, a corporation exist only to make a profit and Special Interests are exactly that, "Special narrow focus interests". They do not represent the 'Big Picture interests of the American Public as a whole.

We do not have to look very far back in history to catalog all the corporate abuse and excess against the people, weather it be financial, industrial, resources, etc. "We the People" have much broader concerns, e.g.- Clean water, Clean Air, Health Care, Safe Work Places, Secure Retirement, Fair Wages,Security, Education, Defense, Poverty, Hunger, A Fair Justice System, Climate Change, Infrastructure, Equality, A Good Economy, Nice Safe Homes and Neighborhoods, etc. the list goes on and on. Many of these wants and needs by " Of The People" are in direct opposition to corporate and special interests wants and desires.

Am I anti-corporate America? No! absolutely not. There are some very responsible corporations in America who strive to make our life better and I applaud them. I believe that Corporate and Special Interests should not have a greater voice in Government them me or you. They should not get special access to our elected officials, when I cannot. The politician's in Washington were voted into office by the collective will of "The People.

Just because Corporate or Special Interests have more money then me or you how come they yield so much greater leverage and power then "We the People"? I 'm sorry but my vote is not for sale. I am going to repeat myself again -"Unregulated Capitalism is the greatest threat to Democracy". Corporations often oppose sensible well thought out regulations simply because they feel that it may somehow impact their bottom line, no matter what the impact may be for the rest of us. Special Interest lobbies for certain "favors" that only benefit a few instead of the many.

This is the one premise of the Coffee Party Movement that holds the greatest promise and opportunity. As I stated earlier it is by far the most difficult to achieve. Corporate and Special Interests are fully woven into the fabric politics. Polls always consistently show that a vast majority of Americans are against the undue influence of Corporate and Special Interests. It goes back to our fundamental belief of one person-one vote. Money is the ultimate corruptive influence in America today, and the Corporations and Special Interests have lots, and lots of it to spend.

The recent Supreme Court decision essentially granting "Corporations" person status is a travesty of justice and sets back 70 years of practice and 35 years of law. You can read more about it here: http://profoundrevelations.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-corporations-of-united-states-of.html 80% of the people oppose this decision, and rightfully they should. This will make the Coffee Party Movements mission harder but not impossible.

Let us not forget that this problem will not be fixed today, tomorrow, next week or anytime soon. But if we persist it will happen someday. If we let the past guide us there has been several political activist movements that were ultimately successful.

If we can somehow limit corporate and special interests along with the alternate history and realities they spin to brainwash the populace to gain influence is it really possible that we may one day be able to have true political dialog and discussion? Would the opposition parties be more willing to work together towards a mutual beneficial compromise? Could we actually legislate and create law that is for the ultimate good of the country? Could the "Tea Party" and the "Coffee Party" find common ground on some issues? Only time will tell.

Is the Coffee Party Movement going to grow to be the transformative force in American politics? or will be mostly forgotten and relegated to just another footnote in American history? Only time will tell.

History does not judge us by our words alone, we will judged on our deeds and actions.

I for one am betting that the Coffee Party Movement will ultimately prevail. I am looking forward to the day when I can tell my grandchildren, I was there, and we did make a difference.

Finally, for those of you in public office. I will say to you, we are watching and listening. We are growing stronger and larger everyday. We "The People" will be holding you accountable for your actions.

To find out more about the Coffee Party Movement go to: http://coffeepartyusa.com/

Regards,

Tom

Why the Policy of Republican "Obstructionism" is Ultimately Doomed to Failure

2010-02-28T13:48:00.003-05:00

The republican policy of pure "obstructionism" is ultimately doomed to failure. This is an unsupportable position that may and I mean may, yield results in the short term, but in the long term is certainly doomed to failure.

We currently have a fairly elected President who was voted into office with 53% of the vote. President Obama was voted into office because of his platform of change and reform coupled with specific policy proposals and mandates. President Obama has been thwarted in every turn by a wholesale Republican policy of saying "No" to virtually everything he tries to do. Furthermore, The Republicans have resorted to a campaign of distortions, lies, and half-truths. designed to mislead the American public.

This obstructionist policy is ultimately doomed to fail because you are not doing anything for the constituents who elected you into public office. Obviously, if you are a Democrat you are not able to get anything done that the people voted for you to do. This will certainly lead to voter frustration and anger.

On the other hand, if you are a Republican, and a bill passes without you at least compromising on some aspects of the issue, to address at least some of the concerns that your constituents have, then you have not represented their interests either. This also leads to voter frustration and anger.

If either party embarks on a policy of deceit, half-truths and lies, your constituents WILL eventually learn the truth, this leads to an even bigger voter backlash. Your time in public office becomes self limiting due to your own words and actions.

It doesn't matter if you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent; whatever your district or State, you have voters of all kinds of political beliefs and philosophies as part of your constituencies. Do you not have an obligation to represent ALL THE PEOPLE? Wouldn't that entail you representing all their interests whether you necessarily agree or not?

Doesn't the minority (or opposition party) have an obligation to forge a compromise with the majority party to protect the interests of ALL the people you serve? Isn't this the basic premise of our political system? Isn't the United States constitution based upon the basic principals of the "Majority shall prevail as long as the rights of the individual are not abridged?"

History tells us that the United States constitution is filled with compromises between the Federalist philosophy and the Anti-Federalists beliefs. In the end they were both able to come together and forge the basis for out nation that ultimately served the purposes of both beliefs. Have we forgotten these principals so soon?

Have not the Republicans lost their way by trying to encourage and incorporate radical fringe elements such as the Tea Party into the GOP party? Why has the GOP formed a purity test and purged the moderate and liberal elements out of the party. Does this serve the interests of all the constituents in their respective States or districts? Seriously, I believe that this is only self interest and does not serve the people as you were hired to do. It is painfully obvious that corporations and special interests have hijacked our political process.

Wouldn't you be better off going back home, and telling your constituents that you didn't agree with a particular legislation, but you at least compromised to get some or all of the protections and elements included that the people in your district or State wanted? Isn't this what Democracy is all about?

Obstructionism will ultimately fail because in the end you haven't made anyone happy. Eventually, you will have to answer to the voters as to why you didn't do anything that you were hired to do. Could you work for any company in America and just say no everything, and never offer solutions or compromise to get the job done? I think not.

Because of the extreme gridlock and ultra obstructionists in Washington, D. C. a new grass roots movement has taken hold and is spreading like fire. The new movement is called the "Coffee Party Movement" http://coffeepartyusa.com/ the mission statement of the Coffee Party Movement is simple "The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them."

For those of you in elected office who spread lies, half-truths, and distortions, or choose to obstruct everything in Washington, be on notice you will be held accountable for your actions.

Regards,

Tom

Coffee Party USA - A Political Storm Is Brewing!

2010-02-27T15:49:00.006-05:00

The Coffee Party Movement is an accidental movement created from an innocent Facebook Post from Annabel Park. Annabel was expressing her anger and frustration with Washington Politics. Annabel posted a simple paragraph in a response to the growing Tea Party Movement - "let's start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss 'em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let's get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion."

Wow! words are powerful things. The founding fathers of the United States knew this, and yielded the pen in a far more powerful way then any sort of weapon of mass destruction. Annabel Park's simple 44 word Facebook post along with the power of the internet soon created a tsunami of responses from like minded individuals. Resulting in "The Coffee Party USA". http://coffeepartyusa.com/ .

Annabel Park has produced a simple 5 minute YouTube video describing how the movement was founded, it can be found right on the Coffee Party USA's website, I would encourage everyone to check it out for your self.

So what dues the Coffee Party Movement believe in exactly? well according to Coffee Party USA's Mission Statement "The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them."

This sounds well and good. I did some more reading. I read the "About US" page on the site and it contained some more interesting information:

We are diverse — ethnically, geographically, politically, in age and in experience.
We are 100% grassroots. No lobbyists here. No pundits. And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of civic engagement that is solution-oriented, not blame-oriented.
We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions.
We want a society in which democracy is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens participate out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to contribute to society. The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — Democracy — and we must use it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation.

Sounds good right? Seriously who wouldn't agree with these basic premises of Government? Of course, I immediately signed up as a member. My user name is "Tom" on the Coffee Party USA website.

Do I agree with the basic premise that the Coffee Party Movement is a direct response to The Tea Party Movement? No, absolutely not. The Coffee Party Movement is far bigger and infinitely more significant then the The Tea Party.

The Tea Party Movement is not by any means a grass roots movement. Weather the Tea Party realizes it or not, they are not a spontaneous grass roots movement, they are fueled and funded by powerful "Conservative" business, media and political interests who are in direct opposition to President Obama's political agenda.

The Tea Party believers were duped into believing in an America that never existed and never will. They are the ultra right wing fringe that has always existed. Seriously have you seen the horrific signs from the Tea Party Protests, or heard the speeches given at the Tea Party convention? (I have already written about this in previous blog entries so I'm not going to repeat myself here) If it weren't for Fox News, this fringe movement would have already faded back into the woodwork by now. The Republican Party is currently trying to co-opt these right wing-nuts, it will ultimately be to their detriment and eventual downfall, and frankly, I think they deserve it.

The Tea Party certainly doe's not represent my personal views or the views of the vast majority of Americans. Historically, you can't control the fringe elements of society, and if you try..well as the old saying goes "if you play with fire you will get burned".

Getting back to the "Coffee Party Movement". The ideals professed are nothing more then the "idealistic" principals of the Democratic Party and most of Americans as a whole. The Democratic party is the big tent party consisting of young, old, Conservatives, Moderates (or Centrists), and yes, even Progressive/Liberals like myself. The modern Democratic party also embraces all cultures, religions, genders, ethnicity, sexual orientations and everything in between We don't have a purity test or try to purge moderates or Progressive/Liberals from the party. That is the exact reason why the Democrats have to debate and compromise on EVERYTHING within the caucus just to get anything done. Is this a liability? NO!, This is the core strength of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party represents the entire cross section of American Society. Is the Democratic party fully successful in it's ideals or potential? certainly not....Enter the Coffee Party Movement.

The Coffee Party Movement is the natural and necessary evolution of American politics in a time of ultra extreme partisan politics, corporate takeover of the American Dream and fringe elements hijacking the Republican Party. When Barack Obama was campaigning for the Democratic nomination he had a slogan "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" I believe that this single phrase is some of the most powerful words ever uttered in modern political history. "We are the ones we've been waiting for" could very well be the foundation of the Coffee Party Movement or the Tea Party for that matter. However, there is one big difference, and this is revealed in the Coffee Party USA's "Mission Statement" and "About Us" sections.

The Coffee Party USA advocates; respectful political dialogue free of corporate influence, the belief that government is not our enemy, but rather the collective will of the people, the support of leaders who promote positive change, and to hold accountable those who obstruct them.

Words are only powerful tools if, and only if, they resonate with the majority of people hearing or reading them, otherwise they fall on deaf ears or are ignored because they do not mesh with our own particular belief system. The "Coffee Party USA" resonates strongly with the majority of Democratic leaning Americans and will in my opinion spread like wild fire. Mark my words, in 2012 the Coffee Party USA will be a powerful voice in American politics.

WOW!! isn't this the exact reason that 53% of all Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 actually voted for him? and what happened? President Obama has been stymied in every turn by powerful interests who consistently try to obstruct the change that he advocated during the election. Has not President Obama tried time and time again to carry out his promises to the American People? I think so. If we had a strong Coffee Party USA a year ago this entire conversation would be a moot point wouldn't it?

I sincerely believe that the "Coffee Party USA" could be a strong voice in the 2010 mid term elections, and depending on how it plays out could be a could be a major player in the 2012 General Elections. The voice of reason always prevails over the absurd and small minded.

So, just who are these people who have signed up with the Coffee Party USA? From my reading and responding to posts on the on-line forums, these people are you and me. (well maybe not if you are a conservative Republican or Tea Party activist) but certainly ANYONE who would consider themselves an Independent or Democratic leaning individual.

Another thing the "Coffee Party USA" forum post's indicate is that there are "Centrist" leaning individuals as well as "Progressive/Liberal" leaning people like myself, there are "Conservative" Democrats, and yes, even some of the fringe Democratic elements advocating eliminating the fed/IRS and the two party system, there are individuals advocating supporting a party platform and some advocating against it, some advocate supporting only one or two issues and some advocating more. Some are obviously young and some are obviously older.

So what is the common thread uniting these diverse political beliefs? What could possibly bring tens of thousands of individuals together under the one umbrella of the "Coffee Party USA"? Isn't it obvious?

We all believe in compromise, we believe in Government, we believe in non-obstructionism, we believe in respectful political dialog, and we certainly believe in civic minded engagement resulting in the advancement and betterment of American society. We believe in politics that are pure and free from the influence of corporate lobbiests and special interest groups. Is this an idealistic point of view? or is this what the founding fathers meant when they referenced "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union"? We the People, these are extremely powerful words. Is this type of thinking idealistic? It's only idealistic if we don't act on it, if we act it, becomes a power that can't be ignored.

Will the Coffee Party USA succeed and become a major voice in American Politics? only time will tell. I for one certainly believe it will. That's why I am a proud member, and I hope you will all join me as well. History will judge us not by our words, but by our deeds and actions that resulted in positive change.

As far as the Coffee Party movement goes I will have another cup, and another,and another...

Regards,

Tom

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) would inspire a great TV Sitcom

2010-02-22T10:53:00.000-05:00

What can I say about Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) that hasn't already been said over and over. The statements that this wing-nut nut job have made over and over, are all over the board from bizarre conspiracy theories to just plain uninformed, uneducated nonsense.

There is however, one angle that has not been addressed. This wacko wing nut has given us enough material to make a great TV sitcom. That's right, a sitcom based on Michele Bachmann would be funnier than "Seinfeld", "Soap" or "All In The Family" combined. Maybe someone should pass this on to NBC, I understand they have a 10:00 PM slot available, but just remember you heard it here first. Call me I have some ideas.

Lets look at the facts. A recent poll in Minnesota indicated that 56% of respondents thought Michelle Bachmann was an embarrassment to the State of Minnesota. Kind of reminds you of a female version of Archie Bunker right?

Michele Bachmann's well known conspiracy theory rants would have been very recognizable in an episode of the late 1970's sitcom "Soap".

Of course, any one of her bizarre rants would have made a great episode of the Jerry Seinfield show.

The Michele Bachmann show would have other great attributes as well. It is well known that Michele Bachmann has a revolving door of senior members leaving from her staff. This would be a great opportunity to introduce regular guest stars on the show who would stay for just a few episodes.

We all know there are always wing nuts elected to politics. I don't know which is scarier, a wing nut like Michele Bachmann being elected or the majority of wing nuts who actually voted for her (more then once). This would be another opportunity to introduce more charters to the show just to keep it interesting. Can you imagine a conversation between Michele Bachmann and one or more of her wing nut supporters? Seriously think about it.

I'm telling you this is award winning material that you just can't make up. You wouldn't even need teams of writers as Michele Bachmann just keeps adding to the already growing repertoire of material that's already in the public record.

If you want to have fun sometime just do a search on Google with the search terms: "Michele Bachmann+Quotes" Just see for your self what comes up it's really quite entertaining in that sort of horrible accident kind of way. I mean you don't want to look but you cant stop yourself either. I often find myself reading with a combination of fear, dread and amusement.

So if anyone's interested in pursuing this project call me as I have lots more ideas. At least give me credit for the concept OK?

If anyone has a favorite Michele Bachman quote or more ideas or story lines for the Michele Bachmann sitcom then feel free to comment, and I will post it for all to see.

Regards,

Tom

For your reading pleasure I have included a selection of Michele Bachmann rants below.

"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America,"

"I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

"Will you let Barack Obama KILL conservatism?" Calling the president a "political street fighter," she says his "agenda is a dagger pointed right at the heart of conservatism."

"Obama wants to use ACORN to radicalize America because he isn't interested merely in defeating conservatives... ...HE WANTS TO ANNIHILATE US! That's the purpose behind ObamaCare, too."

"Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps," "I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps."

Cold Enough For Ya? ...Dedicated to my friend Billy who's moving back to N.J.

2010-02-14T15:47:00.001-05:00

This is dedicated to my really good friend Billy who is moving back to New Jersey at the worst possible time of year....

It's been cold in West Central Florida lately. I mean really, really cold for us acclimated Floridians. It's been in the middle fifties during the day and close to freezing at night. Before all my friends in New England or other cold weather states start laughing at my complaining about the cold you have to understand something. In Florida you become acclimated to the heat I mean it gets like 150 degrees in the Summeer with 110% humidity. It takes like three days for you to fully dry off after taking a shower. I am so acclimated to the heat that opening the refrigerator door makes me shiver, and walking down the frozen food aisle at the super market can lead to hypothermia if the proper precautions are not taken.

Getting back to the cold, I moved from the Northeast because after living in CT & MA for 30 years, I just could'nt take it anymore. I mean in the winter I could bundle myself up so I looked like the Sta-Puff Marshmellow Man and I would still be cold. The cold weather here in Florida reminds me of exactly why I decided to move to a warmer climate.

My reasons for moving to the warm sunny climate of Florida was only partially because of the cold, snow, black ice, salt, taking the trash out and have the wheels pull off the garbage cans because they were frozen to the driveway, all the New Englanders who lived their whole lives there and every single winter forgot how to drive. I mean those reasons alone were more then enough right? Actually that wasent it, it was all the num-nuts that would for some unknown reason, out of the blue, completely out of left field, ask the same assinine question, the question was always the same, "Cold enough for ya?"

I mean seriously what kind of question is that?

For those of you who don't know, in New England it usually starts getting really, really cold in late December or early January. As soon as the first cold snap would hit, I knew it would start. I even tried wearing dark sunglasses or averting my eyes, neither of these tactics worked. I mean here I am bundled up like the Sta-Puff Marshmellow Man shivering, and inevitability someone I knew well, a perfect stranger or possibly a person I knew only in passing would inevitability spring the question "Cold Enough For Ya?

The first ten or twenty times being asked this I would only smile or come back with some sort of snappy sarcastic remark. I mean really what can you say to a stupid question like that.

Time moves on... and I hear the question 400-500 more times, it's really not so funny anymore, I have long ago ran out of places to hide, and my entire repetire of sarcastic remarks ran out long ago.

February comes it's my birthday month so I get a reprive near the end of the month.. March comes and I try to find creative ways to never come out of the house. Hell No, I Won't Go. is my new mantra. The snow is piling up and it's unbelievably cold. Hell, I have actually had to crawl out of the second floor window to rake the snow off the roof so the roof doe'sent cave in. What kind of bullshit is that. Kinda hard to rake the snow when your bundled up like the Sta-Puff Marshmellow Man and you cant put your arms down all the way. Try crawling through a small window like dressed up like that.

March comes and I have heard the same "Cold Enough For Ya? question like 1000 times so far and I start to get dark evil thoughts which is totally unlike me as I am normally a very friendly approachable type of person, and all my plans not to leave the house are obviously unworkable as I have to go to work, the store and whatever. Everywhere I go I live in constant fear of the question being sprung upon me by anyone and everyone. Whats wrong with these people? maybe the cold has affected their thought processes somehow. I don't know and I frankly don't care.

I do however care about my dark thoughts that were running through my head over and over in some bizarre endless loop. I was starting to fantasize things like most people would never imagine. Seriously I was starting to have bizarre fantasies about what I would do to the next person and the Next after that who out of the blue would suddengly ask "Cold Enough For Ya?

In my mind I envisioned that the very next person who sprang the question on me would suffer a fate that was fitting and would cause them to think twice before ever asking such a ridiculous thing again.

I had it all worked out in my partially frozen mind. I would startegically place myself outside near a very cold metal pole you know like a pole for a street sign or something like that. The very next person that even attempted to ask "Cold Enough For Ya? I would reach out with blinding speed, grab their toungue and stick it to the cold metal pole. I started imagining dozens of people found with their toungues stuck to metal poles all over town.

Right then and there I decided thAt I had to move from that ridiculously cold climate. Seriously, I certaintly didnt want to be given a sensational name by the press like the "Pole Bandit" or "Toungue Terrorist". Seriously could you imagine a headline reading "Toungue Terrorist Strikes Again"? Seriously, that would be seriously embarrassing.

So, before things got out of hand I packed up and moved to Florida, The sunshine State, where the only thing you hear all the time is "Another Day in Paradise" Whoa..what a minute, I am starting to get those same dark thoughts all over again. What am I to do now? Theres not a frozen metal pole to be found anywhere in the state. I guess I'll have to think about a plan B.

Regards,

Tom

So What! if China Objects to President Obama Meeting With the Dalai Lama?

2010-02-12T13:16:00.014-05:00

Huffington Post reported on December 11, 2010 that China urged the United States on Friday to immediately cancel plans for President Barack Obama to meet with the Dalai Lama next week, warning the move could further hurt ties.

Are you freaking kidding me? Doe's the Chinese Government really believe that they have the right to object or threaten the President of the United States? They can't possible believe that they have any right or expectation that they can dictate who the President of the United States can or cannot meet with?

We know that two countries on this planet are not always going to agree on everything and we'll have those disagreements," Gibbs said.

Since President Obama has to be politically correct, I will respond for him. Here is my official response to the Government of China - BITE ME! or to quote the Chinese Government's standard line, "Stop Meddling in Our Internal Affairs". Every time the United States or any Government for that matter objects to China's human rights abuses or any other criticism of the Chinese Government "Stop meddling in our internal affairs" is the standard line of defense.

The official website of the Dalai Lama http://www.dalailama.com states: His Holiness is both the temporal and the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. He frequently states that his life is guided by three major commitments: the promotion of basic human values or secular ethics in the interest of human happiness, the fostering of inter-religious harmony and the welfare of the Tibetan people, focusing on the survival of their identity, culture and religion.

His Holiness the fourteenth Dalai Lama is arguably the most un-offensive human being on the planet. He is not a Head of State and does not advocate the separation of Tibet from China just greater religious freedom and autonomy. If any of you have ever had the pleasure to see interviews or speeches by the Dalai Lama you would most certainly agree that no matter what religious affiliation you may belong to or believe in His Holiness the Dalai Lama is truly interesting, engaging and quite obviously a man of peace who always talks about the importance of cultural and inter-religious harmony.

As reported by the Huffington Post - Every U.S. president for the last two decades has met with the Dalai Lama, who enjoys widespread support in the United States, and those visits are considered powerful signs of the American commitment to human rights. Obama told China's leaders last year that he would meet with the monk.

Is His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama such a subversive threat to the Chinese Government that they have to turn it into an international incident every time he meets with a head of state? Is this mild mannered man of peace with the ready laugh and permanent smile on his face so manipulative and powerful that he can turn entire countries against China? WOW! talk about insecurity. Just imagine a world wide army of Dalai Lama Zombies. This sounds way too paranoid to me. I wonder what Dr. Phil would say about that?

Ma Zhaoxu issued the remarks hours after Washington announced Obama would meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader at the White House on Feb. 18. "We urge the U.S. side to fully understand the high sensitivity of Tibet-related issues, honor its commitment to recognizing Tibet as part of China and opposing 'Tibet independence,'" Ma said.The U.S. should cancel the meeting "so as not to cause further damage to Sino-U.S. relations," Ma said in a statement. Ma did not specify what consequences would arise from such a meeting.

Per Wikipedia -The People's Liberation Army (PLA) defeated the Tibetan army in a battle at Chamdo on October 7, 1950. This attack marked the beginning of Beijing’s campaign to integrate Tibet into People's Republic of China. This operation is called a peaceful liberation of Tibet by the PRC government. Hmm, where have we heard the line "peaceful liberation" before? Was it the from the Soviet Union during the communist expansion era?

The Tibetan army did not invade or provoke China, The Chinese Army invaded Tibet, and ever since then has tried to dismantle and eradicate the Tibetan peoples religion and culture. As long as His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and his followers are alive and well this goal of China's will never happen. I for one hope His Holiness the Dalai Lama lives a very, very long and productive life.

Before I start getting comments regarding my stance on this issue let me just say unequivocally that this is not a rant against China, I have nothing against China or the Chinese people as a whole. However, I do believe that in this particular issue The Chinese Government was wrong to invade Tibet, and their subsequent treatment of the Tibetan people.

President Obama, I applaud your stance and courage in this matter, and I am certain that you as the President of the United States and representative of the American people will welcome His Holiness the Dalai Lama with warm hospitality and the dignity and respect he so richly deserves.

President Obama should you read this (although I find it highly unlikely) please offer my regards and best wishes to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, not only from me, but from all the American people as well.

Regards,

Tom

Why are Conservatives Afraid of the American Justice System?

2010-02-11T11:41:00.005-05:00

Christmas Day (attempted) underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was taken into custody by the FBI on December 25, 2009. This is certainly not an unusual occurrence. In fact it happens all the time, and should.

In fact, the mission Statement of the FBI is: To protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners. (I didn’t make this up you can look it up for yourselves).

On the evening of December 25, 2009 John Brennon, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security called a number of senior members of Congress and spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. Mr. Brennon also spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra and explained to them that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. Mr. Brennon went on to say “They knew that in FBI custody there is a process that you follow. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at this point,” Brennan said. “They were very appreciative of the information.”

OK, so an individual is taken into custody (ON US SOIL) and arrested after attempting to blow up Flight 253. Check!
Congressional leaders are notified. Check!
The suspect is interrigated by the FBI and is talking Check!
The suspect is read his Miranda Rights. Check!

Everything is fine and appropriate according to the law, and then comes the shit storm from the political right. Virtually all the Republican leadership in Congress criticized the Obama administration for not turning over Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the United States Military for interrogation (We all now these wing nuts mean turned over to the United States Military so he could be secreted away, held without charges and possibly tortured).

Anyone arrested on United States soil (anywhere outside of a military installation) whether they are a United States citizen or foreigner is constitutionally and by long standing practice the jurisdiction of the FBI and not the Military.

The United States Military’s jurisdiction is outside the borders the United States, to defend the United States from foreign enemies and only on the orders of the Commander in Chief. If you were to stretch the military’s authority and jurisdiction to anyone inside the United States who was deemed to be a terrorist then where would it stop? Don’t we all have constitutional right from being unlawfully imprisoned? Don’t we have the right to an attorney? And the right to a fair trial? No matter what crime we may have committed. Is this basic concept even in question? If it is we need to be afraid, very afraid.

Of course my favorite rant not surprisingly was form the very “intellectually challenged” (notice the political; correctness here) right wing nut, Sarah Palin from Alaska.

In her speech to the Tea Party convention Sarah Palin said: “What followed was equally disturbing after he was captured. He was questioned for only 50 minutes. We have a choice in how to do this. The choice was only question him for 50 minutes and then read his Miranda rights. The administration says then there are no downsides or upsides to treating terrorists like civilian criminal defendants. But a lot of us would beg to differ. For example, there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer before he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. constitutional right to remain silent.”

Of course Sarah Palin failed to mention he was only questioned for 50 minutes because he had to be sent for medical treatment. Only then was he read his Miranda Rights. Or is she insinuating that the United States should deny anyone in their custody basic medical care? Or maybe the largest Democracy should have tortured an injured man (terrorist or not). How does that make us any different from our enemies?

It’s easy to dismiss Sarah Palin because she always rants about issues she knows nothing about and continues to display a profound ignorance if the issues and/or the law. Actually I am beginning to believe that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman both are part of some alternate universe as both of them have a tenuous grasp on reality.

But what is disturbing were statements made by the Republican leadership in congress. The four Republicans immediately took umbrage at Brennan’s comments, saying they were not told of any decision to read Miranda rights to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attacker. E.g.-

“Brennan never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber — if he had I would told him the administration was making a mistake,” Bond said.

Spokesmen for McConnell and Boehner described brief or “courtesy” calls on Christmas Day that did not amount to a full briefing. “During a brief call from the White House, McConnell was given a heads up that Abdulmutallab was in custody, but little else. He wasn’t told of the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman.

Kevin Smith, spokesman for Boehner, said the congressman received a short, unclassified, non-secure call on his cell phone in which he was not told that Abdulmutallab was read Miranda rights.

Seriously, other then Sarah Palin is there anybody in this country that doesn’t know that the FBI always gives suspects in their custody their Miranda Rights? Everyone knows this. These people very obviously should know, and if they don’t know once again we should be afraid, be very afraid.

John Brennon fired back at these wing nuts on Meet the Press and other subsequent statements.

USA Today reports: Obama's top counterterrorism adviser responded to critics of the administration's policies and defended its handling of the failed Christmas day bomber.

Echoing comments he also made on "Meet The Press" John Brennan, the assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for homeland security, said that most critics to the president were "misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."

"Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall," Brennan said.

Brennan said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was "thoroughly interrogated and provided important information," and that senior officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military also supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.

Brennan also defended the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights, something that Republicans have harshly criticized. Brennan said the decision to do so was "a long-standing FBI policy that was reaffirmed under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general."

He added that the most important information was actually obtained from Abdulmutallab after he was read the rights.

"The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation."

Brennan said it was "naïve" to think Abdulmutallab would have been more prone to dispel valuable information if he was transferred to military custody.

"There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical," he said.

"The notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd," Brennan added.

Brennan also charged that critics were being hypocritical, saying that "would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then."

Brennan also sought to highlight successful actions taken by the administration, saying their efforts have "disrupted dozens of terrorist plots," and that they have been responsible for "killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists."

"We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war," he added.

Mr. Brennan said that Abdulmutallab was treated no differently than any other terror suspect arrested on U.S. soil and that the FBI and others involved in his arrest acted appropriately.

"I think those counterterrorism professionals deserve the support of our Congress," he said. "And rather than second-guessing what they are doing on the ground with a 500- mile screwdriver from Washington to Detroit, I think they have to have confidence in the knowledge and the experience of these counterterrorism professionals."

Good for you Mr. Brennon, your obviously a voice of reason and sanity.

FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate that the alleged underwear bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab was talking to intelligence and law enforcement authorities.

"It is a continuum in which over a period of time, we have been successful in obtaining intelligence, not just on day one, but on day two, day three, day four, and day five, down the road," Mueller said. Charlie Savage and Scott Shane at the New York Times subsequently reported that Abdulmutallab's cooperation had been secured in part by the influence of his family, who had been flown in”.

See it just goes to show that bringing in your mother is a better method to get actionable information then any kind of torture. After all no one ever wants to disappoint their family, especially their mother.

And, even more telling, as if that wasn’t enough. The Huffington Post reports: As Republicans take full aim at the Obama administration's decision to let the Department of Justice oversee the prosecution of terrorism cases; it is worth recounting that this is largely a continuation of its predecessor's policies.

On Tuesday, both Newsweek and the Huffington Post reported that GOP lawmakers were wrong to question Attorney General Eric Holder's statement that more than 300 individuals have been tried successfully on terrorism-related charges in criminal court settings. The number may have been exaggerated to make DOJ seem more effective -- but it was a figure used by the Bush administration.

A document from John Ashcroft's Department of Justice in 2005 praises the work done by criminal prosecutors to put terrorists behind bars. "Altogether, the Department has brought charges against 375 individuals in terrorism-related investigations, and has convicted 195 to date," the 24-page memo reads. "While every component within the Justice family has contributed to the fight against terror, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review have led the Department's work to protect America from terror."

So to the Republican leadership and critics of the Obama Administrations policy of lawfully detaining suspects (any suspects terror related or not) Stop playing political games with our National Security. Scare tactics won’t solve the problem. Either get your facts straight and engage in honest and thoughtful political discussion, or SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

Regards,

Tom

69,498,513 voters Vs. Tom Tancredo (Part 3 of 3)

2010-02-09T14:56:00.004-05:00

Part 3 of 3 Go to Part 1 Go to Part 2

Tom Tancredo - Our culture. It’s our flag. It’s our culture. Embrace it. There’s nothing to be ashamed of here. Nothing. And it is our nation. Take it back!

Actually, I'm not sure how to take this statement as I agree with most of it. The scary thing is I really don't believe that you mean it in the same context as I do. I certainly embrace our culture, Although by your previous statements that I have already commented on, I fully embrace our multicultural society and participate and immerse myself in various cultural traditions and values. I fully realize how much this has enriched my life as well as our nation as a whole. You on the other hand have referred this as some sort of a cult, like it's a bad thing. IT IS our nation, who are we supposed to take it back from? as no one has taken it from us.

Tom Tancredo - (Our culture? country?) - is based on Judeo-Christian principals whether people like or they don’t! That’s who we are. THAT IS WHO WE ARE. And if you don’t like it, don’t come here. And if you’re here and you don’t like it, go home!

Whoa! This is the one part of your speech that I have a real issue with, how dare you dictate to me or anyone else what are religious values are or should be. You can't possibly be serious! Granted, the founding fathers were of Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, it ended there. The founding fathers were very wise and did not want to specify any particular religious doctrine on anybody, and were extremely reluctant about incorporating or imposing any religious doctrine into the Constitution of the United States because of the undue influence of the Church of England on British Society.

The founding fathers were extremely clear in the issue of religion. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.

Your statement is in direct contradiction to the wording, intent and meaning of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers were wise enough to realize the pitfalls of undue religious influence in United States politics. The founding fathers, even though they were of Judeo-Christian beliefs did not establish the United States on the Christian religion or any religion. The only rights granted were a guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion (or no religious beliefs) and specifically prohibiting the establishment (state sponsored) of any particular religion. This concept as well as the doctrine of separation of Church and State is deeply established in constitutional law.

Mr Tancredo, you sir have a lot of gall to even begin to insinuate that 'if you don’t like it, don’t come here. And if you’re here and you don’t like it, go home!" Mr. Tancredo, you are the one on the wrong side of history, not only constitutionally, but legally and morally. Maybe you should seriously consider moving your bigoted, racist self serving *** somewhere else, as you have indicated others should do. The founding fathers would be very, very ashamed and disgusted with you, your remarks, and your bigoted opinions. Fortunately, that's not what most the rest of us are.

Final Thoughts... Mr. Tancredo obviously we do not agree politically and I am quite certain we never will. However, I do respect your right to voice genuine and honest political discussion. I do believe that your speech and others at the first Tea Party convention was not genuine or honest political discussion. When you fill your rhetoric with lies and distortions mixed with thinly veiled bigotry and racism this makes you part of everything that's wrong in American Politics.

As a former congressman you must certainly realize that your duty and obligation extends to everyone in your district, and not only those who voted for you or only those that hold similar political beliefs as you. I am shocked that after all the Tea Party protests with protesters making wildly inaccurate statements and displaying extremely offensive signs that you failed to set the record straight. Your silence speaks volumes as to your beliefs and motivations.

I thrive on honest political discussion and dialog. do we have to agree? No. However, if we are honest in our arguments we just may find some common ground to compromise. Compromise is the cornerstone of American Politics, without it absolutely nothing gets accomplished. I believe that 80% of any given issue facing us today in rooted in common beliefs between Republicans and Democrats as well as Liberals and Conservatives. The 20% left over is the area of most disagreement, and here is where we can negotiate. Your type of incendiary comments do little to promote understanding and close the door to any other further discussion.

Elections may be won by individuals espousing nonsense, but you know what? Once they enter the political arena and discover the reality of the situation all those nonsense promises and accusations fly out the window. Then the only thing you end up with is a very unhappy electorate because they rightfully believe (or perceive) that you have lead them astray. Those who stand on the truth, and at least attempt to carry out their promises to the best of their ability are the rare successful leaders that have earned the respect of the voters and their country.

Regards,

Tom

End of Part 3 of 3

69,498,513 voters Vs. Tom Tancredo (Part 2 of 3)

2010-02-07T22:36:00.013-05:00

Part 2 of a 3 part series... Click for Part 1 or Go to Part 3

Tom Tancredo -The revolution has come. It was lead by the cult of multiculturalism aided by leftist liberals all over who don’t have the same ideas about America as we do.
1. The revolution has come. - What revolution? I really wasn't aware that Barack Obama's election could be elevated to revolution status.

I actually believe that your making way too much of the whole thing.

It may make a good scare tactic with ultra right wing-nuts but it really has no basis in reality. I mean really, revolution is a very strong and misleading statement.

Wikipedia defines revolution as:

"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

2.It (the alleged revolution) was lead by the cult of multiculturalism. - Wow!! are you really, really insinuating that multiculturalism is a bad thing? a cult? The United States has always been a multi-cultural society.

Complete change from one constitution to another
Modification of an existing constitution.

Revolutions have occurred through human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes inculture, economy, and socio-political institutions.

Really, by the above definition of revolution, Barack Obama's election in 2008 resulted in a complete takeover of power? a complete change from one constitution to another? or the modification of an existing constitution? Seriously, I think not. What evidence do you have Mr . Tancredo to support this wild allegation? Are you actually implying that President Obama has somehow managed to usurp the three co-equal branches of Government as specified in the United States Constitution? Is the entire Democratic Party and 69,498,513 voters somehow part of this vast conspiracy to over throw the government of the United States? Have we somehow modified our Constitution without holding a Constitutional Convention? Any thoughtful person would have to say ABSOLUTELY NOT! as absolutely none of these revolutionary criteria have been met.

The only thing that you may consider 'revolutionary' about Barack Obamas election was his unique and successful method in how it was run, and how successful he was at getting his message out to the people. I would consider this more of an "evolution" in politics and not a "revolution" as you have been quoted as saying. Barack Obama managed to master the power of the internet and social media sites to maximize his message potential with the masses. Barack Obama bucked the traditional political model that relied on big donors who donated the maximum amount of $2,300 dollars per election cycle. Instead Barack Obama came out in favor of a system of not excepting money from National lobbiests, Corporations and PAC's. This model was weighted heavily towards small donations from tens of thousands of individual donors. This model allowed him to go back to the well of supporters several times for more and more campaign contributions until the $2,300 dollar figure was maxed out. This model also contributed to more transparency and engagement by his supporters. Barack Obama was also able to bring in young voters, first time voters and disillusioned voters with his message of Hope and Change. Is this a revolution? I think not.

In reality, American politics swings like a pendulum back and forth from conservative to liberal and back again. History backs up this as a fact of United States politics, as soon as the pendulum swings too far in one direction it starts to swing to the opposite side, Conservative to liberal and back again. Interesting how it never seems to find it's balance. So can we knock off the nonsense of revolution and call it for what it is? Nothing more then the next swing of the pendulum with the right message, resonating at the right time.

Wikipedia defines multiculturalism as: The acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, for practical reasons and/or for the sake of diversity and applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations. In this context, multiculturalists advocate extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central. "
The United States has always proudly been a multi-cultural society. Many of our holidays and traditions are adapted from foreign traditions and beliefs. It is impossible to calculate the overall impact that Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese, Irish, Italians, Hispanics and many, many others have had on enriching our great society. Multiculturalism has always been the cornerstone of American beliefs. How dare you insinuate that this could somehow be a bad thing. Shame on you.

3. Aided by leftist liberals all over who don’t have the same ideas about America as we do. - Please Mr. Tancredo can't you get any of your facts straight. President Obama was not elected by only Leftest Liberals. Seriously, according to official statistics Barack Obama was elected by a coalition of: White and Blue collar workers,Educated Caucasians, African Americans, Hispanics, Independents, disenfranchised Republicans, First time voters, Young voters, Women and overwhelmingly by Democrats (including I'm sure Leftest Liberals). This coalition equaled 53% of registered voters who voted in 2008 or 69, 498,513 people, elected Barack Obama. In reality the entire voting population of the United States consists of something like ~20% Liberals, ~20% Conservatives, and ~60% somewhere in between these extremes. Additionally many more voters nationwide self identify themselves as Democrats the Republicans and the largest voting block identifies themselves and Independent.

As far as people that presumably elected Barack Obama - who don’t have the same ideas about America as we do. - I'm not really sure what you mean considering you have put forward virtually no factual ideas or facts. If you are referring to a small minority of people who distort facts, history and politics and believe in a United States of America that has never existed and never will, then I guess maybe you are right.

End of Part 2

69,498,513 voters Disagree With Tom Tancredo

2010-02-07T01:07:00.017-05:00

Part 1 of a 3 part series....Click for Part 2or Go to Part 3

January 4, 2010 is a day we should remember. On this date former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado reminded the country that bigotry, racism and ignorance still lives in American Politics. Granted this is not a main stream view and certainly never will be. However, Tom Tancredo's speech on the opening night of the National Tea Party Convention in Memphis, TN does reveal a disturbing ignorance of reality and American History. This is an attempt to put the record straight.

Tom Tancredo was an elected Republican Congressman from Colorado and ran for President on the Republican ticket in 2008. Mr. Tancredo ran on a platform of rabid anti-immigration reform which revealed his obvious racial and cultural bias. Mr. Tancredo is not the first wing-nut to be elected for public office and sadly will not be the last. Other bizarre elected officials in this class include Sarah Palin from Alaska and Michelle Bachman from Minnesota. The scariest part is these individuals actually won elections and were voted into office, meaning at least 51% of individuals in their respective districts or states actually believed or agreed with their hate spewing bizarre world view that is not based on reality, fact or history. Evidently if you spew enough nonsense with enough conviction over and over, sadly enough people will believe it as fact. Thomas Jefferson once said "Democracy is founded on a well educated population" it was true then and obviously it's true now.

OK, lets get back to Tom Tancredos speech at the Tea Party convention on February 4, 2010. This speech was just over the top insanity and 600 people actually stayed and applauded it. I mean during elections we expect to hear some bizarre accusations against their political opponents it's just one of the sad but true facts about American politics, but seriously Tom Tancredo's speech might have well come from an alternate reality or universe. I'd like to discuss and dissect some of his most bizarre key points. Keep in mind 600 people actually stayed and applauded this speech.
Tom Tancredo -"President Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." and "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." "His name, is Barack Hussein Obama."

Ok, lets break down this paragraph into it's four separate components.

1. "We do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." This statement is an obvious reference to the "Jim Crow" laws commonly used in the south to prevent poor and illiterate African -Americans from voting. These racist laws were repealed by the voting rights act of 1965. Since many, many bloggers and news organizations have written extensively about this particular angle I really have nothing more to add except that I obviously agree that it is blatantly a raciest reference on Mr. Tancredo's part.

However, the remarks from Mr. Tancredo and others including; Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and various vocal Tea Party supporters would certainly indicate that If there were a civics literacy test they themselves would fail it and not be allowed to vote, due to their profound mis-understanding and ignorance of American politics and history. I'm not even going to quote Michelle Bachman Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota as her off-the-wall rants are quite well publicized, and as far as I'm concerned I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't come up with a TV sitcom based on her bizarre rants. (If someone doe's come up with a sitcom after reading this I really should get some sort of credit and royalties for my concept, call me I have some ideas).

Here is a less radical statement that's a good example - Jeffrey McQueen of Rochester is a tea party movement believer, He is quoted as saying "All across America, 'we the people' are tired of the fighting between team 'R' and team 'D, our forefathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to build this country, just to have it split in two by political parties"

Sounds like a lofty and utterly reasonable statement. However, it is factually incorrect and far from the truth. The founding fathers were far from unified in their beliefs. The founding fathers of our nation were basically of two opposing beliefs systems; the 'Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" There were no established political parties.
Wiki-Answers has a good definition: "From 1796 to 1828 the first political parties were formed. During the time when our country was in its formative years, two opposing factions arose. Each was concerned with how the new government was to be organized. The Federalists believed in a strong central government and supported the ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, they supported industrialization, a national bank, and government aid to build roads and canals.

The Anti-Federalists strongly supported the rights of the states. They were opposed to a national bank and favored farming over manufacturing. They were firmly against the government helping to further industrialization by building roads and canals.

The Federalists won their cause for the Constitution. However, efforts by the Democratic-Republican Party to influence people to the Anti-Federalist cause eventually weakened the Federalists. By 1824, the party was virtually non-existent." (Note: The Democratic-Republican Party later went on to become the Democratic Party. http://www.consource.org/ has great resources available including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers posted on-line)

From the first constitutional convention to the early days of our nation these beliefs were prevalent. The United States Constitution went through several drafts and revisions in an attempt to accommodate these opposing beliefs. As a matter of fact, these opposing beliefs were so strong that the constitution was almost never completed because of these disagreements. The delegates were hopelessly deadlocked, a compromise was proposed, referred to historically, as the Connecticut Compromise:

From Wikipedia: "On July 16, 1787, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise for a bicameral, or two-part, legislature consisting of a lower and upper house.In favor of the larger states, membership in the lower house, as in the Virginia Plan, was to be allocated in proportion to state population and candidates were to be nominated and elected by the people of each state. A census of all inhabitants of the United States was to be taken every 10 years. Also all bills for raising taxes, spending or appropriating money, and setting the salaries of Federal officers were to originate in the lower house and be unamendable by the upper house. In exchange, membership in the upper house, however, was more similar to the New Jersey Plan and was to be allocated two seats to each state, regardless of size, with members being chosen by the state legislatures. Members of the Upper House, or Senators, were elected by the State Legislature until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators by the people". The compromise passed after eleven days of debate, by one vote—five to four.

2. "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." So by your own twisted fuzzy logic Mr. Tancredo, are you saying that 69,498,513 registered voters or 53% of voting Americans, who voted for Progressive Democrat Barack Obama are somehow either civics illiterate or can't even spell the word vote? I consider myself fairly educated, I also consider Edward Kennedy, Carloline Kennedy, Colon Powell, and at least most of the 53% of registered voters who voted in the general election in 2008 to be reasonably educated and informed. Just imagine 53% of 2008 registered voters voted for Barack Obama, a Progressive slightly left of center Democrat. A man who graduated from Colombia University, Harvard University School of Law, the first African American to become Editor of the Harvard Law Review, a Community Organizer, Constitutional Law lecturer at the University of Chicago, a Illinois State Senator and United States Senator. Wow!.. what are the odds that all these people, in all these states during all those primaries and caucuses and finally the the General Election were all or mostly civics illiterate and couldn't even spell vote were wrong? And to make matters worse Barack Obama is a committed Socialist ideologue?

A committed Socialist ideologue, Socialism? Mr. Tancredo are you freaking kidding me? Do you even know what Socialism is? Obviously not. Wikipedia defines Socialism as: "The various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."

By definition President Obama's policies are not Socialism. President Obama's healthcare plan is no more Socialistic then Social Security, Medicare, regulated banks, regulated business, OSHA, EPA, FDA, FCC, DOT, etc. The United States has never been an unregulated Democracy. Why don't you be really honest with yourself Mr. Tancredo, and admit to yourself that the real truth is that unregulated Capitalism is the greatest threat to Democracy. The United States has never been an unregulated Democracy ever, especially since we gave our consent to create a Legislature in 1787. To make it simple for you Mr. Tancredo, Legislation by the people and for the people by definition is a regulated Democracy. Mr. Tancredo may I suggest that you and your wing nut allies read our American History as evidently you are the one who needs a civics lesson not us.

3."His name, is Barack Hussein Obama." Please Mr. Tancredo you choose to use words as weapons. Your favorites weapons of choice are to emphasize Barack Obamas middle name "Hussein" as if that is supposed to conjure up fear and conspiracy in small minds that somehow President Barack Obama is a secret radical Muslim. Seriously whats in a name? in this case nothing Your charge of President Obama having Socialist ideologies is just another nonsense accusation that really only resonates with the rest of the wing nut micro-minority. Frankly, for the rest of us 69,498,513 Americans and counting this is just getting a little old. It is really a little sad that your prejudice is blinding you to reality. Your ignorance of American history and politics is making you a laughing stock to the vast majority of thoughtful and informed Americans.

End of Part 1. Click for Part 2

Open Letter to Rep.Hunter (R) CA, re: your opposition to Don't ask Dont Tell

2010-02-03T21:25:00.003-05:00

Dear Rep. Hunter,

On February 2, 2010 you did an interview with Melissa Block on National Public Radio (NPR.org). In the interview you voiced your opposition to repealing the 17 year old law "Don't Ask Don'T Tell" (DADT) regarding gays serving "openly" in the military. I have some questions and comments regarding your position on this subject. I would be happy to post your response in it's entirety on this blog should you care to respond.

In the interest of full disclosure and transparency let me first say that I am not a Republican, nor do I agree with your position and furthermore, I am not gay, bisexual, transgender or a hermaphrodite. Obviously I am not a lesbian.

That being said, I do believe in the opening line of the United States constitution which starts with "We the People" I firmly believe this means ALL the people, I believe ALL the people includes: transgenders, hermaphrodites, gays and lesbians. All the people deserve equal rights under the law including their right to serve honerably in the United States military.

In my line of work I have to rely on verifiable data and reputable scientific studies in order to make informed decisions. By using this same logical thinking process I wanted to dissect your remarks point by point. My comments and questions will be in bold and italic so my comments will not be confused by readers as to who they are attributed to. Fair enough?

As I stated above, below is the un-edited transcript of your on-air interview with Melissa Block as aired on National Public Radio (www.npr.org) on February 2, 2010.

BLOCK: You are not in favor of a repeal of dont ask, dont tell. Why not?

Rep. HUNTER: No, because I think that its bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close combat, that are in close quarters in country right now. Ok, this is a pretty strong statement. Is there any studies to support your assertion that gays serving "openly" in the military would somehow undermine the cohesiveness and unity of military units? I was unable to find any sort of study that backs up this assertion. Or with all due respect Rep. Hunter is it possible that your statement is a manifestation of deep seated fears or prejudice of transgenders, hermaphrodites, gays and lesbians? I ask you to look deep down into your thought processes before answering.

Its not the time to do it. When would be the right time? how much longer should we deny some Americans their right to openly serve their country? I think its - the military is not civilian life. And I think the folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians. Again how this is allowing gays to serve openly in the military somehow going to destroy this special bond? Do you have some sort of "secret" study that backs this up? I ask you to look at this from another perspective. I don't know about you personally, but I have several friends who are gay, bisexual or lesbians. We have developed a solid friendship or "special bond" because of similar interests e.g.- art, politics, common interests, etc. Do I feel threatened by their lifestyle? No. Do I feel differently towards my heterosexual friends? No. Do I feel uncomfortable around them? No. Would I protect, stand up for and defend them with the same intensity and fervor as my heterosexual friends? absolutely. I don't see the validity of your point.

BLOCK: Transgenders and hermaphrodites. Seriously? is there some secret plot by transgenders and hermaphrodites to take over the United States Military? Thank God you've informed the rest of of this evil plot. Honestly do you really believe this?

Rep. HUNTER: Yeah, thats going to be part of this whole thing. Its not just gays and lesbians. Its a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you're going to let anybody no matter what preference - what sexual preference they have that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. Its going to be like civilian life and the I think that that would be detrimental for the military. Hold on a minute, time out!! Whats wrong with civilian life? and the rich cross section of American society? Are you actually insinuating that if we let gays and lesbians serve "openly" in the United States Military that it is going open the flood gates to EVERYBODY being allowed into the military? are you serious? You're implying that this will allow convicted pedophiles, serial killers, rapists, bank robbers etc. into the United States Military? I'm sorry but I reject this argument on the grounds that people from all areas of "civilian life" serve our country in various ways e.g.- politics, civil servants, community organizers, and the United States Military. So I fail to see your point.

BLOCK: Was there anything in your experience with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq that made you think that unit cohesion would be a real issue if gays and lesbians who, I think we can acknowledge, are serving in the military now, just not openly, were to be open about their sexual orientation?

Rep. HUNTER: Yeah, I think that the majority of people in the military are they're young kids. They usually have more conservative families, more conservative backgrounds and I think that it would go against their principles and it would frankly make everybody a little bit uneasy to be in these close situations, Again, are you aware of a study or statistics that proves that military personnel are usually conservative or come from conservative backgrounds? I wasn't aware that the United States military kept this sort of data. I was always led to believe that military personnel took an oath to protect, and defend the United States of America. Is this only a conservative value? I believe that this is a UNIVERSAL value whether your a conservative, moderate or liberal.

Furthermore, I am having a tough time with your assertion of a mostly "conservative" military. Lets just look at anyone who ever served in the United States military who has either run for public office or been elected to the United States Congress, Senate, State Assembly, or whatever public office youy can think of including Democrats, Rebublicans, Conservatives or Moderates. There are individuals all over the political spectrum who have served in the United States Military. Many politicians from both sides of the aisle have served in the armed forces including prominent liberals e.g.- John F. Kennedy and John Kerry. Also, my personal experience and interaction with military personnel I have personally known have indicated a large cross section of military personnel have just as large cross section of political, religious and cultural beliefs as the rest of the country or 'civilian life' as you put it. how you go into combat, you know, the shower situation, the bathroom situation, just, you know, very mundane details - things that we have men and women separated, you know, because we dont want to have that sexual distraction. That exists for the homosexual aspect of things, too. I fail to see the sexual distraction angle here. Every US soldier has a job to do and they take that responsibility very seriously. Do you really believe that homosexuals are interested in heterosexuals? Honestly, I believe that this is your personal prejudice or fear manifesting itself. In battle it seems to me that you would not be as concerned with an individuals sexual orientation Vs. their ability to watch your back and be an important part of the team.

BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldnt you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.

Rep. HUNTER: No, but they arent open about it, like you just said. Its like if you want to work for NPR, you dont go to work and on the first day say, hey, I want everybody to know that Im gay. You probably dont care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. I fail to see your point here, who cares if your colleagues are gay as long as their talented and get the job done. So one way or another we don't care. Thats why dont ask, dont tell works.

BLOCK: Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said today in the Senate hearing that hes talked to counterparts in other countries where they do allow gays to serve openly in the military, and there has been no impact, he says, on military effectiveness. What do you think about that?

Rep. HUNTER: Let me answer with this too. Admiral Mullen is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a political appointee. And thats fine, he has his opinion. Secretary of Defense Gates a Republican, and Colin Powell a Republican and principal architect of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy also believe and have testified before Congress that the law should be repealed. Furthermore, the United States has a history of Military Generals publicly disagreeing with the Commander and Chief in regards to Military policy. President Obama's pick for Afghanistan Gen. Stanly McKrystal is a great example of this. But his opinion is not necessarily that of the chief of staff of the Army or the Marine Corp commandant. Isn't this a fundamental question of who's in charge here? But I would say in answer to your particular question, the U.S. is not Canada and were not Great Britain and I would argue that we have a superior military and a much larger military than any other country. Thats why were kind of the world's security force. I actually agree with this statement.

BLOCK: Congressman Hunter, I have been looking at some polling a Gallup poll that was done in May of this year - that shows more people in this country, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military than five years ago. Do you think the climate has really shifted on this since Congress took it up back in 1993 and that the times changed?

Rep. HUNTER: Maybe civilian-wise it has. But I can show you polls that are inter-military polls that show they havent changed. What polls?I Can I see them? in this study that Secretary Gates set up for one year, were going to find out what the Marine Corp commandant thinks. Once again who's in charge? Were going to see what General Casey and the Army thinks. Once again who's in charge? Were going to see what the, you know, from private first classes in Marine force recon to Army rangers, were going to see what they think about this and I think that will be quite telling. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, and as United Stated servicemen and women they will follow orders. I wasn't aware that the military was a democracy. If so would they have voted to go invade Iraq? or Vietnam?

BLOCK: Congressman Hunter, thank you for talking with us.

Rep. HUNTER: Hey, great to be with you. Thank you.

BLOCK: Duncan Hunter is a Republican congressman from California. And tomorrow, well hear the views of someone who believes gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

So to get back to my original logic thought process regarding reliable studies and verifiable data. In your interview with Melissa Block of on NPR you did not offer any sort of data to support the position you took in the interview. I believe that as a a United States Congressman you have the obligation not only to ALL of your constituents but to every American as a whole. I am absolutely certain that your home district constituancy includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and yes hermaphrodites. Do you not have the same obligations to these constituents as well as heterosexuals?

Another fundemental issue is the basic military code of conduct. All of our military service personnel are taught not to lie, and furthurmore not to support or protect those who do. So by this code of conduct the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is in fundemental conflict with the militaries most basic code of conduct. Isn't this point obvious?

Or is this position of your's just another calculated Republican political tactic designed to obstruct President Obama's agenda by any means? Below is an excerpt from todays Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) with previous statements from several of your Republican colleagues, essentially deferring to the wishes of the United States Military Command in regards to the subject of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Now the Military has spoken,Interesting I don't see a flood of Republican support for the repeal of this ridiculous law. Or was using the Military and their desires just a smoke screen to put off having to make the right decision for all Americans regardless of their: sexual orientation, sex, creed, politics or religion? We need politicians who will lead not just for the many, but also for the few.

Below are excerpts from prominent Republican's deferring to the Military leadership and "Buy-In" from the military leadership before receiving their support for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. The Military has spoken, and as of today, February, 3, 2010 not one of the Republicans quoted below has voiced their support for the repeal of this ridiculous and discriminatory law. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in October 2009 that for a reversal of DADT to be successful, there would have to be a "buy-in by the military."

"They should be included in this," said Graham. "I am open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you, I'm not going to make policy based on a campaign rally."

Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a November 2007 debate was asked if he looked forward to "a day when gays can serve openly in the military?"

"I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say," he replied.

In another Republican presidential debate a month later, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joined Romney in insisting that the country needed to hear first from military command.

"I probably would let the military make that decision," he said, when pressed. "One thing I don't think you need is a president who's trying to tell the military how to run the military, other than set broad policy agenda. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is the best way to handle that and I would leave it to -- to those who run the military."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) has insisted, as recently as 2009, that he would "defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness."

In a 2008 interview, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) defended DADT as a sound military policy by arguing that he had not "sensed that the military is calling for a change."

It is now.

The conundrum facing all of these Republican leaders is simple: coming out against the repeal of the DADT policy now would represent a de facto admission that the opinions of the military brass never really mattered in the first place.

But that doesn't mean they'll suddenly support the repeal. In fact, in a widely observed reversalyesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that he was "disappointed" in Mullen's testimony, and expressed concerns that overturning DADT at a time of "immense hardship for our armed services" would be problematic.

This despite the fact that he once declared that: "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it'.

Regards,

Tom

Common Sense Ways to End Partisan Gridlock in Washington

2010-02-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

The political situation in Washington, D.C. has become untenable; Republicans attempt to block any and all legislation from the Obama administration. Democrats are sometimes only marginally better in their handling of their agenda and have basically squandered their majority and subsequent will of the people that swept them into office in the first place.

The reasons we are in this mess are many. Some of the reasons below are strictly my own opinion and should not be confused with in-depth political analysis.

• The Republicans have adopted a political "Slash and Burn" philosophy of just say no, no to anything and everything. Even if a Democratic proposal contains most if not may previous Republican Proposals they still vote no. Republicans in the Senate have insisted on a 60 vote super majority to pass anything, virtually guaranteeing next to nothing gets done.

• The Republicans have also decided to use political surrogates when its politically too risky to attack a particular proposal directly themselves. Interesting how the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Conservative bloggers always seem to provide the political cover they need just when they need it.

• Another sad development within the Republican party is the purge of most moderate Republicans. This purge has created the all or nothing, no compromise conservative party that I have described above.

• The Liberal wing of The Democratic party is also somewhat involved in a take no prisoner no compromise position as well in both the House and Senate. However, at this point they still seem to be more willing to compromise (at least with a lot of arm twisting) then their Conservative Republican counterparts.

• The Republicans have mastered the half truth, deceptive and all out lie message strategy. When something is repeated enough times evidently in American politics it becomes the truth. How many times have you heard about President Obama's Socialist agenda, big government power grab, leftist agenda, ultra-liberal, freedom and liberty destroying politics? Seriously there are actually people in this country who believe that nonsense. Most of these Republican strategies and snappy one liner talking points are geared toward the emotional responses of individuals and groups gullible to such manipulation. Thomas Jefferson once said "Democracy is founded on a well educated population" He is proven right everyday. Sadly there are very few Republican politicians who standup and publicly disavow these blatant falsehoods as they believe to be more politically advantageous to remain silent.

• Special interest groups on both sides of the aisle (the House & Senate) has become a rampant problem and the recent Supreme Court ruling is going to make it considerable worse before it gets better. I predict the 2010 mid terms are going to be the nastiest bunch of lies we have ever heard in any election cycle in modern times.

• Some very, very small minorities in conservative America have somehow become the dominate voice in American Politics. Sadly these groups are being manipulated and fueled by other forces with agendas that are not their own. The truly shocking thing is how these very small minority groups are somehow portraying themselves as the American Majority. Of course these falsehoods are being reinforced by conservative media outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

So how does the Obama administration rise above the noise and get the job done? President Obama and the Democrats were elected by a landslide victory because of his proposals he made while running for office in 2008. How is it possible that by attempting to carry out these same policies he was elected to carry out he been vilified and out maneuvered?

MESSAGE, MESSAGE, MESSAGE. President Obama is learning that the truth is not enough, ignoring the outrageous claims will not make them go away, they just fester and spread. He is realizing that he personally has to respond to these half truths and lies with the same rapid reaction force that he employed during his campaign. Essentially, in Obama we trust, others in the party not so much. President Obama's personal popularity rating still remain high and he is starting to capitalize on this to get his message across.

The "State of the Union" speech was a great start. The President quickly pivoted to the televised speech and Q&A session at the Republican House members retreat in Baltimore on Friday, January 29, 2010. (If you haven’t seen this yet, I strongly urge you to watch it on cspan.org or youtube.com. This is much watch TV.) This was President Obama at his best deflecting and defusing Republican nonsense all while being civil and with a sense of humor. President did not use a teleprompter or use notes; he demonstrated a through knowledge of the issues and urged honest bipartisan support. He demonstrated exactly why he was elected and made his positions and policies clear and concise. I thought the most interesting part was when the Republican leader of the House hand President Obama a 30 page booklet of Republican proposals. 30 pages that's evidently all they have, 30 pages in a little booklet.

President Obama no needs to do the same televised speech and Q&A session with the Democratic membership as well.

The Republican Q&A session did have one very interesting moment. A Republican congressman (sorry don't remember who) talked to President Obama about a new "constitutional" line item veto. President Obama stated that any President would be interested in that and that he would be happy to discuss it in more detail. This is an outstanding idea on several levels. It gives the President the ability to remove waste from bills one line item a time but also provides political cover for Congressman and Senators should their items be vetoed.

Next order of business, the "filibuster" it is insane to require a 60 vote super majority to pass anything in the Senate. This is a built in guarantee that nothing gets done.

I am not advocating that one party run rough shod over the other just because they have a majority in both houses. Everyone seems to forget that the founding fathers had to make major compromises just to pass the U.S. Constitution. ideological purity by either party is not possible if anything substantial is to be done. The minority party, in this case the Republicans are supposedly, and I stress supposedly protecting the rights and wishes of the minority. I say supposedly because they don't act like it.

The Majority party has an obligation to take into consideration the wishes of the minority, as well as the majority. I don't advocate bastardizing the wishes of the people and create something that is so wishy-washy that a bill is worthless. I mean both sides have an obligation to their constituents to create something that has at least some elements that both sides can live with. After all we are all Americans with remarkably similar goals and interests. Historically, there is roughly 80% of any legislation that both sides can agree on with only 20% of any issue being in dispute. I am not so naive that I think this could happen overnight or even in the near future. With this political climate the Republicans will remain obstructionist, The Democrats will attempt to ram their agenda down the Republicans throats. I believe the Democrats are still trying to get even for being virtually shut out by the Republicans for 12 years of the past Republican majority.

So politicians in Washington here's a novel concept. Members of both parties or no party have "Rights" as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. If you always keep that in mind, maybe, just maybe, we can have a honest and civil political discussion. Then we can actually get something done.

My personal belief is President Obama needs to continue to stress his desire change to change the way Washington does business, as he was elected to do. Can he do it in one term or even two? most likely not, but he can lay the foundation for lasting change. President Obamas stance and actions on Lobbyists, transparency in Government, etc. are slowly starting to pay off. The best way to lead is to honestly communicate and lead by example. That is the way to win elections, and create effective change in Washington D.C.

Regards,

Tom

We the "Corporations" of the United States of America

2010-01-24T20:44:00.110-05:00

The preamble to the United States constitution opens with the following words - "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

These are extremely lofty and powerful words echoing loudly from the past through the present and into the distant future from our founding fathers We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect Union. "We the People" is the key operative phrase.

On Thursday, January 21, 2010, The "Conservative" United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, overturned 35 years of law and 70 years of practice regarding campaign finance.

Now - corporations, unions and big businesses are able to spend UNLIMITED amounts of money for campaign ads for political candidates. This stunning ruling effectively turns the United Stated into a Corpocracy. In case you havent heard the term "Corpocracy" Wikipedia defines it as - "Corporatocracy or corpocracy is a form of government where corporations, conglomerates or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country. This is sometimes considered to be a form of fascism".

The ruling is based upon the basic principal of "free speech" rights of corporations. This ruling is insane on several levels. The founding fathers of the United States did not consider or could not have fathomed the concept of multi-national corporations and the ramifications of such large profit making entities. Corporations are NOT the people. Corporations can't serve in the military, serve on a jury, get a social security card or drive a car so how can their free speech rights be violated in an election? Corporations exist only for one reason and one reason only and thats to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with that. However, this raises significant issues as corporations are often at odds with the government and individuals in regards to regulations on how they conduct business.

Corporations are not "people", they are a separate entity comprised of employees with several different political beliefs e.g. - conservatives, liberals and moderates. There is no such thing as a litmus test for political beliefs to be part of the average corporation or big business. Individuals are still limited to a maximum of $2,300 maximum donation per candidate, per election cycle.

Democrats were outraged and dismayed by this decision, Republicans not so much. Historically, Republicans were always "perceived" to be more regulatory friendly to business vs. the Democrats who are "perceived" to be less friendly towards business interests. This popular belief is false on several levels. There has always been back door methods of support for specific candidates (Democratic and Republican) from various business/political entities, political action committees (PACS) and lobbiest groups in an attempt to make a particular candidate beholden to them because of their support. The only candidates somewhat immune from this influence are self made millionaire candidates who basically self fund their campaigns with their own money. However, these individuals are few and far between. We need to realize that this model basically eliminates the common person from the running because of lack of funds to finance campaign ads to get their message out to the people.

President Barack Obama basically ran a campaign financed not from special interest groups or lobbiests but from small donations from millions of individual small donors. I believe that this model is not only fair but obviously workable. However, even this model with millions of individual donors could not stand up the financial ability of a mega corporation. This is where the problem lies. What if a large corporation spends millions of dollars on a particular candidate in the form of campaign ads and the candidate wins the election? What happens if this corporate candidate suddenly chooses not to play ball? Obviously the corporate sponser would spend just as much during the next election cycle to have said candidate removed and back someone else.

I am perfectly willing to argue my point and political beliefs with anybody - Right Wing Conservatives, Republicans, Independents, Democrats etc. With enough like minded individuals (THE PEOPLE) agreeing on one particular political candidate, we win. If we lose in two, four or six years we can try again. May the best man or woman win. However, my individual maximum $2,300.00 donation can't compete with large corporations, who I believe are not "The People" but something more.

Republicans (mostly) by not speaking up are making a serious mistake. Democrats and Republicans are not that far apart when it comes to regulation of American Business. This ruling opens the door for solid financial and single issue support for third party candidates beholden only to special interests. Our two party system is bad enough, but adding others into the mix will be a disaster. It's obvious that two parties can't agree, can you imaging 3, 4 or more parties? then we would have shifting coalitions and alliances for any particular issue or agenda.

This is a fundamental issue of rights as individuals (The People) and certainly not a free speech issue. As I stated in the beginning of this piece the preamble to the United States Constitution begins with "We the People" and NOT "We the Corporations" of the United States. Corporations exist with certain regulations to protect "The People". However, corporations are NOT "The People". Let's face it corporations could not exist without the people. As the people, we deserve certain safeguards and protections so corporate interests don't infringe upon our individual or national interests. There is no reason to go into the abuses and excesses that American corporations have perpetrated on the public over the years, as these are widely publicized and documented.

If we are to be perfectly honest with ourselves it is obvious that the publicly financed campaign mechanism was broken, but at least it was on the right track to be repaired. This newest Supreme Court ruling creates chaos that will be nearly impossible to repair without a constitutional amendment which is difficult at best.

"We the people" have now been taken out of the equation. This is not a Liberal issue or Conservative issue, thus is not a Democrat or Republican issue, this is an issue that concerns us all as "The People".

This is truly a sad day in America.

Regards,

Tom

Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh

2010-01-14T20:57:00.004-05:00

Dear Rush Limbaugh,

First of all in the spirit of full disclosure and transparancy, I fully admit that I am on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. I am admittedly a Liberal Democrat, and rarely if ever listen to your show if I can help it, as a matter of fact the poison I have heard you spew in the past, is to me the equivalent to someone scrapping their nails across a blackboard.

However, as a believer in free speech I respect your right to do so even though I adamantly disagree with what you have to say, but thats OK because I don't have to listen if I don't want to. However, that being said several websites including the; Huffington Post and others have shown videos and transcripts of comments you made on your radio show on January 13, 2010.

The comments attributed to you are: -"The earthquake in Haiti will play right into Obama's hands by allowing him to play up his "compassionate" and "humanitarian" credentials, and that the President will use this crisis to "boost his credibility with the black community." and "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax." and as if that was not enough you somehow feel that we've already done enough for Haiti not to mention buying into a callers conspiracy theory regarding President Obama directing the public to the White House website to find charatible organizations to donate money to help, and insinuate that somehow this puts their money at risk of not reaching the Hatians who really need it.

Are You F***ing Kidding Me? Is your hatred of Democrat's and particularly President Barack Obama so great, and blinding that you can only see political maneuvering and conspiracies with every action or word he says or does? Do you honestly believe that? For the sake of humanity and human decency I certainly hope not.

Just for one moment I ask you to consider another point of view. The earthquake in Haiti is the greatest natural disaster in the Western Hemisphere in over 200 years. There is a very good possibility that tens if not hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and hundreds of thousands are left homeless. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. In terms of human misery, the suffering of the Haitian people is incomprehensible.

If thats not enough for you, 45,000 American citizens live and work in Haiti, with the only goal being to help the citizens of Haiti make a better life for themselves, and hopefully find a way out of the extreme poverty they live in. Many of our fellow 45,000 American citizens are still missing and an unknown number most likely perished in the disaster.

Haiti is in our own backyard so to speak, and the United States has always had a close relationship with the Government and people of Haiti. Even though the United States is suffering with our own economic issues (of which the cause of is something I am certain that we would never agree upon) even so our standard of living is magnitudes greater than the average standard of living of the average Haitian citizen. Lets put this into perspective when I was unemployed for 8 months, I received $600.00 every two weeks equaling $1,200 per month. $1,200.00 USD per month equals the average YEARLY wage of an average Haitian citizen.

In 2008 Haiti had the misfortune of having four hurricanes cross their country and cause major damage. They were just barely recovering from those natural disasters when this happened. The Presidential palace, Parliment building, and thousands of homes and businesses are destroyed.

To put things in perspective the magnatude of the damage to the nation of Haiti makes the damage that Hurricane Katrina caused to the City of New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast look like a minor inconvenience compared to the damage suffered to the Haitian capitol of Port O Prince and surrounding areas.

I remember how after the Katrina disaster, and the terrorist bombing of the world trade center - many, many, countries offered aid and assistance to the United States, including countries that are considered hostile to the USA. The United States and our citizens are no different except that we are even more giving and compassionate in the face of disaster and human suffering. Millions of dollars were raised for Haiti in the first 24 hours after the earthquake on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, and numerous U.S. corporations donated even more. President Obama pledged one hundred million dollars in disaster assistance not to mention the assistance of U.S. Based charities, USAID, and the United States Military.

Dozens of other countries including the European Union, Russia, China, Canada, Cuba, Central and South American Countries and many more are also providing humanitarian assistance as well.

So by your train of logic, are tens of thousands of Americans and dozens of other countries providing humanitarian assistance to Haiti for some kind of political gain? Seriously do you really believe that we've done enough for Haiti?

I ask you to consider another possibility. Many if not most of us believe that there is only one family on this planet and that's the human family, when one part of our family suffers we all suffer. Did you ever consider the fact that compassion and caring for another human being in need is a basic trait that makes us all human.

Now, lets get back to President Obama's motivation for offering assistance to Haiti. I believe that if President Obama failed to act it would violate and undermine the basic fabric of our great nation. Haiti is in our backyard so to speak. We have the money, technology, will, and ability to help our neighbor and friends in their time of unfathomable suffering due to no fault of their own. In essence we not only have a moral obligation, but we absolutely have to back up our democratic ideals with action. What kind of credibility would we have if we refused to help our friends and neighbors when we have the ability to provide assistance, but refused because of political or economic concerns?

President Obama does not need as you put it "to play up his "compassionate" and "humanitarian" credentials, and that the President will use this crisis to "boost his credibility with the black community".

Did you ever consider that he acted strictly because its the right thing to do, and furthermore as the President of the United States, he is carrying out the mandates, ideals and moral imperative of the United States.
This is the true test of leadership when he acted quickly and decisively in the darkest hour of one of our friends and neighbors in our own backyard. Not to mention as I mentioned before, these are our friends and fellow human beings suffering a disaster of unimaginable horror.

So I challenge you, Mr. Limbaugh to put aside your petty political rhetoric and hatred for Democrats and President Obama for the greater good of humanity. You can make a significant difference in the lives of our friends and neighbors in Haiti, by using your wealth and platform that tens of thousands of people listen to everyday to help raise money and help instead of spewing hatred and conspiracy theories. Just think how you are one individual who could with a word and encouragement could raise millions of dollars for a charity of your choice.

Please, please, rise above our petty squabbles, and join the rest of us to help those in need. This is not a matter of politics or political maneuvering, this is strictly a matter of caring for our fellow brothers and sisters.

If you should care to respond, which I sincerely hope you do, I will be happy to post your response in it's entirety. It doesent matter if I agree or disagree with your response. What matters most is honest discussion, and straight forward exchange of opinions. We may disagree on most issues but we can always be civil.

Regards,

Tom

Pat Robertson is Evil!

2010-01-13T20:49:00.001-05:00

OK, I have never before blogged about politics or religion. As a disclaimer, I admit I am a liberal and don't have religious beliefs. However, with what I read this evening I can't help it. I am absolutely outraged. The american evangelist Pat Robertson made a statement today that goes beyond the realm of human decency. In the mddle of one of the largest unfolding disasters in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 200 years Pat Robertson was quoted with saying "Earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil." "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal." Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" You have got to be f***ing kidding me. We are all one family on this planet, the human family. When one of us suffers we all suffer. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have probably died and hundreds of thousands more are suffering. Somehow its their fault? Really? The bible talks about a "kind and loving God". So somehow he would inflict major suffering on one of the poorest countries on earth? for what? Because of some supposed pact with the devil that everyone in the country signed off upon? You have got to be kidding me. Racism in the name of God is still racism. Bigatry in the name of God is still Bigotry. This is a perfect example of whats evil with some people within our human family. Each of us needs to stand up and be counted and vocally reject this type of racism and bigotry, supposedly said in the name of God. Lets all stand up and lend our voices and more impotently actions, and reject this ignorant and racist philosophy and stand up for the good of humanity. Are you with me? Help the good people of Heiti with whatever you can, after all we are all brothers and sisters on a very small planet. They need everyones help right now.

Tom

Is Life Really Just a Bunch of One-liners?

2009-12-28T10:08:00.000-05:00

Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country; Houston we have a problem; I have a dream; One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind; A democracy is founded on a well educated population; Imagination is more important then knowledge; Thank god he doesn’t suffer from the ravages of intelligence; I'm still on the right side of the dirt; That house is like a drunk o'l uncle at a family reunion, your just happy to see him get in his car and weave on down the road; Sub-prime mortgage meltdown; Audacity of hope; Life is not work, and work is not life; It's Miller time; A clean desk is a sign of a demented mind; Dot-com; Father, the sleeper has awakened; We either come together as a team or die as individuals; You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need; I can't get no satisfaction; What’s love got to do with it; Same as it ever was; People have the power; Every vote counts; Birth, school, work, death; The moment you discover the meaning of life you die; Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition; He who has the gold, makes the rules; Red states, blue states; We the people; People have the power; Freedom of speech (just as long as you watch what you say); Live free or die; When in the course of human history; Freedom and democracy; War is hell; Kilroy was here; You cant legislate morality; Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god; Truth justice and the American way; One if by land, two if by sea; We have come in search of the holy grail; The meaning of life; One step beyond; A wise man believes only in lies, trusts only the absurd, and expects the unexpected; E=MC 2; Who knows what tomorrow brings; Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it; The only thing we have to fear is fear itself; What on earth are you talking about; Where’s the beef; God bless America; In god we trust; We will never pass this way again; Vote for me; Swift boated; half truths; Lies; Politics as usual; Sex, lies and video tape.

Is this really what life is all about? I hope not.

Tom

The Evolution of a Post Technological Society

2009-12-04T13:58:00.000-05:00

We take technology in our daily lives for granted. At my age I remember the more primitive pre-high tech times. Believe it or not we did not always have the internet or cell phones. I remember not that many years ago when there were no fax machines, high tech businesses used a teletype to send and receive text. it was always on yellow paper (who decided that the paper had to be yellow, we may never know). The really cool thing was for an outgoing message the machine used to punch the message on this 1" wide or so yellow paper tape that the machine could use to send the data over the phone lines. Well anyways there was this container that collected these very small round pieces of paper that was punched out. They made absolutely awesome confetti for use on New Years or whenever.

Telephones: were connected by a coiled wire, and actually had a dial, all the dials made this certain sound when dialing that was very cool. The longest cord was generally 25" long so basically you were stuck to be within 25" of where it was connected. At least the phones worked when the power went out. In the 70's we moved to the mountains in California, and we actually had a 6 person party line, everyone’s ring sounded a little different. Everyone used the honor system not to listen in on your neighbor’s phone calls, Hmmmmm. right.

Computers: My first PC at home was a Commodore Vic 20 It did not have a hard drive and connected to a television. You had to store your programs on a cassette tape. It used to take me about an hour and a half to program in the code for a pong like game that you could move the bars on the screen to deflect a bouncing ball (all in monochrome green I might add). If you made on mistake in the programming it took a very long time for me to de-bug it as I was not now or ever was a programmer. My first real PC was a 4 mhz, 8088 processor machine. I had this very cool amber monochrome monitor at the time instead of the usual monochrome green one. Then I got this multiplier board that increased the speed to 16 mhz, I thought it was lightning fast, I was really styling now. The 5-1/2 inch floppy disks were cumbersome and susceptible to data loss. Mind you this was pre-Windows days and DOS ruled. I remember it has a fairly large hard drive and could hold like 2 megabytes of data (My digital camera I use now, each image is larger then 5 megs). I remember at the time that IBM came out with a 20 megabyte hard drive and it was like $10,000.00 or something like that.

BBS Systems: We didn't have access to the crude precursor that was to become the internet, it was strictly for the U.S. Govt. and selected universities it was supposed to be for secure data transfer during the cold war. We didn’t know about it at the time anyway. What we did have was the BBS (Bulletin Board Services) system and the individuals who ran them were called Sysops. basically it was software that you ran on your own computer and people could call in and play games, download files or pics or whatever. A lot of BBS sites charged a subscription fee, although there were a lot of free BBS sites as well. I remember this really cool BBS game called "Trade Wars" I used to play on one particular BBS site. You did not have web sites to go to you had telephone numbers of BBS sites. I called into the BBS sites on my blinding fast 300 baud modem (yes 300 baud). Eventually I moved up to 600 baud, then 900 baud and then to 1,200 baud. Wow!! those were the days. I don't miss the BBS's or the slow speeds, I am kind of nostalgic for "Trade Wars" though I never did get to master that game. The Internet killed the BBS system, and the BBS systems are now just a faded memory.

Cell phones, GPS, High speed computers, The Internet: These new technologies were described in various fashion in science fiction books from the 50's through the early 1980's. This is now reality and everyday items that we take for granted. Although I remember in the early 1980's my boss got one of those huge car phones, and it cost $2.50 per minute for the honor or status of using it. When he was on the road those were the worlds shortest conversations, He was always cheap anyway. The only people you saw talking on the phone in cars were obviously business executives, now everyone seems to need to talk while their driving, all the time. Go figure, I guess we must all be terribly important now days.

The most amazing transformation that has occurred is when we suddenly lose all our technology, such as during or after a large storm or power outage everything comes to a screeching halt. We can't conduct business, we can't communicate, and we have a feeling of isolation. You can't even buy anything at the store. Hell, here in Florida when you lose power in the summer and the air conditioning goes out we think we are going to die from the heat. I can't imagine how it was before there was air conditioning, there must have been people dying in the streets from the oppressive heat. This blog would not be possible without amazing technology. An interesting tidbit I read the other day is: The internets main servers is estimated to consume approximately 2.5% of the entire United Stated electrical generating capacity, or more energy consumed then the entire State of Mississippi in one year. The estimated electrical cost in dollars is $25,000,000.00 per year.

Technology we can't live with it, and we can't live without it. I'm sure that there are many more examples of primitive technologies which have evolved over time which I haven't covered.

Anyone with anything to add please feel free to do so.

Tom

One-sided towels I just don't understand them

2009-12-01T14:52:00.001-05:00

We have a bunch of one sided towels. You know, towels like you wash your face, hands and body with. Yes, in our household we have a variety of sizes and colors. What I mean is these are poor imitations of real cotton terry cloth towels except one side is the normal cotton terry type material and the opposite side is smooth.

My fiancée is always extolling the virtues of these particular towels. She really likes them and to an extent I can kind of see her point. Her argument is they are expensive (at least more expensive then normal towels) and they are Italian made, the colors are nice and they have really nice embossed designs on the smooth side. Granted she is correct about one thing, the regular side is very absorbent. However, my issue is not with any of the above. Let's face it, the towel only has one usable side.

Maybe I'm just old school. Maybe I just like variety in my towels, maybe I might like to use the other side or not, but at least the option is there. I'm just going to say it outright; towels should be two sided like they always were for years and years.

Two sided towels on the other hand have very useful properties. The first and most important one that comes to mind is the cover-up. For an example, I must be some kind of dirt magnet. I can carefully wash my hands and without fail as soon as I touch the towel, the towel turns black with dirt. Understandably this does not make my fiancée very happy. I usually try to blame it on one of the dogs but she doesn't buy it. Now, with two sided towels you can just fold it the other way and no one is the wiser. Thus the cover up. With one sided towels the cover up is just not possible.

Let’s look at the economics of towels, aren't we really only getting half of what we paid for? Seriously, I think this just a marketing ploy to get us to pay more for half the absorbency. Maybe some factory had a bunch of defective terry cloth that only had only one side, and figured out a way to unload it on the rest of us. After all with a good marketing plan they can just make us believe that we just can't live without one sided towels.

Or maybe, GOD FORBID, we are slowly losing the technology to manufacture two sided towels. Now that's truly a horrifying thought. Mankind has been perfecting the technology for the perfect fluffy, somewhat scratchy two sided towel for centuries. Now we may just be on the verge of losing everything. I think just to be on the safe side I am going to keep all my old ragged two sided towels just in case. You can laugh now, but when you can't get your regular old fashioned two sided towels anymore I will be sitting on a very valuable commodity, and we all know how supply and demand works don't we?

Before this whole thing gets out of hand we need to rise up and prevent one sided towels from spreading like the cancer they are, and don't be fooled, one sided towels are a cancer that needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth before it's too late.

Start a petition drive, write your politicians, boycott stores that sell one sided towels. I implore you stop them before it's too late, and our regular, old -fashioned , somewhat scratchy, extra absorbent, two sided towels go the way of the dinosaurs.

Are you with me? let me know.

Tom