Friday, July 24, 2009

Progressive vs. Conservative Talk Shows

Many people refuse to ask the big questions. Why are we here? Why do we die? What happens next? These questions often either get glossed over or we create fantastic answers that are meant to calm our nerves, even though we don't have any evidence to prove them.

By the same token, many people don't ask questions that when answered reveal quite a lot. For example, did you know that four of Barack Obama's top twenty contributors are institutions of higher education? It's true. That amounts to 20% of his top twenty. How does McCain compare? Zero. Not one of his top twenty contributors is an institute of higher learning.

What does this mean? That the intelligentsia back Barack Obama. That people who think for a living prefer progressive politics. That people who care about education support Democratic candidates.

This explains a lot. I've long felt that the Democratic party was the party of higher intellectual ability. I'm waiting for Mensa to send all of the members a questionnaire asking us our political affiliation so I will finally have something to support my beliefs but until then, I have to look for evidence in other areas. The support of Democratic candidates by universities is a step in the right direction.

This also explains the proliferation of right-wing talk shows. Anyone with a brain can tell that these people are not speaking truths, and are intentionally misleading their listeners. Of course they are. Because they can. Their listeners are easily mislead.

This also explains why there are so few progressive shows. We don't need a talking head to tell us what to think. We can do that for ourselves.

It's the right-wing who can't.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Healthcare Reform

The following letter was sent to Senators Susan Collins, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe and Ron Wyden. If any of them respond, I'll post their response on here as well.


Dear Senators:

I am writing to the six of you in regards to the letter you all signed urging a slow down in the time-line on the issue of healthcare for all Americans. While I agree with you that this matter is extremely urgent and must be done right, I have to disagree with you on the need for slowing down the process.

Earlier this week a friend of mine asked me to accompany him to a local emergency room. My friend was experiencing chest pains severe enough to warrant being seen by a medical professional. Unfortunately, like many other Americans, my friend does not have health insurance, and therefore we were forced to go to the local county hospital. Before being seen by a physician, we sat in the waiting room for over 16 hours. From speaking with other patients who had been to this emergency room, and from the staff of the hospital, we found that such a wait was not uncommon.
If my friend had been fortunate enough to have health insurance, he could have gone to another hospital where the wait time would have been under an hour. The lack of insurance necessitated going where he would be able to afford to pay the bill. It was only two days after this experience that I read of your letter to the Senate.

I am surprised that any of you would ask for additional time for this measure, given that all of you have been in office long enough to have had time to prepare for this. In fact, other than Al Franken, I don't think anyone in the Senate should require additional time to get this legislation passed. Joe Lieberman has been in the Senate since 1988, Olympia Snowe since 1994, Susan Collins, Mary Landrieu and Ron Wyden since 1996 and Ben Nelson since 2004. All of you have had sufficient time to prepare for passage of this legislation, but apparently, none of you have bothered to do this until it was forced upon you.

I would ask all of you to put your money where your mouths are. If you want additional time on this matter, then show the American people that you are serious about passage of this legislation. Cancel your own medical insurance for you and your covered family members until this measure is passed into law. Should you or any of your covered love ones experience an illness during that time, I can give you directions to the county hospital where I sat for nearly a full day.

After you have experienced sitting with an ill loved one for that long, then tell me that we should slow down the time-line for passage of this legislation. Until then, show some respect for the many Americans who currently do not have health insurance and get this measure passed.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Cabbagism

There is a little-known religious group here in America that is very misunderstood. I would like to take a few moments to explain these people and their belief system. Many people scoff at the religious beliefs of others, but it is important to keep an open mind when dealing with other people's beliefs. Just because they are different than yours does not make them any less.

These people belong to the World Wide Church of the Holy Cabbage and are known as Cabbagists, for short. Their religion is often referred to as Cabbagism, although they prefer to call themselves the WWC of the HC. Cabbagism is what I shall use in this writing, whether they like it or not.

The principle tenet of Cabbagism is that God is a giant head of cabbage existing somewhere out in the universal and bestowing blessings upon his followers, but no one else. In respect to their deity, Cabbagists refrain from eating cabbage in any form, and feel that cole slaw is the destruction of their Creator and is therefore blasphemous. The eating of cole slaw is a grave sin, and an even more grave sin is the eating of sauerkraut. As the Cabbagists say, "the road to hell is paved with sauerkraut."

In certain states of this country, Cabbagists get together in the middle of the night and raid local farms where cabbage is grown. They strike while the plants are still young and easily transported, but wait until far enough into the growing season that a new crop could not be started before the seasons change. This has caused quite a bit of consternation among the local farmers, many of whom have resorted to hiring security guards to patrol their cabbage patches at night. This has resulted in an increased price of cabbage at local supermarkets.

No one is quite sure what the Cabbagists do with the cabbage plants they dig up, since they certainly can't eat them. If they tossed them into a landfill that would be tantamount to killing them, which is certainly just as bad as eating them. In all likelihood they are using them in their own gardens, but as ornamental plants rather than food crops. They use them as hedges and borders, for example. Cabbagists have very strange looking front yards, and often an inordinate amount of rabbits.

Now as it happened, one day a Cabbagist succeeded in being elected to public office, since most voters don't take the time to thoroughly check out their candidates. This one was particularly good-looking, and that might explain how he won by such a large margin. At any rate, he was not only elected to a post, but that position was as United States Senator. This was indeed a prestigious position and one that had never been held by a Cabbagist previously. This particular Senator spent his time garnering favors from both sides of the aisle, and was successful in getting both houses to pass the Cabbage Reform Act. This Act made the growing of cabbage for human consumption a crime, and outlawed the possession, sale or use of cole slaw and sauerkraut throughout the United States.

You can imagine what the outcry was against this Act, but the government passed it into law and therefore the people were forced to obey it. It wasn't long before cole slaw was found on the black market, and whole divisions of police forces were set up to fight the War on Cabbage. Many United States citizens were known to cross the borders into either Mexico or Canada where they could enjoy cole slaw without fear of retribution, since neither of these countries passed a similar law.

The economies of several major cities suffered from this legislation, as the sales of hot dogs at sporting events plummeted without the benefit of sauerkraut to put on them.

With the passage of this law came much rejoicing among the Cabbagists, as you can imagine. They could now worship their God peacefully knowing that cabbage was sacred among all the peoples of this nation.

This story comes with a moral; all religious beliefs are valid, and everyone is entitled to their own spirituality, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else. Forcing others to conform to your beliefs only invites others to do the same to you. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Respect their beliefs.

This story also illustrates why religion and politics need to remain separated. Our elected officials all have their own beliefs, but when they are acting in their official capacities, they represent us. All of us. As such they need to remain balanced in their decisions. Failure to do so might result in the loss of sauerkraut and cole slaw.

Monday, June 29, 2009

My Retirement

Tomorrow is my 50th birthday. As I sit here I can't help but wonder what the next third of my life will be like. I also have to start thinking about retirement, and what the economy will be like in my future. Many pundits tie the economy in this country to the office of the president, and there might be some merit to that. While the president certainly cannot single-handedly change the economy, he (or one day she) does have influence over it.

I was able to find historic Dow Jones Industrial Averages going back to when Jimmy Carter first became president, and the numbers are quite interesting. When Jimmy took office the DJIA was at $962. When he left the White House the Dow had dropped to $950. Granted this is a slight drop in the Dow, but it's still a loss.

Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy and his presidency saw the Dow increase from 950 to $2,235. This is a sizable increase, and over the entire term of his presidency it averages an increase of $160 each year.

George Bush, Sr. increased Reagan's $2,235 to $3,241. Since Bush was only in office for one term, this equates to an increase of $251 per year, which was even better than Reagan's impressive increase.

Bill Clinton took office in 1993 when the Dow was at $3,241 and left in 2001 when the Dow towered at $10,587. His presidency saw the Dow increase an average of $918 each year of his presidency. This is more than George Bush and Ronald Reagan combined.

George W. Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 and left office on January 20, 2009. He took Bill Clinton's $10,587 and reduced it to $7,949 or a loss of $329 per year average for his eight years in office.

What does this mean for my retirement? It means if I invest in the stock market I need to hope for another leader like Bill Clinton if I want to be able to enjoy my golden years. Another George Bush, Sr. or Ronald Reagan would allow me to retire with security, although I might not have extra money. Another presidency like George W. Bush means I won't be able to retire until I'm well past my 100th birthday.

Let's see what Barack is able to do.

Update; October 10, 2013 - Well, so far Barack is doing just fine.  The $7,949 when he took office has grown by 90% to 15,126.  Since he's been in office less than five years, that's a staggering $1,435 increase per year, better than any other presidency in this survey.  And all of this in spite of the fact that he has to deal with a majority in the House who refuse to work with him.

No wonder the American people love him so much!


Monday, May 4, 2009

What's Wrong With Being Right?

When I was a younger man attending my first college (there have been seven so far, but that's another story for another day), Arlen Specter was elected to the Senate.  Like me, he was a Pennsylvanian, and like me he had firm beliefs on various topics.  Those beliefs didn't always agree with mine, but that's how life goes.  The only way to get all of your beliefs represented is to get elected yourself.  And, like me, Arlen Specter was a Republican.

That was back in the early 80s.  When I first registered to vote I registered as a Republican, using reasoning that now makes no sense at all, but actually using my registration as a means of attempting to break out of a family mold.  All of my family were democrats, going back for as far back as I can find, and all of my beliefs align with the Democratic party, so what caused me to be a Republican?  Looking back, I can only believe that it had to do with being a closeted homosexual.  That through my political affiliation I was "striking out" against the status quo.  That I was trying to make a statement, albeit in a feeble voice.

I soon came to my senses and changed my affiliation to Democrat.  This decision was easily made since I had never once voted for a Republican when I had any other option.  Now, like me, Arlen Specter has seen the light and changed parties.  No, I don't think this means that he's a closeted homosexual.

When I registered Republican, I was young and impetuous, and I didn't remain a Republican for more than a few years.  With Specter, that's not the case.  He's been in the Senate for over 25 years, always as a Republican.  He's considerably older than I am, and yet he is now switching parties, and I have to say, I'm not surprised.

The Republican Party has continued a downhill slide that has grown into an avalanche.  The party that existed when I joined no longer exists.  The current party has become one of malicious lies and those lies will continue to cause the party to implode.  The sad thing is, it's not just the elected officials who are spreading lies.

Much of America sees the Republican Party as represented by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck.  These men are ruining the Grand Old Party.  By spreading lies about America and her leaders they cause a rift in our society, and a rift that does nothing to help ease the wounds of this nation, but lines their own pockets.  By sowing the seeds of discontent they further their own careers at the detriment of our society.

I have to wonder when the rest of America will join the likes of Arlen Specter and wise up to the antics of these ultra conservatives and their petty antics.  It is my fervent hope that one day, all of America will join in a boycott of any companies that advertise on any of their programs, or in any newspapers that give them column space.  Perhaps then, when the liars are silenced, America will have a chance to become truly, one nation, with liberty and justice for all.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The State of the State

California is in a terrible state right now, at least financially.  Our state has become a joke in this country due to our legislature's unwillingness to work together to pass a budget and stick with it, and this has caused our state to become one of the lowest in the nation in terms of credit worthiness.  

When you find yourself in financial difficulties there are several things that need to be done; first, increase your income; second, spend less and third, spend better.  Let's look at these three areas:

Increase your income: This means raising taxes, which no one likes, but if the taxes are fair, then they're acceptable.  Taxes have been increased on cigarettes, which means that smokers will pay increased taxes, but that same logic must be applied to other areas.  Alcohol, whether consumed at home or at another location, must be taxed as well.  If smokers are paying their fair share then drinkers should as well.

A tax increase has been suggested for golf courses, and this makes sense, but what about baseball fields?  How about bowling alleys?  Perhaps Miniature Golf establishments?  Why should golfers have to pay more and not people taking part in other recreational activities?  Let's make it fair across the board.

Spend less: This makes perfect sense, and I have to agree with the governor when he puts California employees on furloughs and makes them take two days off a month.  This action reduces the amount we spend on salaries, but let's look at other areas as well.  State office buildings need to be climactically controlled to keep the temperature at a fiscal level, which might not be the most comfortable setting for those people working there.  

We also need to look at our programs and see which ones can be cut and would be better funded by the private sector.  Our highways are in a deplorable condition, and they need to be repaired as they keep this state moving.  What money is already in the state budget for things less necessary?  Let's see what can be eliminated and put to better use.

Spend better: This is actually the easiest of the three and yet the most over-looked.  Looking at state employees, we never look for the best candidate for a position, but we look for the best minority, as we feel that we must follow the Equal Opportunity in Employment laws beyond their reasonable interpretation.  This needs to stop.  It's not that we shouldn't hire minorities, but that should not be the main criteria.  In all state employment the number one criteria needs to be education, and we must mandate that all employees of this state must hold a minimum of a bachelor's degree from an American college or university.  Such school must be listed in the Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs of the U.S. Department of Education.  This move would ensure that the employees of this state are the best for the position, and not merely minorities.  Note that this move does nothing to impede the EOE laws, as minorities are just as able to achieve degrees as anyone else.

By following these simple suggestions, you will help our state to regain its glory, and to once again proudly be known as The Golden State.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Response to A Pastoral Message to Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

This writing is in response to a letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony and the bishops of Los Angeles.  They wrote a letter to gay Catholics that can be read here: 

http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm

Dear Roger:

I am truly quite surprised at the lack of understanding and caring in this matter.  You stated that homosexuals are "cherished members of the Catholic Church" and that you value us "as equal and active members of the Body of Christ."  What kind of equality is it where you worked to rid us of one of our rights?  How cherished are we?

You stated that the passing of Proposition 8 does not diminish our importance, but you fail to recognize that it takes away one of our rights.  If the same were to be done to you, how important would you feel?

You said that Proposition 8 was not intended to ban gay marriage, yet that is exactly what it was for.  Heterosexual marriage was never in jeopardy, and is not diminished by allowing same sex couples to wed.  

You use the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights as part of your argument, yet when has the Catholic Church ever been dictated to by the UN?  This argument is totally without merit and only shows the homophobia within the church.

You stated that "If we had ever thought that the intent of this proposition was to harm you or anyone in the Sate of California, we would not have supported it."  This is a lie, and you know it.  You knew full well that this initiative was anti-gay and yet you supported it fully.

You state that you began pastoral outreach to gays 20 years ago, yet you fail to mention that you closed down the office designed for this purpose, or that only four parishes throughout the entire archdiocese have gay ministries.  If you were so intent on being inclusive of us, why wasn't the creation of gay ministries made mandatory throughout Los Angeles?  Obviously, this is nothing but lip service to our community.

You stated that "Supporting marriage as it has always been understood diminishes none of us."  Please explain to me how supporting same-gender marriage diminishes any of us.  It does not.

What you did was discriminate against a group of people, some of us who happen to be Catholic.  I have retaliated by submitting empty collection envelopes into the basket each Sunday.  The money that would have been used to support the church is now being used to fund the lawsuits against Proposition 8.  What this means in practice is that money that would have gone to the Catholic Church is now going to fight the Church.  

Congratulations, Roger.  You took money away from a church that needs it in order to fight for rights that you wanted to deny.  I hope you realize what a mistake this was on your part.