Thursday, March 29, 2012
No One Will Agree But.....
I think that it might be a fair thing to say that my interest is in politics and big picture thinking. I do not often watch the local news for the simple reason that murder, oxy contin abuse and bath salts depress me in a way that is totally different than the national, large picture issues of the day.
In Florida it is quite evident that in the case of the African American boy who was shot and killed by a so called Neighborhood Watch Captain that the Sanford police department did not do a good job in investigating the case. And not doing a good job may be putting it mildly.
It is so hard to have an opinion outside of the media rage that is all over this case without feeling like you need to defend your position. I want their to be justice. It appears that the Sanford Police were careless at best and criminal at worst. By criminal one means that an active effort was made to hide evidence and not bring a person to justice that a reasonable person would infer was guilty of a crime. Careless would mean that the police acted in a sloppy way, with poor procedures, and perhaps even acted based on preconceived notions without a full investigation.
Now what becomes the issue is what is your definition of careless and criminal. So much depends on your viewpoint. That is the problem. Do you remember the pictures of the Simpson verdict when we were shown scenes of African American students at Howard University celebrating with joy the innocent verdict and similar scenes of white folks hearing the verdict with dismay. Later we heard about black citizens saying this was retribution, not a verdict of innocence of guilt but retribution for past crimes and attitudes against black people
We have a huge racial divide in this country. What needs to be understood however is that as angry as the black community is over this that screaming from the rooftops will not do anything whatsoever to help race relations in this country. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson like bees to honey become the spokespeople for the black community. Can you imagine if a white child in Bangor was murdered by a black person. Let's be real. We would be outraged and we would be upset. We would not however see any mainstream figures going on television and talking about the problems of consistent crimes by black people.
It is so hard. I am told and I am sure that it is true, I do not understand the black experience. This is no news to me, I know it is the truth. But hell I do not understand the Facebook, Texting, Easy Hook up culture of white suburban high schools either. In short I am a middle aged white man who acts and thinks older than I even am. I acknowledge and accept these facts.
I still believe however that most folks are good folks, that our politicians are for the most part mindless weathervanes, and that usually when someone says the word " Honestly" before starting a sentence they are about to lie to you.
Driving while black, walking while black my wife tells me I do not understand it. Neither does she of course but she does have a stronger sympathy with this issue. When I tell her that if I was black I would not be angry if I was pulled over when they were looking for a black man who had committed a crime she says I am crazy. Maybe I am. If the police have a description of a large white man with a shaved head committing a crime would another man of the same description be frustrated to be asked questions by the police. It is hard to think they would. They would not like it, they would not enjoy it, but to be outraged, I just do not see it.
Of course my wife and I disagree about profiling in general. I said look if they let an Arabic man on a plane without an extra patdown but do pull a grandmom out of the line as an issue of fairness I say they are not doing their job. I feel like if I was an Arab I would not like being questioned more, and suspected more, but I would be more upset about the Arabs that have put me in this position than about being questioned.
I am in the minority. Perhaps as a white citizen who grew up in the whitest state in America my opinion is wrong, or worse yet perhaps some would say it does not count.
I am glad the feds are looking into the Martin case. I want their to be justice. I think, however, that as hard as it is that we all need to take a breath. For years and years black suspects were placed on a fast track to be judged guilty. If a white person was killed by a black person mob justice could take place or force the wheels of justice to proceed with evidence that would be considered faulty. It would seem to me that a rational person could see that we now have a mob mentality with the Zimmerman case.
We have a Presidential election taking place. We have Syria in flames, oil prices rising and the Supreme Court debating health care. And we have most of the shows on MSNBC devoting much of their time to this case.
As with most things we get the news we deserve. Clearly this brings ratings. The question we should ask ourselves is this. Why does Charles Blow of The New York Times, a wonderful, respected African American journalist care more about this case than any other. I do not question his concern but why is he more concerned about this. If as much time was spent on Fox News about a case of a black on white crime we would be hearing chants of how racist Fox news is. This is true and am going to say it.
Newt Gingrich is a moron and he was clearly trying to make political points when he commented on Obama's comments on this case. Obama made some thoughtful remarks on the case and commented that if he had a son he would look like the Martin boy. He may well be correct. Gingrich in full hypocritical attack mode ( please see previous post) and said it was disgaceful that Obama appeared to care more about this case than any other. Gingrich's point was that it is a tragedy if any young man, black, white or any other color is killed. He is, of course, correct. However the message was lost in his clumsy attempt to score political points off the issue.
I have no answer to this. I want justice. I do think however that there are many people out there both black and white who use cases like this to further their own cause, interest and celebrity. I think that is a shame no matter what color you are.
What if Health Care Wins by Losing
As the Supreme Court Justices questioned the two sides as the debated the Constitutionality of the President's healthcare reform one questions seemed to be coming up over and over.
Namely if the mandate part of this act is removed as unconstitutional can the rest of the healthcare act stand. Now one should remember that Candidate Obama was not an advocate of a mandate. That position was held by Hillary Clinton. Once he became President however Obama dealt with the reality that if the law was to force insurance companies to actually cover sick people, i.e those with pre existing conditions, bad family histories and the like than their costs would go up. To make this palatable it was necessary to increase the customer base. That would be the young and healthy who often do not get coverage even when they could. Human nature also requires that we must understand that if one can get insurance coverage even with a pre existing condition there will not be a strong impetus to get health care coverage until one is sick.
So if the mandate is thrown out the Justices rightly are concerned can the law itself stand without it. Without the mandate the insurance companies will have an explosion in costs. Naturally their own answer will be to increase premiums. So, can it stand, yes it can, will it be a good outcome, it would not.
Myself personally I think if all the insurance companies go broke that would not be a bad thing. Of course my second part of that equation is we go to a government run single payer but one can be assured that we would bail out the insurance companies and their shareholders instead.
What will happen. I think the chance of the whole law being taken down is strong, though it is said Roberts would prefer not to do so on a 5 to 4 vote. I am not a fan of the plan, still I do not want to see it go down in flames over the mandate. It would be, see previous post, another victory for hypocrisy as throughout the late eighties and nineties it was always our Republican friends who felt a mandate was the answer. That idea became a bad one to those on the right approximately 30 seconds after it was accepted by the President as part of his plan.
The Hypocrisy of the Etch a Sketch Moment
The hypocrisy of Mitt Romney being boiled alive over a statement one of his campaign managers made last week is another example of the low intellect of the political discourse in this country.
While his Republican rivals moaned about his lack of Conservative compass and the Democrats just enjoyed in him having one more day of discomfort on his way to the nomination there is one unspoken truth to what he said.
Everyone talking about this issue, on both sides, know that it was a rare moment of unvarnished truth. Now we can bemoan the fact that it is true. We can say it fits into a narrative that particularly haunts Romney as he tries to prove his merit as a true Conservative but what no one can deny is the truth of the statement.
Therefore those using it for political gain are the worst kind of politicians. They are using something said in a moment of candor that happens to be true, and that they know is true, and that they themselves will replicate are they fortunate enough to gain the nomination, against the truth telling party.
Richard Nixon himself, the devil to many on the left, was in most ways the first modern political candidate. This has all the positive and negative ramifications that one can take from that statement. Nixon stated truthfully that both parties have to run to their bases to get the nominations and then move to the center to win the national election. This is true because eighty percent of the electorate is always spoken for by the right and the left. Elections are won in the center with the Independents. Therefore if one does not come back to the center they will not win. Now perhaps some candidates would rather run a race of principles and lose, Barry Goldwater comes to mind as does George McGovern is another, but as those two names will tell you those candidates tend to be defeated and not just defeated but to be defeated spectacuraly. None of our modern candidates seem to be willing to go that road.
It should be noted that both Goldwater and McGovern in defeat are often credited for the beginning of the rebith of their respective parties that brought about much of their parties later successes. Sometimes you have to lose to win, to take one for the team. Does anyone really see any of the leading political figures on either side of the aisle having the spine to stand for something which might cost them a vote.
And that is the problem. Not with Romney's aide telling us that Romney will wipe the slate clean like an etch a sketch and come back to the center. The problem is that any political candidate that tries to treat the American people like adults will gain a strong, dedicated, following. He also, however, will lose by a large margin. We do not want the truth. We want every program to be cut except those that benefit us. We want no single payer health care system ( I know that is my personal bugaboo, I am a passionate believer in single payer) until we lose our jobs and our insurance and then are without insurance and realize that for most of us employer based health care coverage is a disaster waiting to happen.
In a study of election year news clips on the nightly news in 1964 and 1968 the average clip shown of the candidates speaking was fifty seconds. That does not sound like anything extraordinary until one realizes that in the last election it was 14 seconds. In short, a soundbite, usually one that can be taken out of context and exploited in a way that is if not untruthful at least not in the spirit of the statement.
Mitt Romney by the way may be the victim of this etch a sketch moment. He is, however, far from innocent. About ten days ago Rick Santorum in a moment of passion said that " he did not care about the unemployment rate. " That was the statement you saw on the news and that his rivals pounced on. What you did not hear, unless you really sought it out, was the rest of the sentence. Namely that Santorum was not concerned with the unemployment rate, he was concerned with the whole long list of problems that this country faced, many of them in Santorum's opinion being of a cultural and spiritual divide, that we have become a country of niches with no shared opinion, no shared values, and perhaps no shared future.
As with many things Santorum I find myself not disagreeing with his general premise. I find it hard to believe that most Americans would. Unfortunately most Americans will not hear the whole statement.
We get the government we deserve when we reward candidates and campaigns that mislead us and manufactures truths that our not truths. That is without context nothing is true. If you have children and they run in the house after hearing half of a statement the neighbor says and they tell you something outlandish you tell them they must have misheard. When you find out the whole statement it makes sense, you do not call the police on your neighbor, you have waited, got the whole story, in the interim given them the benefit of the doubt, not made any rash judgements and now have the whole truth.
Should we not do the same thing in choosing our President and leaders. We need to reward the candidates that treat us like adults. Trust me if telling the truth and treating us like an adult will get them elected two things will happen. The clowns in office will start doing these things, and the chance of actually honorable, admirable men running for office will increase.
They are all hypocrites. How does that make you feel about your leaders and our future.
While his Republican rivals moaned about his lack of Conservative compass and the Democrats just enjoyed in him having one more day of discomfort on his way to the nomination there is one unspoken truth to what he said.
Everyone talking about this issue, on both sides, know that it was a rare moment of unvarnished truth. Now we can bemoan the fact that it is true. We can say it fits into a narrative that particularly haunts Romney as he tries to prove his merit as a true Conservative but what no one can deny is the truth of the statement.
Therefore those using it for political gain are the worst kind of politicians. They are using something said in a moment of candor that happens to be true, and that they know is true, and that they themselves will replicate are they fortunate enough to gain the nomination, against the truth telling party.
Richard Nixon himself, the devil to many on the left, was in most ways the first modern political candidate. This has all the positive and negative ramifications that one can take from that statement. Nixon stated truthfully that both parties have to run to their bases to get the nominations and then move to the center to win the national election. This is true because eighty percent of the electorate is always spoken for by the right and the left. Elections are won in the center with the Independents. Therefore if one does not come back to the center they will not win. Now perhaps some candidates would rather run a race of principles and lose, Barry Goldwater comes to mind as does George McGovern is another, but as those two names will tell you those candidates tend to be defeated and not just defeated but to be defeated spectacuraly. None of our modern candidates seem to be willing to go that road.
It should be noted that both Goldwater and McGovern in defeat are often credited for the beginning of the rebith of their respective parties that brought about much of their parties later successes. Sometimes you have to lose to win, to take one for the team. Does anyone really see any of the leading political figures on either side of the aisle having the spine to stand for something which might cost them a vote.
And that is the problem. Not with Romney's aide telling us that Romney will wipe the slate clean like an etch a sketch and come back to the center. The problem is that any political candidate that tries to treat the American people like adults will gain a strong, dedicated, following. He also, however, will lose by a large margin. We do not want the truth. We want every program to be cut except those that benefit us. We want no single payer health care system ( I know that is my personal bugaboo, I am a passionate believer in single payer) until we lose our jobs and our insurance and then are without insurance and realize that for most of us employer based health care coverage is a disaster waiting to happen.
In a study of election year news clips on the nightly news in 1964 and 1968 the average clip shown of the candidates speaking was fifty seconds. That does not sound like anything extraordinary until one realizes that in the last election it was 14 seconds. In short, a soundbite, usually one that can be taken out of context and exploited in a way that is if not untruthful at least not in the spirit of the statement.
Mitt Romney by the way may be the victim of this etch a sketch moment. He is, however, far from innocent. About ten days ago Rick Santorum in a moment of passion said that " he did not care about the unemployment rate. " That was the statement you saw on the news and that his rivals pounced on. What you did not hear, unless you really sought it out, was the rest of the sentence. Namely that Santorum was not concerned with the unemployment rate, he was concerned with the whole long list of problems that this country faced, many of them in Santorum's opinion being of a cultural and spiritual divide, that we have become a country of niches with no shared opinion, no shared values, and perhaps no shared future.
As with many things Santorum I find myself not disagreeing with his general premise. I find it hard to believe that most Americans would. Unfortunately most Americans will not hear the whole statement.
We get the government we deserve when we reward candidates and campaigns that mislead us and manufactures truths that our not truths. That is without context nothing is true. If you have children and they run in the house after hearing half of a statement the neighbor says and they tell you something outlandish you tell them they must have misheard. When you find out the whole statement it makes sense, you do not call the police on your neighbor, you have waited, got the whole story, in the interim given them the benefit of the doubt, not made any rash judgements and now have the whole truth.
Should we not do the same thing in choosing our President and leaders. We need to reward the candidates that treat us like adults. Trust me if telling the truth and treating us like an adult will get them elected two things will happen. The clowns in office will start doing these things, and the chance of actually honorable, admirable men running for office will increase.
They are all hypocrites. How does that make you feel about your leaders and our future.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Supreme Court Does Not Work
I am at an age where it seems that I am constantly told that things used to be better. The Senate used to be less divided, government used to be more civil and of course the Supreme Court used to have judges that were respected and assumed to be doing what they felt was best.
The Supreme Court now is simply a reflection of the government that passes laws that it decides the constitutionality of. Everyone is to blame. Nixon lost several nominees to the Supreme Court, Bork was taken out during Reagan's day, the Clarence Thomas case was a national disgrace and since then one can expect each opening to be a battle royal. A justice being nominated to replace a Justice of a different persuasion can cause a total government shut down. We have not seen one of those in quite sometime, perhaps since Clarence Thomas in a really bad joke replaced Thurgood Marshall. If the President is reelected the possibility of him replacing one of the Conservative Justices goes up exponentially.
The case being argued before the Supreme Court is a monster. It really could decide on the overall effectiveness of the President's first term. The problem is that no one on the right or left feels like the outcome is in doubt. The right are confident that the Justices will rebuke the Administration and the mandate. The left, because they are the left continue to hope for good results from this Supreme Court. Praying to the mantle of the supposed middle ground judge Anthony Kennedy to save them is an exercise in futility. That, my friends, is the difference between the right and the left. The right knows when they have an outcome bought and paid for and the left keeps believing in better angels, hope and change, and the tooth fairy.
The fact that before the case is heard we know that the outcome is 4 to 4 , thus depending solely on Justice Kennedy's decision speaks as ill of the Democrats as it does the Republicans. All of these Justices are bought and paid for. Just as both the Democratic and Republican Party used to have a liberal and conservative wing the Supreme Court used to have Justices that surprised us with how they ruled. It is interesting to remember that it was none other than Richard Nixon who said that when the parties become strictly Conservative and strictly liberal that our system of government will cease to function properly.
This is now the case. It is too simple to judge by the questioning of the Justices to determine which way they are going to rule but I think it is safe to say that Kennedy's questions today appeared skeptical at best about the mandate. I also think it is hard to believe that he will allow his vote to be the sealant to the prestige of an Obama administration.
As I said I am not in love with his law. I think it fattens the insurance companies and mandates that the government pays subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance. Really this is not much different from Medicaid. I do like the parts of the bill dealing with pre existing conditions and the like but one wonders if having won the war the Republicans might not give on this battle.
The real answer as always is single payer health care. It is constitutional. It would provide coverage for everyone and of course the savings in administration costs alone would be conservatively twenty percent. This would also stop the practice now of Doctor's ceasing to serve certain hospitals or patients due to payment, reimbursement, or insurance issues. Doctors work hard, go to school for a long time and deserve our respect. However they need to be respectable. Realizing that your profession is noble and not just about dollars and cents would be a start.
Still debating what will happen to health care after the Supremes rule is a debate for another day. The fact that the the Supremes will overrule precedent without the bat of an eye on flimsy legal grounds, and the fact that we knew they would before the hearings even took place tells us all we need to know.
One this like many of our systems is broken. Our system depends on the better angels of men. I believe that most of those angels have been fired.
Secondly that the single most important issue to think about when you vote for President is who do you want making the life altering decisions over the next twenty years about womens rights, reproductive rights, education, seperation of church and state, health care , the coming state government meltdowns, social security and pension issues, the regulation of Wall Street and many, many more future cases that affect our daily lives.
That is what you need to think about when you pull that lever. The ruling on Obamacare should be the primer course you need.
The Supreme Court now is simply a reflection of the government that passes laws that it decides the constitutionality of. Everyone is to blame. Nixon lost several nominees to the Supreme Court, Bork was taken out during Reagan's day, the Clarence Thomas case was a national disgrace and since then one can expect each opening to be a battle royal. A justice being nominated to replace a Justice of a different persuasion can cause a total government shut down. We have not seen one of those in quite sometime, perhaps since Clarence Thomas in a really bad joke replaced Thurgood Marshall. If the President is reelected the possibility of him replacing one of the Conservative Justices goes up exponentially.
The case being argued before the Supreme Court is a monster. It really could decide on the overall effectiveness of the President's first term. The problem is that no one on the right or left feels like the outcome is in doubt. The right are confident that the Justices will rebuke the Administration and the mandate. The left, because they are the left continue to hope for good results from this Supreme Court. Praying to the mantle of the supposed middle ground judge Anthony Kennedy to save them is an exercise in futility. That, my friends, is the difference between the right and the left. The right knows when they have an outcome bought and paid for and the left keeps believing in better angels, hope and change, and the tooth fairy.
The fact that before the case is heard we know that the outcome is 4 to 4 , thus depending solely on Justice Kennedy's decision speaks as ill of the Democrats as it does the Republicans. All of these Justices are bought and paid for. Just as both the Democratic and Republican Party used to have a liberal and conservative wing the Supreme Court used to have Justices that surprised us with how they ruled. It is interesting to remember that it was none other than Richard Nixon who said that when the parties become strictly Conservative and strictly liberal that our system of government will cease to function properly.
This is now the case. It is too simple to judge by the questioning of the Justices to determine which way they are going to rule but I think it is safe to say that Kennedy's questions today appeared skeptical at best about the mandate. I also think it is hard to believe that he will allow his vote to be the sealant to the prestige of an Obama administration.
As I said I am not in love with his law. I think it fattens the insurance companies and mandates that the government pays subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance. Really this is not much different from Medicaid. I do like the parts of the bill dealing with pre existing conditions and the like but one wonders if having won the war the Republicans might not give on this battle.
The real answer as always is single payer health care. It is constitutional. It would provide coverage for everyone and of course the savings in administration costs alone would be conservatively twenty percent. This would also stop the practice now of Doctor's ceasing to serve certain hospitals or patients due to payment, reimbursement, or insurance issues. Doctors work hard, go to school for a long time and deserve our respect. However they need to be respectable. Realizing that your profession is noble and not just about dollars and cents would be a start.
Still debating what will happen to health care after the Supremes rule is a debate for another day. The fact that the the Supremes will overrule precedent without the bat of an eye on flimsy legal grounds, and the fact that we knew they would before the hearings even took place tells us all we need to know.
One this like many of our systems is broken. Our system depends on the better angels of men. I believe that most of those angels have been fired.
Secondly that the single most important issue to think about when you vote for President is who do you want making the life altering decisions over the next twenty years about womens rights, reproductive rights, education, seperation of church and state, health care , the coming state government meltdowns, social security and pension issues, the regulation of Wall Street and many, many more future cases that affect our daily lives.
That is what you need to think about when you pull that lever. The ruling on Obamacare should be the primer course you need.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Curiosity Saved the Cat and Me
Life is busy. We work, we raise our kids, we try to keep our commitments to ourselves, our families, our spouses. At the end of the day we are tired. At the start of many days we are tired. My wife has a hate/hate relationship with her alarm clock. It is easy to understand why.
So developing a curiosity about life and learning is hard to do when you have achieved adulthood and all the responsibilites that entails. I have always felt a desire to learn, to know more about anything I could. My children know this about me and know when one of my new pieces of knowledge is about to drop. My friends know that if a sentence begins with " I read" that I am about to espouse some new information I have gleaned and found worthwhile. I need to thank them for their forbearance and understanding.
I understand why as we hit middle age we lose our interest in inellectual expansion. We are busy, people are incredibly busy, going to work, raising our children, and keeping the bills paid. To come home and be in the familiar whether it be in the glow of a screen or something else familiar is easily understood.
I do not know why I am so curious. I do not remember being that intellectually curious in high school, certainly not in college. Somewhere however over the last decade of so I have had this overwhelming interest in everything.
Now of course not working gives me the ability to read more and learn more that I want to do for my own benefit. I still never have enough time. Certainly time is tempered by the days where I sleep twenty hours, or the days where holding a book up and aloft to read is too much. A day where brushing ones teeth leaves one reaching for the pain pills is a day where not much learning is going to be accomplished. I say this not as a complaint, I will not complain, I think my loved ones can attest to this, but as a reason that I, even without an employer, cannot find the time to satisfy my internal employer.
I told my best friend once that I feared I would die young. It was always a concern, both my brothers died prematurely, and it is still is but as my faith has become stronger I have left that in Gods hands. I still try to do all I can to impart wisdom and character in my children. I wish I was rich enough that my wife would be perfectly set were I to not be here but we all have things we wish we for that we cannot achieve.
Still I wonder sometimes where this thirst for knowledge comes from. Am I trying to run a race, to beat a clock that only I can feel. When I look at the shelves of history and biography books I have read I wonder what will become of these and the knowledge they offer when I am dust. Does it mean anything? I think it does, I hope it does. For me I think that an interest in learning means one is optomistic. If one wants to learn they believe that the future can be brighter. That the one additional piece of knowledge gained at anyone time might be the one that tips the balance if, not in your favor , at least in a positive way.
If I can talk to my twelve year old daughter about a fascinating article I read on how banannas are grown, how altruistic traits in lesser species such as ants might show why we humans act the way we do, and how horticultural studies of apples have changed the fruit into something bland and now attempts to make it the tasty product it was two hundred years ago I might help her to accept her interest in Science and Math and do something in the world that will matter to others.
My middle son wants to join the military to make a difference in the world. My wife tells him kindergarten teachers make a difference as well but I understand his desire. In the end as we lay on our deathbed we all want to think we have a legacy, that we made a difference.
As I watch old movies and regret the age I live in, as I read books, currently ranging from a book about Roger Williams, a Revolutionary War fiction called Oliver Wiswell, H G Wells The Time Machine and the third book in the Robert Caro LBJ biography I ask myself why. The truth is I do not know. I just know it is who I am.
I am thrilled by the free classes offered on ITunes University but struggle to find the time to partake. I extoll the Khan University website, it really is an amazing source of knowledge and learning, and attempt to watch at least one video a day. Today I watched a lesson the relationship of the scope and size of The Earth and the Sun. It is all told in simple ways which make learning easy and attainable.
In short I guess I still feel like I am racing against a clock. I do not know why but I feel like there is an infinite amount of things to learn and a finite supply of time. I have to remember to learn for the love of learning not for the love of having knowledge. I still remember it most days. Sometimes I feel like I am in kindergarten and feeling the same amazement when things first are learned. I remember the excitement of second grade and learning cursive writing. Mrs Gross taught us to write the words mail and man and I was so happy that I wrote mailman combining the two. I was not a showoff, I was a quiet kid, even then the idea of learning and expanding excited me.
It is something that will never change for me. It is who I am. I am sure it is a burden to some who care for me and interact with me. I just hope that they know that if they ever need to know something about how banannas are grown that they can call me anytime.
So developing a curiosity about life and learning is hard to do when you have achieved adulthood and all the responsibilites that entails. I have always felt a desire to learn, to know more about anything I could. My children know this about me and know when one of my new pieces of knowledge is about to drop. My friends know that if a sentence begins with " I read" that I am about to espouse some new information I have gleaned and found worthwhile. I need to thank them for their forbearance and understanding.
I understand why as we hit middle age we lose our interest in inellectual expansion. We are busy, people are incredibly busy, going to work, raising our children, and keeping the bills paid. To come home and be in the familiar whether it be in the glow of a screen or something else familiar is easily understood.
I do not know why I am so curious. I do not remember being that intellectually curious in high school, certainly not in college. Somewhere however over the last decade of so I have had this overwhelming interest in everything.
Now of course not working gives me the ability to read more and learn more that I want to do for my own benefit. I still never have enough time. Certainly time is tempered by the days where I sleep twenty hours, or the days where holding a book up and aloft to read is too much. A day where brushing ones teeth leaves one reaching for the pain pills is a day where not much learning is going to be accomplished. I say this not as a complaint, I will not complain, I think my loved ones can attest to this, but as a reason that I, even without an employer, cannot find the time to satisfy my internal employer.
I told my best friend once that I feared I would die young. It was always a concern, both my brothers died prematurely, and it is still is but as my faith has become stronger I have left that in Gods hands. I still try to do all I can to impart wisdom and character in my children. I wish I was rich enough that my wife would be perfectly set were I to not be here but we all have things we wish we for that we cannot achieve.
Still I wonder sometimes where this thirst for knowledge comes from. Am I trying to run a race, to beat a clock that only I can feel. When I look at the shelves of history and biography books I have read I wonder what will become of these and the knowledge they offer when I am dust. Does it mean anything? I think it does, I hope it does. For me I think that an interest in learning means one is optomistic. If one wants to learn they believe that the future can be brighter. That the one additional piece of knowledge gained at anyone time might be the one that tips the balance if, not in your favor , at least in a positive way.
If I can talk to my twelve year old daughter about a fascinating article I read on how banannas are grown, how altruistic traits in lesser species such as ants might show why we humans act the way we do, and how horticultural studies of apples have changed the fruit into something bland and now attempts to make it the tasty product it was two hundred years ago I might help her to accept her interest in Science and Math and do something in the world that will matter to others.
My middle son wants to join the military to make a difference in the world. My wife tells him kindergarten teachers make a difference as well but I understand his desire. In the end as we lay on our deathbed we all want to think we have a legacy, that we made a difference.
As I watch old movies and regret the age I live in, as I read books, currently ranging from a book about Roger Williams, a Revolutionary War fiction called Oliver Wiswell, H G Wells The Time Machine and the third book in the Robert Caro LBJ biography I ask myself why. The truth is I do not know. I just know it is who I am.
I am thrilled by the free classes offered on ITunes University but struggle to find the time to partake. I extoll the Khan University website, it really is an amazing source of knowledge and learning, and attempt to watch at least one video a day. Today I watched a lesson the relationship of the scope and size of The Earth and the Sun. It is all told in simple ways which make learning easy and attainable.
In short I guess I still feel like I am racing against a clock. I do not know why but I feel like there is an infinite amount of things to learn and a finite supply of time. I have to remember to learn for the love of learning not for the love of having knowledge. I still remember it most days. Sometimes I feel like I am in kindergarten and feeling the same amazement when things first are learned. I remember the excitement of second grade and learning cursive writing. Mrs Gross taught us to write the words mail and man and I was so happy that I wrote mailman combining the two. I was not a showoff, I was a quiet kid, even then the idea of learning and expanding excited me.
It is something that will never change for me. It is who I am. I am sure it is a burden to some who care for me and interact with me. I just hope that they know that if they ever need to know something about how banannas are grown that they can call me anytime.
The Revivial of Rick Perry
Isn't it strange how a little personality, a little humor and candor can raise a person in stature. Rick Perry, whose campaign for President proved that he was not quite ready for prime time, has been giving some pretty good interviews and speeches in the last weeks.
Certainly this is an effort to rebuild his name and reputation. The good news is that it appears to be working.
Over the weekend Perry spoke at a Press Club Gridiron dinner. Perry was magnificent. He delivered a wonderful lighthearted speech poking fun at himself, his former adversaries in the primary, the press and his fellow Texan George Bush. Perry was affable, funny and displayed true respect to the working press. Even more so he appeared sincere, and now free of the yoke of being perfect in front of the cameras, seems to be much more at ease and thus much more likable.
Inevitably Perry will run again for National Office. It is quite likely I will not agree with his positions. Still what is becoming apparent is that the meat grinder the Conservative Right puts it's candidates through leaves them with strong, intelligent, candidates like Tim Pawlenty on the sidelines, and strong personalities like Rick Perry unable to live inside the straight jacket confines placed on them.
I am sure the Democrats do the same. More people in the middle need get involved. Litmus tests should not be the standard decider of who becomes the candidate. We are driving strong candidates away and leaving ourselves with the battle of the blands.
Certainly this is an effort to rebuild his name and reputation. The good news is that it appears to be working.
Over the weekend Perry spoke at a Press Club Gridiron dinner. Perry was magnificent. He delivered a wonderful lighthearted speech poking fun at himself, his former adversaries in the primary, the press and his fellow Texan George Bush. Perry was affable, funny and displayed true respect to the working press. Even more so he appeared sincere, and now free of the yoke of being perfect in front of the cameras, seems to be much more at ease and thus much more likable.
Inevitably Perry will run again for National Office. It is quite likely I will not agree with his positions. Still what is becoming apparent is that the meat grinder the Conservative Right puts it's candidates through leaves them with strong, intelligent, candidates like Tim Pawlenty on the sidelines, and strong personalities like Rick Perry unable to live inside the straight jacket confines placed on them.
I am sure the Democrats do the same. More people in the middle need get involved. Litmus tests should not be the standard decider of who becomes the candidate. We are driving strong candidates away and leaving ourselves with the battle of the blands.
Health Care at the Supreme Court
Many folks in this country disagree with the Health Care Reform Act commonly referred to as Obama care. Some disagree primarily with the mandate portion of the bill. This, in fact, is the basis of the lawsuit which has wound it's way to The Supreme Court with opening arguements scheduled for today.
A couple of points are important here. It is assumed that due to precedent and any reading of the Commerce clause in the Constitution that this law will stand. One good example is the forcing in many states of drivers being mandated to have liability insurance. This is to protect the state and fellow citizens from picking up the cost of your not having insurance. One does not need insurance until one needs insurance and the same could be said for health care.
However disregarding this obvious ruling our Republican friends should know something else. Each time The Supreme Court tramples on precedent to achieve a partisan political aim they are guarenteeing the same will be done to them. By now everyone knows that the campaign finance ruling known as Citizens United sets aside assumed and literal precedent that has been the law for over a hundred years. What that and if the health care law's potential reversal guarentees is that for the future any law that is the law now is only the law until the numbers change on The Supreme Court. And they will. There is a demographic nightmare coming straight at the Republican Party.
The Supreme Court is there last chance to hold that off for as long as possible. Cynically were President Obama to be defeated I would not be surprised to see the next Republican nominated Justices to be in their early thirties. The Republican intent is to hold the majority in this unelected office long after their demographic mandate has shriveled.
Still upsetting long term precedent for short term political gain has a risk. Nothing might energize the left more than realizing that perhaps the greatest legacy of a President are the justices he or she places on the Court. Nominees bent on destroying precedent and settled law might visit issues that we in this country are in no way desiring to have revisited. A President Romney or Santorum could bring about a majority court that agrees on these womens issues that have been the main topic of discussion in the primaries of late.
In short when deciding who to vote for it would do us all well to decide if we are happy with the basic constitutional guarentees we have. A President allowed to cement a Conservative majority long after the country moves away from that direction is a President we may regret.
I am no fan of this health care bill. I think it did not go far enough and feel that a single payer government run system would be the eventual result of a defeat of this bill due to the Commerce clause. So I will shed no tears for its defeat. But as has been said for as long as we can remember follow the money. Who is getting rich off the system as it is. Do you really think that insurance companies have your best interest at heart. Please ...we are all smarter than that.
A couple of points are important here. It is assumed that due to precedent and any reading of the Commerce clause in the Constitution that this law will stand. One good example is the forcing in many states of drivers being mandated to have liability insurance. This is to protect the state and fellow citizens from picking up the cost of your not having insurance. One does not need insurance until one needs insurance and the same could be said for health care.
However disregarding this obvious ruling our Republican friends should know something else. Each time The Supreme Court tramples on precedent to achieve a partisan political aim they are guarenteeing the same will be done to them. By now everyone knows that the campaign finance ruling known as Citizens United sets aside assumed and literal precedent that has been the law for over a hundred years. What that and if the health care law's potential reversal guarentees is that for the future any law that is the law now is only the law until the numbers change on The Supreme Court. And they will. There is a demographic nightmare coming straight at the Republican Party.
The Supreme Court is there last chance to hold that off for as long as possible. Cynically were President Obama to be defeated I would not be surprised to see the next Republican nominated Justices to be in their early thirties. The Republican intent is to hold the majority in this unelected office long after their demographic mandate has shriveled.
Still upsetting long term precedent for short term political gain has a risk. Nothing might energize the left more than realizing that perhaps the greatest legacy of a President are the justices he or she places on the Court. Nominees bent on destroying precedent and settled law might visit issues that we in this country are in no way desiring to have revisited. A President Romney or Santorum could bring about a majority court that agrees on these womens issues that have been the main topic of discussion in the primaries of late.
In short when deciding who to vote for it would do us all well to decide if we are happy with the basic constitutional guarentees we have. A President allowed to cement a Conservative majority long after the country moves away from that direction is a President we may regret.
I am no fan of this health care bill. I think it did not go far enough and feel that a single payer government run system would be the eventual result of a defeat of this bill due to the Commerce clause. So I will shed no tears for its defeat. But as has been said for as long as we can remember follow the money. Who is getting rich off the system as it is. Do you really think that insurance companies have your best interest at heart. Please ...we are all smarter than that.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Mitt Romney: The Most Boring Man In the World
A couple of funny lines on Bill Maher last night.
Paint watches him dry ...and better yet. When it can't sleep Ambien takes him.
As the panel said that Romney was inventing a new word, namely forgainst as his position continually changes, and that this flexibility could help him Maher commented that Romney was more flexible than the stripper he gave a fifty to last night.
Mitt Romney is an object of derision by those on the left, he also suffers the same from his friends on the right.
Paint watches him dry ...and better yet. When it can't sleep Ambien takes him.
As the panel said that Romney was inventing a new word, namely forgainst as his position continually changes, and that this flexibility could help him Maher commented that Romney was more flexible than the stripper he gave a fifty to last night.
Mitt Romney is an object of derision by those on the left, he also suffers the same from his friends on the right.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
McDonald's in the Morning
I took my oldest son to the orthodontist a couple of days ago. After that on the way to school we stopped for breakfast at McDonalds. As we went in, my son, who usually does not see much of the breakfast menu at restaraunts due to his sleeping schedule, said why are all these people here. Then he said in a typical teenage way " Why are all the people in here old? "
I explained to him that for old folks going out for breakfast each morning, or at least a cup of coffee with friends is a highlight of their day. I think that for kids especially, wondering what Grampa and Gramma do when they are at home is not something that they do.
I told him that all of us, old people, working people, young people all need each other. We all need social outlets. People need people.
As we were the fly on the wall at McDonald's we watched older ladies talking about their grandchildren, politics and church suppers. We watched men talking about the NCAA tournament, the weather and their wives nagging. I think that children are so self abosorbed much of the time they think of older people as only existing when they are with them.
I compared what we saw with my friendship with some of my co workers at my former employer. We had a great group of individuals. If you polled each and every one of us we would all tell you of the respect we had for each other and the fact that we had lunch together each day. We used to say that we solved the world's problems each and every day. Having that social time together to talk about everything and nothing at all was a huge benefit to us. It is not a stretch to say that it at times was the time of the day we looked forward to most of all. We of course would not say that in front of our wives or children but at times it was true.
Our kids today play XBOX, this Call of Duty game in an excessive way. I think it is silly. However we have to recognize that for them this is a social outlet. They strap on their headphones and talk, exchanging male bravado all the time. The fact is that while McDonalds, an office at work, or a kids bedroom with X box headphones attached would not seem to have much in common they do.
We all need people. We all need to share our lives. I myself can be a solitary person. I enjoy things that one can do oneself. I can sit in the backyard swing on a sunny day, alone and in thought, and be totally content. Still I know that if I need or desire to spend time with someone I have people I can call. My wife on the other hand is a total social butterfly. Give her a weekend day, tell her to stay home and be quiet and she will by the middle of the day look like a child who ate 12 candy bars, she will get antsy and fidgety. She needs to see people, to do things and fortunately for her she has a list of good friends that is long and deep.
No matter if we have a couple of really good friends or a host of them we all need the same thing.
I told my son , who is by nature, more closed off than me, that he needs to remember as he gets older that he never needs to be afraid of telling those who care about him that he needs them, or just needs to talk. A true friend is one of the rarest and most valuable things you can have...even if you do find one at McDonalds.
I explained to him that for old folks going out for breakfast each morning, or at least a cup of coffee with friends is a highlight of their day. I think that for kids especially, wondering what Grampa and Gramma do when they are at home is not something that they do.
I told him that all of us, old people, working people, young people all need each other. We all need social outlets. People need people.
As we were the fly on the wall at McDonald's we watched older ladies talking about their grandchildren, politics and church suppers. We watched men talking about the NCAA tournament, the weather and their wives nagging. I think that children are so self abosorbed much of the time they think of older people as only existing when they are with them.
I compared what we saw with my friendship with some of my co workers at my former employer. We had a great group of individuals. If you polled each and every one of us we would all tell you of the respect we had for each other and the fact that we had lunch together each day. We used to say that we solved the world's problems each and every day. Having that social time together to talk about everything and nothing at all was a huge benefit to us. It is not a stretch to say that it at times was the time of the day we looked forward to most of all. We of course would not say that in front of our wives or children but at times it was true.
Our kids today play XBOX, this Call of Duty game in an excessive way. I think it is silly. However we have to recognize that for them this is a social outlet. They strap on their headphones and talk, exchanging male bravado all the time. The fact is that while McDonalds, an office at work, or a kids bedroom with X box headphones attached would not seem to have much in common they do.
We all need people. We all need to share our lives. I myself can be a solitary person. I enjoy things that one can do oneself. I can sit in the backyard swing on a sunny day, alone and in thought, and be totally content. Still I know that if I need or desire to spend time with someone I have people I can call. My wife on the other hand is a total social butterfly. Give her a weekend day, tell her to stay home and be quiet and she will by the middle of the day look like a child who ate 12 candy bars, she will get antsy and fidgety. She needs to see people, to do things and fortunately for her she has a list of good friends that is long and deep.
No matter if we have a couple of really good friends or a host of them we all need the same thing.
I told my son , who is by nature, more closed off than me, that he needs to remember as he gets older that he never needs to be afraid of telling those who care about him that he needs them, or just needs to talk. A true friend is one of the rarest and most valuable things you can have...even if you do find one at McDonalds.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Paul Ryan and His Plan
Paul Ryan released his budget plan today. Paul Ryan must come from a from a very Conservative district as he never worries about reelection. Thus he can float trial balloons which draw a distinction between the left and the right.
I agree with Paul Ryan on some things. Medicare, Medicaid and entitlement spending do need to be reigned in. Without that his idea on vouchers for Medicare will probably be a necessity. I would be interested to know did Ryan vote for George Bush's prescription drug plan. If he did then that is a vote he should explain. I have stated and will continue to say that the only answer to Medical costs is a single payer system but Americans have made themselves clear, they do not want that. Without that however no long term saving of Medicare and Medicaid will be possible. Again people will have to make a choice.
Where I disagree with Ryan and all Republicans is I am all for cuts but I am also for revenue increases. I favor a dollar for dollar approach. I also think that a proposal to balance the budget but increase defense spending immediately makes said budget foolish. I support the military, I encourage my boys to be in the military if they have interest, but the money pit that spends hundreds of millions on single plane or a billion on a helicopter has to stop. We are not facing the same threats we used to we could cut our military by at least a third and still be as well protected. Everyone knows this but of course the ability to call your opponent soft on defense is a political gold mine.
At some point people have to make decisions. Some of the same people who protest at Tea Party rallies collect Social Security and Medicare. Somewhere these is a reality check missing.
Paul Ryan deserves credit for putting his ideas out there. Democrats are guilty of grandstanding when they claim his budget is " Christmas " for their candidates in the fall. Let's debate any provision of it but lets not forget he is putting his ideas in the arena. What Democrat has done that?
In our house we try to teach the kids before you critique something you should have an idea of your own on how to address it. Maybe we should teach our politicians the same.
I agree with Paul Ryan on some things. Medicare, Medicaid and entitlement spending do need to be reigned in. Without that his idea on vouchers for Medicare will probably be a necessity. I would be interested to know did Ryan vote for George Bush's prescription drug plan. If he did then that is a vote he should explain. I have stated and will continue to say that the only answer to Medical costs is a single payer system but Americans have made themselves clear, they do not want that. Without that however no long term saving of Medicare and Medicaid will be possible. Again people will have to make a choice.
Where I disagree with Ryan and all Republicans is I am all for cuts but I am also for revenue increases. I favor a dollar for dollar approach. I also think that a proposal to balance the budget but increase defense spending immediately makes said budget foolish. I support the military, I encourage my boys to be in the military if they have interest, but the money pit that spends hundreds of millions on single plane or a billion on a helicopter has to stop. We are not facing the same threats we used to we could cut our military by at least a third and still be as well protected. Everyone knows this but of course the ability to call your opponent soft on defense is a political gold mine.
At some point people have to make decisions. Some of the same people who protest at Tea Party rallies collect Social Security and Medicare. Somewhere these is a reality check missing.
Paul Ryan deserves credit for putting his ideas out there. Democrats are guilty of grandstanding when they claim his budget is " Christmas " for their candidates in the fall. Let's debate any provision of it but lets not forget he is putting his ideas in the arena. What Democrat has done that?
In our house we try to teach the kids before you critique something you should have an idea of your own on how to address it. Maybe we should teach our politicians the same.
We Are Having a Heatwave
Not really. The technical defintion of three ninety degree days will not happen. Still with Sunday, Monday and today showing tempertures in the high seventies and tempertires slated for the mid to upper eighties on Wednesday and Thursday we certainly feel like we are having a heat wave.
Tonight sitting outside with the dog, throwing a toy for him I noticed that the trees are budding. The birds are happy and there are even biting insects flying around. It is still March. This is rare, I am sure the temps have been record setting and will continue to be for the next couple of days.
Is this a sign of global warming. I do not know. It was in the eighties in St Louis last week. It is warm everywhere. I remember reading about it being in the seventies in Chicago in January a year or so ago and a writer advising that those celebrating the tempertures were doing the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burned. I just cannot get shook up about global warming. I know that I should. I do believe that it exists. I do not deny it. My position is not as a denier, it is as a person who does not neccisarily think that we can make any real change and certainly does not feel that we should make changes while the rest of the world does not.
So tonight at dinner we talked about the weather we all agreed that if it was global warming we might as well enjoy it. That is kind of a silly answer. It is better than losing sleep though of course our left wing friends would like us to do just that.
What is the answer. Enjoy the sun. Enjoy the warmth. Vote for candidates from the right or left who have a real plan for energy independence from petroleum products, and especially for the Middle East. Do not lose sleep. Wear sunscreen. Expect to be treated like a grown up by politicians and do not abandon them when they do.
Tonight sitting outside with the dog, throwing a toy for him I noticed that the trees are budding. The birds are happy and there are even biting insects flying around. It is still March. This is rare, I am sure the temps have been record setting and will continue to be for the next couple of days.
Is this a sign of global warming. I do not know. It was in the eighties in St Louis last week. It is warm everywhere. I remember reading about it being in the seventies in Chicago in January a year or so ago and a writer advising that those celebrating the tempertures were doing the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burned. I just cannot get shook up about global warming. I know that I should. I do believe that it exists. I do not deny it. My position is not as a denier, it is as a person who does not neccisarily think that we can make any real change and certainly does not feel that we should make changes while the rest of the world does not.
So tonight at dinner we talked about the weather we all agreed that if it was global warming we might as well enjoy it. That is kind of a silly answer. It is better than losing sleep though of course our left wing friends would like us to do just that.
What is the answer. Enjoy the sun. Enjoy the warmth. Vote for candidates from the right or left who have a real plan for energy independence from petroleum products, and especially for the Middle East. Do not lose sleep. Wear sunscreen. Expect to be treated like a grown up by politicians and do not abandon them when they do.
A Death in Florida
I have heard over the last few days of the young seventeen year old who was killed by a neighborhood watch leader in Florida. I will confess right now that I do not know what happened. I do not even know the beginning of the story and the accusations that are being sent back and forth. I have just seen Al Sharpton, certainly not one of the best sources of objective news, telling us the young man was innocent of any crime, was unarmed, and liked to bake cookies.
This might all be true. The question is why was he shot. What did the man who shot him think he saw, what did he think was happening that, apparently, was not.
Perhaps we could ask some broader based questions. Why do we need community policing by citizens. Has this community trained these individuals properly. What does one do to qualify as a neighborhood watch leader? Has this community been hit by budget cuts prompting these neighborhood watches? Is this a diverse community or one in which as young black man would seem out of place and as perhaps a threat?
Yes the young man was black. I waited to note that fact so that perhaps one could develop an opinion of reason until the element of race was brought in. Now however that you know it was a young black man you know that this can no longer be judged in a reasonable way.
I am not blaming black folks for being upset. Certainly if a young white man was killed in the same situation there would be an element of race in that too. Still it is also clear that a black man killing a white man would cause controversy, but lets also be clear that the outrage would not be so great. The guilt of the left over race issues always makes their reaction knee jerk.
It might well be that this will be a negligent case. It might well be that the shooter will be guilty of a crime and deservedly be punished. It might also be true that there was more to the case that what we know, in fact one can be assured that there is. The question is why do we have to jump in with both feet and stir the pot. Why cannot we let the parents grieve and trust in our system to find the truth. Jumping to conclusions was not the right answer in the O J Simpson case according to African American activists why is it the right answer here.
I am not defending the shooter. I am just commenting that if we want an equal system under the law we need to let the law work before we criticize the result. I also think that asking questions about the whole process that puts a neighborhood watch in place.
Currently now I am watching a Missouri congressman, an African American stating that the young man was killed for holding chiclets and he is shaking chiclets on camera as a prop. I am glad he is doing nothing to sensationalize the issue.
We all need to take a deep breath. We need to feel terrible for this young man. We need however to resolve to get to the truth.
This might all be true. The question is why was he shot. What did the man who shot him think he saw, what did he think was happening that, apparently, was not.
Perhaps we could ask some broader based questions. Why do we need community policing by citizens. Has this community trained these individuals properly. What does one do to qualify as a neighborhood watch leader? Has this community been hit by budget cuts prompting these neighborhood watches? Is this a diverse community or one in which as young black man would seem out of place and as perhaps a threat?
Yes the young man was black. I waited to note that fact so that perhaps one could develop an opinion of reason until the element of race was brought in. Now however that you know it was a young black man you know that this can no longer be judged in a reasonable way.
I am not blaming black folks for being upset. Certainly if a young white man was killed in the same situation there would be an element of race in that too. Still it is also clear that a black man killing a white man would cause controversy, but lets also be clear that the outrage would not be so great. The guilt of the left over race issues always makes their reaction knee jerk.
It might well be that this will be a negligent case. It might well be that the shooter will be guilty of a crime and deservedly be punished. It might also be true that there was more to the case that what we know, in fact one can be assured that there is. The question is why do we have to jump in with both feet and stir the pot. Why cannot we let the parents grieve and trust in our system to find the truth. Jumping to conclusions was not the right answer in the O J Simpson case according to African American activists why is it the right answer here.
I am not defending the shooter. I am just commenting that if we want an equal system under the law we need to let the law work before we criticize the result. I also think that asking questions about the whole process that puts a neighborhood watch in place.
Currently now I am watching a Missouri congressman, an African American stating that the young man was killed for holding chiclets and he is shaking chiclets on camera as a prop. I am glad he is doing nothing to sensationalize the issue.
We all need to take a deep breath. We need to feel terrible for this young man. We need however to resolve to get to the truth.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Obama and gas prices
About two weeks ago Pres. Obama's approval ratings were over 50% for the first time in a long time. Today the New York Times released a poll that shows the president dropping all the way down to 41%. This is a remarkable change. Most commentators put the reason as Republicans recent hammering him consistently on gas prices and their increase. The question that needs to be asked is if the fact that gas is approaching four dollars a gallon and then a candidate for president on the Republican side is promising gas at two dollars a gallon is that enough for someone to change their vote.
Does anyone really believe that a politician or a president can determine the price of gas. We now are drilling more domestically than we have since 2003. Perhaps a better question would be is why we continue to be so dependent on oil not just American oil not just foreign oil but oil in general.
Gas prices for the last 20 to 30 years have always been artificially low. if one looks at prices in other countries that's easy to see. One also can look at the cost of inflation overall.Looking at products in America since the 1930s and they will clearly see the gas should not be two dollars a gallon. About three years ago, the last time gas reached over four dollars a gallon a friend of mine who drove a giant pickup truck that probably got about eight or 9 miles to the gallon went out and bought himself a small car for the commute to work. this was because he could buy the car make the payments and still save money on gas. When gas prices went back down his habits have not changed. He sold the car and then until this day still drives the large truck .
.
The fact is everybody has a certain price point which makes something uncomfortable. for some it may be paying hundred dollars for a tank of gas. For others it may be the cost of gas per gallon being over four dollars. For us and our home we now are paying almost double the amount we were paying for gas before. we pay each month with a credit card one statement one bill for all of our purchases for the month and it's easy to see the changes and increase.
Last summer we purchased a Honda pilot. My wife wanted to have a large vehicle so that all the kids and friends and in-laws and mothers-in-law and dogs all accompany us when we all went some place for a trip together. This does not happen very often as our kids are all teenagers and as one might know by now if they had teenagers themselves they rarely want to be with us and even more rarely all want to be with us at the same time.
So now I have this Honda pilot which gets about 20 to 22 miles per gallon on the highway but as it is my vehicle and I use it mostly to go places around town take the kids to school, and do small appointments we are getting about 13 miles to the gallon. This is an expense that we really have no need for. So if things do not change it is likely that this car will not be with us for a long time and we will change it as soon as we are able. I like it, it's comfortable, it rides well, it's roomy however I am not sure that we can justify that expense for as little as we use it.
So the question is are Americans really so shallow that when everything is going on the world they will choose their president over how cheap they're gasoline is. If this is the case one needs to remember that perhaps the most important thing and most relevant thing we can say is that we get the government we deserve.
Does anyone really believe that a politician or a president can determine the price of gas. We now are drilling more domestically than we have since 2003. Perhaps a better question would be is why we continue to be so dependent on oil not just American oil not just foreign oil but oil in general.
Gas prices for the last 20 to 30 years have always been artificially low. if one looks at prices in other countries that's easy to see. One also can look at the cost of inflation overall.Looking at products in America since the 1930s and they will clearly see the gas should not be two dollars a gallon. About three years ago, the last time gas reached over four dollars a gallon a friend of mine who drove a giant pickup truck that probably got about eight or 9 miles to the gallon went out and bought himself a small car for the commute to work. this was because he could buy the car make the payments and still save money on gas. When gas prices went back down his habits have not changed. He sold the car and then until this day still drives the large truck .
.
The fact is everybody has a certain price point which makes something uncomfortable. for some it may be paying hundred dollars for a tank of gas. For others it may be the cost of gas per gallon being over four dollars. For us and our home we now are paying almost double the amount we were paying for gas before. we pay each month with a credit card one statement one bill for all of our purchases for the month and it's easy to see the changes and increase.
Last summer we purchased a Honda pilot. My wife wanted to have a large vehicle so that all the kids and friends and in-laws and mothers-in-law and dogs all accompany us when we all went some place for a trip together. This does not happen very often as our kids are all teenagers and as one might know by now if they had teenagers themselves they rarely want to be with us and even more rarely all want to be with us at the same time.
So now I have this Honda pilot which gets about 20 to 22 miles per gallon on the highway but as it is my vehicle and I use it mostly to go places around town take the kids to school, and do small appointments we are getting about 13 miles to the gallon. This is an expense that we really have no need for. So if things do not change it is likely that this car will not be with us for a long time and we will change it as soon as we are able. I like it, it's comfortable, it rides well, it's roomy however I am not sure that we can justify that expense for as little as we use it.
So the question is are Americans really so shallow that when everything is going on the world they will choose their president over how cheap they're gasoline is. If this is the case one needs to remember that perhaps the most important thing and most relevant thing we can say is that we get the government we deserve.
On Board With the Iphone
Last week I purchased an Iphone. I had been hoping to wait for the next model but my phone was a travesty. It shut off all the time, whenever it felt like it. So I bit the bullet and paid $200 and upgraded.
Now I have not used the Android platform. Therefore I cannot compare them to the Iphone. They might well be quite similar and interchangable. What Apple has however is a great advantage in that as more people get their Ipads and Computers they are more likely to get Iphones and vice versa.
I think the percentage of people with Ipads and Android phones is small. Apple, perhaps better than any other company has loyal customers across all their product lines.
I am not a fan of Apple persay. Folks who think the company is consumer friendly are right but only in the fact that they realize being consumer centric is good business. Apple is not a hippie company with goals to better the world. They are simply profit driven and blessed with brilliant people. Steve Jobs was a visionary. Anyone however comparing Jobs and Bill Gates, he of the incredible philanthropy would say that Jobs lost the battle of who is the person we admire.
However, the Iphone is incredible. Siri is amazing and she is still only Beta. I have trouble typing and writing and can now dictate an entry. Or a text, or an email. or a reminder.
The platform is familiar, it is really an Ipad made small, or I should say an Ipad is an Iphone made made big.
Apple makes products that are attractive and easy to use. Using this Iphone I feel very satisfied with the purchase, that the two hundred dollars was well spent.
Now I have not used the Android platform. Therefore I cannot compare them to the Iphone. They might well be quite similar and interchangable. What Apple has however is a great advantage in that as more people get their Ipads and Computers they are more likely to get Iphones and vice versa.
I think the percentage of people with Ipads and Android phones is small. Apple, perhaps better than any other company has loyal customers across all their product lines.
I am not a fan of Apple persay. Folks who think the company is consumer friendly are right but only in the fact that they realize being consumer centric is good business. Apple is not a hippie company with goals to better the world. They are simply profit driven and blessed with brilliant people. Steve Jobs was a visionary. Anyone however comparing Jobs and Bill Gates, he of the incredible philanthropy would say that Jobs lost the battle of who is the person we admire.
However, the Iphone is incredible. Siri is amazing and she is still only Beta. I have trouble typing and writing and can now dictate an entry. Or a text, or an email. or a reminder.
The platform is familiar, it is really an Ipad made small, or I should say an Ipad is an Iphone made made big.
Apple makes products that are attractive and easy to use. Using this Iphone I feel very satisfied with the purchase, that the two hundred dollars was well spent.
Bill Maher versus Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh has fallen on hard times. I heard yesterday that his network that distributes his show is going to do so with no ads for a couple of weeks. This is meant to let the recent controversies settle down and spare those advertisers still with him the trouble of being linked to him at this time.
Limbaugh as the whole world knows got in trouble recently by commenting on a young Georgetown student who spoke about contraception issues before Congress. Limbaugh went too far. The surprising thing is that this is a surprise. Limbaugh had a long list of offensive things he has said.
Bill Maher who has become the Conservatives whipping boy of late made a statement if not defending Limbaugh personally, defended his right to be an idiot. Of course in the same episode Maher attacked Rick Santorum as anti-knowledge.
Now I have defended Santorum in several posts and will continue to do so as I think he is the truest Republican in the field. However compared to some of the slurs that Limbaugh makes daily on Democrats and the President in general calling a candidate such as Santorum, who has publicly said that the President was a snob for wanting everyone to go to college, anti knowledge is not a huge slander. Is Santorum anti knowledge, of course not, is the statement within bounds considering his public postions and statements, yes.
Maher on his show stated that Limbaugh was being treated unfairly as in being a public figure paid to make controversy he was doing only what he traditionally had. Maher also felt that the pressure being put on advertisers to leave Limbaugh's show was unfair and amounted to censorship. He is correct. To me another point to be made is that the advertisers themselves are hypocrites. Everyone knows what Limbaugh is by now, twenty years on the air will do that. Each day one could find something offensive said by this man. This, however, is the issue that breaks the back.
If we start having sponsors leaving controversial programming we will soon have free dull speech. We need to encourage free speech. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
People are free to choose to listen or not. Air America did not get enough ratings and soon was off the air. That is the market reacting. Limbaugh and Maher both say controversial things that appeal to their base. They both mistakes. And they both have apologized. I think that us trying to then say that an apology is not sufficient or sincere enough is a bit silly.
In this story the villians are many.
First we have the advertisers with their " Oh my goodness we had no idea he was such a flamethrower " attitudes
Second we have the wacko left who is attacking Limbaugh with glee. They fail to see that in all these cases your perspective is based on where you stand on the aisle. You cannot defend left wing flamethrowers and attack Rush Limbaugh.
Third you have the Republican political candidates who would not strongly distance themselves from Rush's position for fear of losing ground with the far right who loves him. Another point to be made is that the only thing worse than someone not saying something strongly against Rush would be a Republican who previously kowtowed to him and now attacked him. See Advertiser statement before.
Fourth is Limbaugh himself. He makes stupid statements all the time.
Lastly would be Maher himself. I found his defending Limbaugh to be along the lines of " I do not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it." Actually in this case I do not think Maher did anything wrong in this case. He attacked in sharp satire Rick Santorum. This should be no surprise. Like Limbaugh it is what he does each week.
To me the case is simple. If you don't like what they say do not listen. If you think that folks like Limbaugh and Maher coarsen the culture and deepen the divide between the two parties you are right and can say that. What you should not do however is
A Be a liberal and applaud Maher and attack Limbaugh.
B Be a conservative and applaud Limbaugh and attack Maher
C Be an advertiser and act like you are shocked by what Limbaugh says
In short grow up, do not be a hypocrite.
Limbaugh as the whole world knows got in trouble recently by commenting on a young Georgetown student who spoke about contraception issues before Congress. Limbaugh went too far. The surprising thing is that this is a surprise. Limbaugh had a long list of offensive things he has said.
Bill Maher who has become the Conservatives whipping boy of late made a statement if not defending Limbaugh personally, defended his right to be an idiot. Of course in the same episode Maher attacked Rick Santorum as anti-knowledge.
Now I have defended Santorum in several posts and will continue to do so as I think he is the truest Republican in the field. However compared to some of the slurs that Limbaugh makes daily on Democrats and the President in general calling a candidate such as Santorum, who has publicly said that the President was a snob for wanting everyone to go to college, anti knowledge is not a huge slander. Is Santorum anti knowledge, of course not, is the statement within bounds considering his public postions and statements, yes.
Maher on his show stated that Limbaugh was being treated unfairly as in being a public figure paid to make controversy he was doing only what he traditionally had. Maher also felt that the pressure being put on advertisers to leave Limbaugh's show was unfair and amounted to censorship. He is correct. To me another point to be made is that the advertisers themselves are hypocrites. Everyone knows what Limbaugh is by now, twenty years on the air will do that. Each day one could find something offensive said by this man. This, however, is the issue that breaks the back.
If we start having sponsors leaving controversial programming we will soon have free dull speech. We need to encourage free speech. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
People are free to choose to listen or not. Air America did not get enough ratings and soon was off the air. That is the market reacting. Limbaugh and Maher both say controversial things that appeal to their base. They both mistakes. And they both have apologized. I think that us trying to then say that an apology is not sufficient or sincere enough is a bit silly.
In this story the villians are many.
First we have the advertisers with their " Oh my goodness we had no idea he was such a flamethrower " attitudes
Second we have the wacko left who is attacking Limbaugh with glee. They fail to see that in all these cases your perspective is based on where you stand on the aisle. You cannot defend left wing flamethrowers and attack Rush Limbaugh.
Third you have the Republican political candidates who would not strongly distance themselves from Rush's position for fear of losing ground with the far right who loves him. Another point to be made is that the only thing worse than someone not saying something strongly against Rush would be a Republican who previously kowtowed to him and now attacked him. See Advertiser statement before.
Fourth is Limbaugh himself. He makes stupid statements all the time.
Lastly would be Maher himself. I found his defending Limbaugh to be along the lines of " I do not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it." Actually in this case I do not think Maher did anything wrong in this case. He attacked in sharp satire Rick Santorum. This should be no surprise. Like Limbaugh it is what he does each week.
To me the case is simple. If you don't like what they say do not listen. If you think that folks like Limbaugh and Maher coarsen the culture and deepen the divide between the two parties you are right and can say that. What you should not do however is
A Be a liberal and applaud Maher and attack Limbaugh.
B Be a conservative and applaud Limbaugh and attack Maher
C Be an advertiser and act like you are shocked by what Limbaugh says
In short grow up, do not be a hypocrite.
Is It Time Now To Leave Afghanistan, Pretty Please
The title of this entry is not meant to be mocking. You could write full essays with multiple reasons on why it is time for us to leave Afghanistan. You could, of course, have written the same paper years ago.
The cost of the effort in Afghanistan is dollars is billions a year. We do not have the money. On a cost benefit analysis money we are spending in Afghanistan should be considered the same as burning it. Any short term benefit to that society will be reversed the minute we leave.
Our original intent to find the Al Queda cells that were hiding in Afghanistan. Of course catching Bin Laden was a goal as well. Instead the mission in Afghanistan has been cloudy for the last five years at least. If, as we claim, we have been very successful in taking out Al Queda calls and leaders what then are we doing. Are we going to be a permanant premptive police force in a country that does not want us.
The person we have become partners with in Harmid Karzi is a crook at best, a despot on a level with others we have in the past aligned ourselves with in the interest of stability. One can rest assured that a large percentage of the aid money we are giving his government is being used for his own benefit and not his countries.
And now this past weekend we have this horrible incident. A soldier, on his third of fourth tour of duty in this whole ten year Afghanistan/Iraq cycle, one who had suffered a traumatic brain injury and been cleared to return, got up from his camp in the middle of the night, walked a mile to a village and shot sixteen people, many of them children while they were sleeping.
What does this mean. Is this a reflection on the mission. No, not in the sense that the original purpose had merit. The mission, however, at this time is going backward. We are hated in a country. Stories told by survivors stating that they told their children to be quiet and scared as " The Americans" were coming should make one question the mission. In the last six months stories have come out that our soldiers have urinated on corpses, burned, if mistakenly, Korans, and now this.
This soldier was obviously disturbed. Afghans are asking for him to stand trial there. Of course that will not happen. Leon Panetta says that this could be a death penalty case. It seems to me the Army will not want to go down that road either, this man was disturbed, three tours, a brain injury and yet he was back in Afghanistan. One has to wonder what kind of screening process we are using to determine a soldier's ability to function under the incredible stress on site in Afghanistan.
The last thing to keep in mind is how this story should illustrate that we as Americans and Afghani citizens as well are provincial. We see news stories as they shine in our light. We see this story and feel badly for those who died but also feel for the soldier and wonder what must have occurred to him to bring this about.
Think about this. A soldier guns down many people at Fort Hood and a soldier guns down many innocent people in Afghanistan. Is there a difference. To me, to Americans there is. We think of the soldier as distrubed in Afghanistan and evil at Fort Hood. Is this the right way to think. Could any objective person look at the two and not determine that they both were disturbed.
You can only walk in a cesspool so long before it starts to affect you, inside and out. Afghanistan is a cesspool. It is a tragedy that we have been there so long and clearly now the cost in dollars and lives might only be eclipsed by the loss of human qualities in those soldiers lucky enough to make it back. We need to make sure that any help they need to prepare for reentry into civilian society is given.
The first thing we can do to help them is bring them home.
The cost of the effort in Afghanistan is dollars is billions a year. We do not have the money. On a cost benefit analysis money we are spending in Afghanistan should be considered the same as burning it. Any short term benefit to that society will be reversed the minute we leave.
Our original intent to find the Al Queda cells that were hiding in Afghanistan. Of course catching Bin Laden was a goal as well. Instead the mission in Afghanistan has been cloudy for the last five years at least. If, as we claim, we have been very successful in taking out Al Queda calls and leaders what then are we doing. Are we going to be a permanant premptive police force in a country that does not want us.
The person we have become partners with in Harmid Karzi is a crook at best, a despot on a level with others we have in the past aligned ourselves with in the interest of stability. One can rest assured that a large percentage of the aid money we are giving his government is being used for his own benefit and not his countries.
And now this past weekend we have this horrible incident. A soldier, on his third of fourth tour of duty in this whole ten year Afghanistan/Iraq cycle, one who had suffered a traumatic brain injury and been cleared to return, got up from his camp in the middle of the night, walked a mile to a village and shot sixteen people, many of them children while they were sleeping.
What does this mean. Is this a reflection on the mission. No, not in the sense that the original purpose had merit. The mission, however, at this time is going backward. We are hated in a country. Stories told by survivors stating that they told their children to be quiet and scared as " The Americans" were coming should make one question the mission. In the last six months stories have come out that our soldiers have urinated on corpses, burned, if mistakenly, Korans, and now this.
This soldier was obviously disturbed. Afghans are asking for him to stand trial there. Of course that will not happen. Leon Panetta says that this could be a death penalty case. It seems to me the Army will not want to go down that road either, this man was disturbed, three tours, a brain injury and yet he was back in Afghanistan. One has to wonder what kind of screening process we are using to determine a soldier's ability to function under the incredible stress on site in Afghanistan.
The last thing to keep in mind is how this story should illustrate that we as Americans and Afghani citizens as well are provincial. We see news stories as they shine in our light. We see this story and feel badly for those who died but also feel for the soldier and wonder what must have occurred to him to bring this about.
Think about this. A soldier guns down many people at Fort Hood and a soldier guns down many innocent people in Afghanistan. Is there a difference. To me, to Americans there is. We think of the soldier as distrubed in Afghanistan and evil at Fort Hood. Is this the right way to think. Could any objective person look at the two and not determine that they both were disturbed.
You can only walk in a cesspool so long before it starts to affect you, inside and out. Afghanistan is a cesspool. It is a tragedy that we have been there so long and clearly now the cost in dollars and lives might only be eclipsed by the loss of human qualities in those soldiers lucky enough to make it back. We need to make sure that any help they need to prepare for reentry into civilian society is given.
The first thing we can do to help them is bring them home.
Mental Health, Medicaid and and the Maine Budget
When I was in Psychology class in College we were taught about the Id and The Superego. I remember being told that people who were starving to death or who do not have the proper shelter usually do not worry about if they are happy or satisfied with their lot in life. Of course we also liked that the professor said along with shelter and food that sex was a requirement of life. Unfortunately that line did not semm to work with the girls.
Conversely over and over we hear numbers that say that mental health may be the most underrated cause of all the problems in society. Mental illness is a factor in crime, social problems, unemployment and on and on it goes. It would be safe to say that most people have someone in their lives who has to deal with mental issues and most of those people are not receiving treatment.
So what does all this mean. It means that we have a large problem when state services for those that qualify for Medicaid are in many cases results of mental illness. Now defining what mental illness is and is not is important. Would it be safe to say that being depressed and not possessing of the self control and discipline to be a good parent is a mental illness. I do not know.
Here is what I do know. If the Dorothea Dix Center in Bangor has to lay off 45, or over twenty percent of their staff to close a budget gap, then it seems likely that in the next budget we will see the center close for good. I cannot speak to the efficiencies that may or may not be achieved by combining the institutions. I do know that having only one center in Maine will be a hardship on communities and certainly on law enforcement.
This is a rambling essay. What does it says in a society that budget cuts are the norm at the same time as tax cuts for the wealthy remain a priority.
The first rule to keep one from feeling depressed is never look at the comments section of a story in the newspaper. Today in reading the comments regarding the Dorothea Dix layoffs some folks blame LePage, but most point out rightly that a seven million dollar gap is just that and if jobs need to be cut so be it. This is a correct fact, though if it were there jobs they would not be so easy with the outcome.
I saw on a show a while back that the biggest shock is that people are not marching in the streets. We have unemployment high, a permanant underclass of undertrained individuals who have done the right things and had their life situations change, a divided culture, tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, wars which cost billions to no positive effect and at the same time consistent cuts to services for those that can least afford them, cuts to education and on and on it goes.
One wonders if people were not so placated with our shiny screens and technology if folks would understand how bad things are. Instead the masses are kept quiet and stagnant.
The Maine budget crisis is no different than the rest of the countries. The question is where is the anger.
Conversely over and over we hear numbers that say that mental health may be the most underrated cause of all the problems in society. Mental illness is a factor in crime, social problems, unemployment and on and on it goes. It would be safe to say that most people have someone in their lives who has to deal with mental issues and most of those people are not receiving treatment.
So what does all this mean. It means that we have a large problem when state services for those that qualify for Medicaid are in many cases results of mental illness. Now defining what mental illness is and is not is important. Would it be safe to say that being depressed and not possessing of the self control and discipline to be a good parent is a mental illness. I do not know.
Here is what I do know. If the Dorothea Dix Center in Bangor has to lay off 45, or over twenty percent of their staff to close a budget gap, then it seems likely that in the next budget we will see the center close for good. I cannot speak to the efficiencies that may or may not be achieved by combining the institutions. I do know that having only one center in Maine will be a hardship on communities and certainly on law enforcement.
This is a rambling essay. What does it says in a society that budget cuts are the norm at the same time as tax cuts for the wealthy remain a priority.
The first rule to keep one from feeling depressed is never look at the comments section of a story in the newspaper. Today in reading the comments regarding the Dorothea Dix layoffs some folks blame LePage, but most point out rightly that a seven million dollar gap is just that and if jobs need to be cut so be it. This is a correct fact, though if it were there jobs they would not be so easy with the outcome.
I saw on a show a while back that the biggest shock is that people are not marching in the streets. We have unemployment high, a permanant underclass of undertrained individuals who have done the right things and had their life situations change, a divided culture, tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, wars which cost billions to no positive effect and at the same time consistent cuts to services for those that can least afford them, cuts to education and on and on it goes.
One wonders if people were not so placated with our shiny screens and technology if folks would understand how bad things are. Instead the masses are kept quiet and stagnant.
The Maine budget crisis is no different than the rest of the countries. The question is where is the anger.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Mitt Romney They Just Do Not Love You
The Republican Party has made clear that Mitt Romney is not their first choice. He is not their second choice. He is, however, in the eyes of most pundits, the candidate in the race that has the best chance of defeating President Obama.
Still it seems that each and everytime he opens his mouth he says something stupid. The remarks that he is an alien do not come from nowhere. As a candidate Romney is not a natural politician. He is the anti- Clinton. His ability to connect with the voters is minimal at best. Now for many folks this is not a disqualifier, they feel that how competent he will be as a "manager" is much more important.
Watching MSNBC and the exit poll data from Super Tuesday it becomes apparent that Romney has much work to do. It seems that it is likely that Romney might well win the nomination. It does not appear it is going to be easy, if Gingrich and Santorum both stay in the race then Romney might well not gain the delegaetes neccesary to win on the first ballot. Romney, for his part, keeps tempting fate. Knowing that the party faithful are not in love with him saying things like it will take an act of God to deny him the nomination is nothing more than a challenge. Their is a difference between trying to paint your nomination as a sure thing and stating that only an act of God could make you lose.
This is an example of Romney's inability to connect, and even more so his inability to not say something stupid.
Rick Santorum, I will say it again, is not someone I would vote for, he makes mistakes, he is however genuine. It is his genuineness in fact that leads to his mistakes, he gets carried away in his speaking about his religion and how it guides him. He is who he is, if you doubt that then you are not listening. It is hard not to like him, admire him. To me he is like a friend of mine who is Conservative who I do not agree with politically but who I admire how he lives his life and how he lives his values.
As a political junkie of course I want Santorum to keep the race going but I genuinely do not like Mitt Romney, I do not find him likable and I think that he will be totally in the pocket of Corporate America.
Watching Morning Joe this morning it is also possible that no one will get the nomination and an open convention could happen. It is hard to believe that Santorum and Gingrich with the vitrol that has been expended between themselves and Romney would ever suggest their delegates move toward Romney. This being the case the chance for a new candidate emerging at the convention inreases exponentially.
In short Mitt Romney by outspending his opponents 10 to 1 defeats Santorum by one point in Ohio. With it unlikely he will be able to outspend a sitting President by the same margin many feel Romney will be a poor candidate. Mitt Romney is not loved, he is not respected, he is not real, he is everything that the average American dislikes about politicians. He is a stereotypical finger in the wind politician, and this might not be the time for that type of candidate.
For now I will send my hopes to Rick Santorum. Do I think he will be President? No I do not. Do I want him to be President? No I do not. Do I think a debate between two clearly delineated candidates would be good for the country to decide their future. Yes I do.
Still it seems that each and everytime he opens his mouth he says something stupid. The remarks that he is an alien do not come from nowhere. As a candidate Romney is not a natural politician. He is the anti- Clinton. His ability to connect with the voters is minimal at best. Now for many folks this is not a disqualifier, they feel that how competent he will be as a "manager" is much more important.
Watching MSNBC and the exit poll data from Super Tuesday it becomes apparent that Romney has much work to do. It seems that it is likely that Romney might well win the nomination. It does not appear it is going to be easy, if Gingrich and Santorum both stay in the race then Romney might well not gain the delegaetes neccesary to win on the first ballot. Romney, for his part, keeps tempting fate. Knowing that the party faithful are not in love with him saying things like it will take an act of God to deny him the nomination is nothing more than a challenge. Their is a difference between trying to paint your nomination as a sure thing and stating that only an act of God could make you lose.
This is an example of Romney's inability to connect, and even more so his inability to not say something stupid.
Rick Santorum, I will say it again, is not someone I would vote for, he makes mistakes, he is however genuine. It is his genuineness in fact that leads to his mistakes, he gets carried away in his speaking about his religion and how it guides him. He is who he is, if you doubt that then you are not listening. It is hard not to like him, admire him. To me he is like a friend of mine who is Conservative who I do not agree with politically but who I admire how he lives his life and how he lives his values.
As a political junkie of course I want Santorum to keep the race going but I genuinely do not like Mitt Romney, I do not find him likable and I think that he will be totally in the pocket of Corporate America.
Watching Morning Joe this morning it is also possible that no one will get the nomination and an open convention could happen. It is hard to believe that Santorum and Gingrich with the vitrol that has been expended between themselves and Romney would ever suggest their delegates move toward Romney. This being the case the chance for a new candidate emerging at the convention inreases exponentially.
In short Mitt Romney by outspending his opponents 10 to 1 defeats Santorum by one point in Ohio. With it unlikely he will be able to outspend a sitting President by the same margin many feel Romney will be a poor candidate. Mitt Romney is not loved, he is not respected, he is not real, he is everything that the average American dislikes about politicians. He is a stereotypical finger in the wind politician, and this might not be the time for that type of candidate.
For now I will send my hopes to Rick Santorum. Do I think he will be President? No I do not. Do I want him to be President? No I do not. Do I think a debate between two clearly delineated candidates would be good for the country to decide their future. Yes I do.
Angus Clears the Field
Ten days ago when Olympia Snowe announced she will no longer be seeking reelection to her Senate seat politicians from the left and right made known their interest in running for the seat. This has all apparently changed with the announcement that Angus King would be running as an Independent.
First Mike Michaud pulled out though to be fair he did so before it was confirmed that King was running. More recently Chellie Pingree, the darling of the Progressive's and a close friend of King's announced that she would not run after all, and would attempt reelection for her seat in the House.
What happened. A few things. First of all a seat in the house as an incumbent is a pretty valuable thing. Michaud will have a hard race against Kevin Raye but Chellie Pingree is pretty much assured reelection in the liberal first district.
Secondly between King's winning election as Governor twice as an Independent and the split vote between Libby Mitchell and Elliott Cutler planting Paul LePage as Governor it seems clear that the Democrats have learned their lessons. That being a King in the Senate is better than a LePage in the Governor's mansion. It is rumored that the Democratic National Committee had urged Pingree to retain her seat in the House rather than risk the aforementioned vote split.
King is now the prohibitive favorite. John Baldacci may still run but my guess is he will not, he understands that King is more popular than him and no Democrat wants to be responsible for losing this seat. It is thought that King will most likely caucus with the Democrats and it is assured that, especially if his choice of caucus is a decider in what party controls the Senate, rest assured he will be able to gain something for Maine.
Angus King for Senate. This should be good for all of us.
First Mike Michaud pulled out though to be fair he did so before it was confirmed that King was running. More recently Chellie Pingree, the darling of the Progressive's and a close friend of King's announced that she would not run after all, and would attempt reelection for her seat in the House.
What happened. A few things. First of all a seat in the house as an incumbent is a pretty valuable thing. Michaud will have a hard race against Kevin Raye but Chellie Pingree is pretty much assured reelection in the liberal first district.
Secondly between King's winning election as Governor twice as an Independent and the split vote between Libby Mitchell and Elliott Cutler planting Paul LePage as Governor it seems clear that the Democrats have learned their lessons. That being a King in the Senate is better than a LePage in the Governor's mansion. It is rumored that the Democratic National Committee had urged Pingree to retain her seat in the House rather than risk the aforementioned vote split.
King is now the prohibitive favorite. John Baldacci may still run but my guess is he will not, he understands that King is more popular than him and no Democrat wants to be responsible for losing this seat. It is thought that King will most likely caucus with the Democrats and it is assured that, especially if his choice of caucus is a decider in what party controls the Senate, rest assured he will be able to gain something for Maine.
Angus King for Senate. This should be good for all of us.
Glass-Steagel's Repeal Was a Diasaster
When we think about the changes that have taken place in the last 30 years politically one thing becomes obvious. Much of what we deem important is not and many legislative acts become much more important than we think at the time.
I always state that Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers was the beginning of the end of the significant power of labor unions.
I believe that McCain-Feingold was a very important act as it changed campaign finance law and now even more important as in it's appeal and reversal by the Supreme Court in the case now known as Citizens United has opened the floodgates of corporate money into elections.
Lastly and perhaps most important might be the reversal or repeal of the Glass-Steagel banking act in the late nineties. It should be noted that Clinton was the President when this happened. It also should be noted 90 Senators voted for this repeal. What did this mean. The original act from 1933 was part of the New Deal's restructuring of banks. This act also set up the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The main purpose of the bill however put a wall between banks and securities. For obvious reasons it was felt that banks should be staid, conservative businesses while securities and stock transactions certainly are more risky.
The repeal of Glass Steagel in 1999 set up the destructive economy of 2008. The fact that all the banks were in free fall was not because they were depositing the money from Aunt Thelma and Uncle Bob. It was because they were giving bad loans and funneling them into hedge funds. Banks and their desire to make money hand over fist were the reason the economy failed. Too Big to Fail ties back complety to Glass-Steagel.
As Russ Feingold, the popular Wisconsin Democrat stated on Bill Maher last week, it was Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans and the not a dime's worth of difference between them on financial issues that sold America down the river for profits pending with the reversal of Glass Steagel.
Always follow the money when you see a bill going through Congress. Let them dress it up anyway they want,,,,but follow the money. If the big boys, corporations and banks are going to make money you can rest assured that for you and me it is not a good bill. We will pay now or later or in most cases both.
Anyone who voted for that repeal has a hard look in the mirror. Of course it is likely that the mirror is gold plated.
I always state that Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers was the beginning of the end of the significant power of labor unions.
I believe that McCain-Feingold was a very important act as it changed campaign finance law and now even more important as in it's appeal and reversal by the Supreme Court in the case now known as Citizens United has opened the floodgates of corporate money into elections.
Lastly and perhaps most important might be the reversal or repeal of the Glass-Steagel banking act in the late nineties. It should be noted that Clinton was the President when this happened. It also should be noted 90 Senators voted for this repeal. What did this mean. The original act from 1933 was part of the New Deal's restructuring of banks. This act also set up the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The main purpose of the bill however put a wall between banks and securities. For obvious reasons it was felt that banks should be staid, conservative businesses while securities and stock transactions certainly are more risky.
The repeal of Glass Steagel in 1999 set up the destructive economy of 2008. The fact that all the banks were in free fall was not because they were depositing the money from Aunt Thelma and Uncle Bob. It was because they were giving bad loans and funneling them into hedge funds. Banks and their desire to make money hand over fist were the reason the economy failed. Too Big to Fail ties back complety to Glass-Steagel.
As Russ Feingold, the popular Wisconsin Democrat stated on Bill Maher last week, it was Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans and the not a dime's worth of difference between them on financial issues that sold America down the river for profits pending with the reversal of Glass Steagel.
Always follow the money when you see a bill going through Congress. Let them dress it up anyway they want,,,,but follow the money. If the big boys, corporations and banks are going to make money you can rest assured that for you and me it is not a good bill. We will pay now or later or in most cases both.
Anyone who voted for that repeal has a hard look in the mirror. Of course it is likely that the mirror is gold plated.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
My Son Votes in 2016
As my son and I watched the Super Tuesday election returns last night we had an enlightening conversation. My son is interested in politics, he, if he could figure out a sure career path in history and political science he would likely choose that for a major. Being sixteen he is not sure what he will choose. Still I, as a father, am excited that he is engaged in the process. He is young and he says to me he does not understand how people can be Republican. As I know and most my age know over time our viewpoint changes, often that changes simply based on where we are that moment in our lives. It is a rare person whose position in the political river does not change.
I am always wanting my son to be involved. I am wanting him to be interested not just in politics but in life and all that is going on the in the world. I would hope that he not become jaded and cyncial as many do and feel the system is not worth the effort to be engaged.
He will get to vote for President in 2016. At that time there will be an exciting race. If as we assume now Obama is reelected it will be an exciting time. There will be battles in both parties for the nomination. A list of the names that many think might be in the hunt shows that this will be an exciting time.
I hope his interest in the process and system continues. I hope the candidates that emerge that year give him something or someone to believe in.
On the Republican side, though it is hopefully safe to say that he will not be pursuing this side, many strong candidates could emerge. Sarah Palin will continue to be a name in the news and thus a possible candidate. It is hard to believe she can ever be a serious candidate again.
Bobby Jindahl of Louisianna is well liked but again if Mitt Romney struggles it is hard for me to think that a man of Indian descent could garner broad based appeal. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas might be too long as a possible to ever be a candidate again. So who might be a strong candidate. Nikki Haley is a darling of the right at this time, Paul Ryan, like him or not, is a strong, intelligent, candidate who could bring a level of maturity to the debates that will be neccesary.
Marco Rubio is a darling of The Tea Party but in four years where that party stands in influence could be totally different and in truth I just cannot imagine him as a strong, national candidate. Still Obama's record was not strong when he gained election so anything is possible.
I suppose Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum could still be around. Of the two Santorum is more likely as he is young and actually has been impressive in his own way as a candidate. Romney, assuming he loses to Obama, would have had his moment in the sun.
Rudy Gulliani will still be around but how relevant his constant chant of 2001 would be fifteen years later is a valid question. Chris Christie would be a fantastic candidate. I believe Christie will run and would be the strongest candidate. The question is would Christie be not considered conservative enough by the base. In a Republican race you always have to think of the name Bush. In 2016 Jeb Bush's sirname will be not be so toxic and he I believe could be the strongest candidate for the right, his Hispanic friendly policies could be the difference maker in a national election. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie would both be strong candidates, for that reason one can assume that the right will find other candidates.
If anything the Democratic party has even more star power. Though she says she does not plan to run it seems like an automatic that she will. And, to be clear, she will have my vote. It is not up for debate in my mind. There is no person more qualified to be President who would be tougher and more effective. And yes any influence Bill could have would be a plus too.
Still there will be other candidates. Joe Biden is another smart man and a strong candidate as well. Still Biden and Clinton occupy much of the same ground and Biden is hampered by the fact as Vice President, he, clearly unfairly, has become a bit of a caricature. I hope he does not run, I do not want him to suffer the embarrassment as a sitting Vice President to lose the nomination. Still it is likely he will have to make a run. I do not look forward to this.
The Dems ave new blood ready. Andrew Cuomo has none of his father's indecision and it is strongly likely he will be running in 2016. I just do not see anyone defeating Hillary and Cuomo is hampered by the same issues his father was in a national campaign.
Devil Patrick and Cory Booker are two strong African American politicians and with Obama proving how an African American can win the Presidency will feel compelled to run.
In the end what happens. Shocking to say or a visit to a time machine. Bush versus Clinton. Again. Some things never change.
I am always wanting my son to be involved. I am wanting him to be interested not just in politics but in life and all that is going on the in the world. I would hope that he not become jaded and cyncial as many do and feel the system is not worth the effort to be engaged.
He will get to vote for President in 2016. At that time there will be an exciting race. If as we assume now Obama is reelected it will be an exciting time. There will be battles in both parties for the nomination. A list of the names that many think might be in the hunt shows that this will be an exciting time.
I hope his interest in the process and system continues. I hope the candidates that emerge that year give him something or someone to believe in.
On the Republican side, though it is hopefully safe to say that he will not be pursuing this side, many strong candidates could emerge. Sarah Palin will continue to be a name in the news and thus a possible candidate. It is hard to believe she can ever be a serious candidate again.
Bobby Jindahl of Louisianna is well liked but again if Mitt Romney struggles it is hard for me to think that a man of Indian descent could garner broad based appeal. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas might be too long as a possible to ever be a candidate again. So who might be a strong candidate. Nikki Haley is a darling of the right at this time, Paul Ryan, like him or not, is a strong, intelligent, candidate who could bring a level of maturity to the debates that will be neccesary.
Marco Rubio is a darling of The Tea Party but in four years where that party stands in influence could be totally different and in truth I just cannot imagine him as a strong, national candidate. Still Obama's record was not strong when he gained election so anything is possible.
I suppose Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum could still be around. Of the two Santorum is more likely as he is young and actually has been impressive in his own way as a candidate. Romney, assuming he loses to Obama, would have had his moment in the sun.
Rudy Gulliani will still be around but how relevant his constant chant of 2001 would be fifteen years later is a valid question. Chris Christie would be a fantastic candidate. I believe Christie will run and would be the strongest candidate. The question is would Christie be not considered conservative enough by the base. In a Republican race you always have to think of the name Bush. In 2016 Jeb Bush's sirname will be not be so toxic and he I believe could be the strongest candidate for the right, his Hispanic friendly policies could be the difference maker in a national election. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie would both be strong candidates, for that reason one can assume that the right will find other candidates.
If anything the Democratic party has even more star power. Though she says she does not plan to run it seems like an automatic that she will. And, to be clear, she will have my vote. It is not up for debate in my mind. There is no person more qualified to be President who would be tougher and more effective. And yes any influence Bill could have would be a plus too.
Still there will be other candidates. Joe Biden is another smart man and a strong candidate as well. Still Biden and Clinton occupy much of the same ground and Biden is hampered by the fact as Vice President, he, clearly unfairly, has become a bit of a caricature. I hope he does not run, I do not want him to suffer the embarrassment as a sitting Vice President to lose the nomination. Still it is likely he will have to make a run. I do not look forward to this.
The Dems ave new blood ready. Andrew Cuomo has none of his father's indecision and it is strongly likely he will be running in 2016. I just do not see anyone defeating Hillary and Cuomo is hampered by the same issues his father was in a national campaign.
Devil Patrick and Cory Booker are two strong African American politicians and with Obama proving how an African American can win the Presidency will feel compelled to run.
In the end what happens. Shocking to say or a visit to a time machine. Bush versus Clinton. Again. Some things never change.
Peyton Manning is a Free Agent
It is a not commonly known fact that in many cases the contracts that football players sign are not worth much. In baseball if a player has a 4 year contract it is a 4 year contract. There is no breaking it. In the NFL if for some reason a player's performance does not live up to a standard, or sometimes for strictly financial reasons a player, even with a contract can be cut.
In essence in the NFL a contract states what a player will be paid to play should that team still desire to employ that player. Sometimes a player having an expensive contract will be a disadvantage should he wish to stay with that team.
Peyton Manning, the longtime quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts has had significant injuries over the last few years, missing this last season with two neck surgeries. Certainly there is a danger that he will never be the same and that he might be one hit away from retirement.
Manning's 18 million dollar per year contract was enough to think about, but the fact that as of Thursday of this week he would be eligible for a roster bonus of 28 million dollars made it a certainty he would be cut. Couple that with the Colts having the first draft pick, and a franchise quarterback such as Andrew Luck coming out for the draft this year and the choice becomes even easier. The Colts ownership says that it is not about the money but at 46 million being the investment needed for the next year of his service one must take that with a grain of salt.
Peyton will be fine. In fact he might end up better off, with a stronger team and more liklihood for success in his final year. The Colts acted respnsibily. In short there is no villian in this story. Hopefully all will move forward with success.
Still one must be sad that the days of athletes finishing the career with the teams that they have their best years with are fading. Financial reasons are a big part of that. Brett Favre and Peyton Manning both took different courses in leaving their teams that they had become synonmous with but the fact that neither could end their careers in Green Bay and Indianapolis respectively is a bit sad.
In essence in the NFL a contract states what a player will be paid to play should that team still desire to employ that player. Sometimes a player having an expensive contract will be a disadvantage should he wish to stay with that team.
Peyton Manning, the longtime quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts has had significant injuries over the last few years, missing this last season with two neck surgeries. Certainly there is a danger that he will never be the same and that he might be one hit away from retirement.
Manning's 18 million dollar per year contract was enough to think about, but the fact that as of Thursday of this week he would be eligible for a roster bonus of 28 million dollars made it a certainty he would be cut. Couple that with the Colts having the first draft pick, and a franchise quarterback such as Andrew Luck coming out for the draft this year and the choice becomes even easier. The Colts ownership says that it is not about the money but at 46 million being the investment needed for the next year of his service one must take that with a grain of salt.
Peyton will be fine. In fact he might end up better off, with a stronger team and more liklihood for success in his final year. The Colts acted respnsibily. In short there is no villian in this story. Hopefully all will move forward with success.
Still one must be sad that the days of athletes finishing the career with the teams that they have their best years with are fading. Financial reasons are a big part of that. Brett Favre and Peyton Manning both took different courses in leaving their teams that they had become synonmous with but the fact that neither could end their careers in Green Bay and Indianapolis respectively is a bit sad.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Grover Norquist is a
Most folks do not know who Grover Norquist is. You can rest assured your Congressman and or Senator know well who he is.
Grover Norquist is the head of a Conservative group that is all about taxes. Taxes as evil, taxes as being too high, taxes as sign a pledge to never, ever, ever, under any condition to raise taxes.
Think about that. In these days of deficits and Americans supposed concern the most important issue to Grover Norquist and his group is that we never even debate tax policy. Of course Republicans would say only that they will debate taxes but we all know that is only if the conversation is about cutting taxes.
Grover was on Morning Joe this morning. His mannerisms, his pretension and clearly his policies make clear that Grover Norquist is a nitwit. He, and people like him, are what is wrong with American politics.
Grover Norquist is the head of a Conservative group that is all about taxes. Taxes as evil, taxes as being too high, taxes as sign a pledge to never, ever, ever, under any condition to raise taxes.
Think about that. In these days of deficits and Americans supposed concern the most important issue to Grover Norquist and his group is that we never even debate tax policy. Of course Republicans would say only that they will debate taxes but we all know that is only if the conversation is about cutting taxes.
Grover was on Morning Joe this morning. His mannerisms, his pretension and clearly his policies make clear that Grover Norquist is a nitwit. He, and people like him, are what is wrong with American politics.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Compromising With The Immoral
We hear many ideas about what is wrong with politics today. All will talk about the lack of civility. All will talk about how it used to be that at the end of the day politicians of all stripes, would socialize and spend time together.
Many reasons are given for the changes,none of which almost all agree, are for the better.
First and easiest to see is the pervasive influence of money. Ninety five percent of our politicians are forced to be in constant money raising mode. It used to be rare for a Senator or House Member to leave Washington while in session. Now each weekend most return home or travel the country to raise money. When home it is not uusally to tend to constituents but to raise money and hobnob with the monied interests there as well. Most wives and families stay behind. Thirty or Forty years ago with families intact in Washington socialization was common. Now the men, and women, in Congress are much more like paid mercenaries for the speical interests who put them there, with no pretense to being the family men citizen legislators we so often admired.
Another reason not usually given but which should be examined closely is that in the debates of today the other side is not mistaken or even wrong. It is morally wrong and reprehensible. As I have heard quite often in the last year when those in the know lament this issue it is hard to compromise on Tuesday with someone who on Monday you called immoral.
I have friends who are Republicans. I respect them. We agree to disagree on certain issues. We all however agree on more than we disagree on. I have often thought that those who said that laymen could do better in Congress than those who are there now were wrong, surely experience is needed and neccesary. Having lunch with my Uncle Bob at Panera Bread this weekend as we talked I told him that I thought he would be a better Senator or even President than those we have now. Our people we send there become too influenced by money and lose touch with what I like to think our good interests and motives in the beginning.
The art of compromise would be a good place to start.
Many reasons are given for the changes,none of which almost all agree, are for the better.
First and easiest to see is the pervasive influence of money. Ninety five percent of our politicians are forced to be in constant money raising mode. It used to be rare for a Senator or House Member to leave Washington while in session. Now each weekend most return home or travel the country to raise money. When home it is not uusally to tend to constituents but to raise money and hobnob with the monied interests there as well. Most wives and families stay behind. Thirty or Forty years ago with families intact in Washington socialization was common. Now the men, and women, in Congress are much more like paid mercenaries for the speical interests who put them there, with no pretense to being the family men citizen legislators we so often admired.
Another reason not usually given but which should be examined closely is that in the debates of today the other side is not mistaken or even wrong. It is morally wrong and reprehensible. As I have heard quite often in the last year when those in the know lament this issue it is hard to compromise on Tuesday with someone who on Monday you called immoral.
I have friends who are Republicans. I respect them. We agree to disagree on certain issues. We all however agree on more than we disagree on. I have often thought that those who said that laymen could do better in Congress than those who are there now were wrong, surely experience is needed and neccesary. Having lunch with my Uncle Bob at Panera Bread this weekend as we talked I told him that I thought he would be a better Senator or even President than those we have now. Our people we send there become too influenced by money and lose touch with what I like to think our good interests and motives in the beginning.
The art of compromise would be a good place to start.
Robert Kennedy Jr ....
I watched Robert Kennedy Jr who is the President of an Environmental group this morning. Kennedy looks so much like his father, it is a bit jarring to witness it. i believe Kennedy had some sort of heroin arrest in the early eighties that might be what has precluded him from running for office. Or it could be that serving his passion for the environemnt and it's causes have been enough.
Kennedy suffers from spasmodic dysphonia which is a condition that causes the voice to tremor and shake. The person appears to be upset and emotional. It is believed that Maine Senator Susan Collins may suffer from the same issue.
Growing up his father, RFK, was my political hero and though the knowledge of life has taken some of the gloss off he still is one of them. I hoped in my youth that one of his sons might take up the mantle, most likely Joe Kennedy, Bobby's son. It was not to be, Joe's son himself has announced an effort to run for Barney Frank's to be vacated seat in the Massachusset's legislature.
Still a man of RFK Jr's passion could be used in elective office.
Kennedy suffers from spasmodic dysphonia which is a condition that causes the voice to tremor and shake. The person appears to be upset and emotional. It is believed that Maine Senator Susan Collins may suffer from the same issue.
Growing up his father, RFK, was my political hero and though the knowledge of life has taken some of the gloss off he still is one of them. I hoped in my youth that one of his sons might take up the mantle, most likely Joe Kennedy, Bobby's son. It was not to be, Joe's son himself has announced an effort to run for Barney Frank's to be vacated seat in the Massachusset's legislature.
Still a man of RFK Jr's passion could be used in elective office.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Can He Kerrey Nebraska Again
In the early nineties if you could have picked the next Demcratic President of the United States many would have chosen Bob Kerrey. Governor, then Senator from Nebraska, with movie star looks, and at times, movie star girlfriend ( Debra Winger) Kerrey did run for President in 1992.
In 1992 Kerrey just did not catch on as he should have. Bill Clinton won that year and went on to be President. Kerrey made an off the cuff remark centered on Clinton's morals and accused draft evasions that summed up how he, a decorated War Hero felt, " I cannot believe I am losing to this guy."
Eventually Kerrey left the Senate and for the last ten years has lived in New York City. A progressive but not a kook Kerrey considered a run for the Mayoralty of New York. Kerrey seems to have a Hamlet moment every few years but this time has taken the plunge to run to regain a Senate seat in Nebraska.
Sadly most do not give him a chance. Nebraska is a very red state and it is certainly not the state it was when Kerrey was Governor and Senator 25 years ago. It is a shame that a politician with as much to offer never found a way to offer it except via Nebraska. It is thought that Kerrey might at best make a race of it. One can hope that he can do better. The Senate would be much stronger for his presence.
In 1992 Kerrey just did not catch on as he should have. Bill Clinton won that year and went on to be President. Kerrey made an off the cuff remark centered on Clinton's morals and accused draft evasions that summed up how he, a decorated War Hero felt, " I cannot believe I am losing to this guy."
Eventually Kerrey left the Senate and for the last ten years has lived in New York City. A progressive but not a kook Kerrey considered a run for the Mayoralty of New York. Kerrey seems to have a Hamlet moment every few years but this time has taken the plunge to run to regain a Senate seat in Nebraska.
Sadly most do not give him a chance. Nebraska is a very red state and it is certainly not the state it was when Kerrey was Governor and Senator 25 years ago. It is a shame that a politician with as much to offer never found a way to offer it except via Nebraska. It is thought that Kerrey might at best make a race of it. One can hope that he can do better. The Senate would be much stronger for his presence.
The Snowe Earthquake
Olympia Snowe's announcement that she will not be seeking reelection to the United States Senate has sent political shock waves around the country and of course around the political landscape of Maine.
I will address the Senator's decision, thought process and what this means for politics in general in a later post but today I want to talk about the blood in the water in Maine politics.
It has not taken long for the major Democrats to surface. Both of Maine's House members have taken out filing papers as they consider a run as has former two term Governor John Baldacci. If the House members seek the Senate seat then a domino effect takes place.
When I first heard about the seat becoming vacant I actually remembered names like Joe Brennan and Sean Faircloth. It seems, however, that whatever crypt Brennan is being kept in will not be opened. Faircloth has risen and fallen in politics in Maine, but his electoral probability is probably quite small. To put it nicely Faircloth is not a great fit for the Maine electorate.
So looking at the three Democrats all have distinct pluses and minuses.
The potential candidate with the biggest buzz right now, especially from the Progressive left is Chellie Pingree. Pingree seems likely to run but it is my opinion that Pingree would be the weakest candidate in a general election. Following on the footsteps of Tom Allen, and earlier Tom Andrews, Pingree might be too liberal too win a statewide race. In fact I will go so far as to say that Pingree will lose if she wins the primary.
John Baldacci was not an overly popular Governor. He won a second term but much of his agenda has been dismantled by Paul Lepage. One has to wonder what it says about a Governor if as he leaves office his chair and both the State Legislature and the State Senate are filled by Republicans and or their majority. Still Baldacci could win, but it would not be easy.
Perhaps of the three candidates with the best chance to win would be the one with the least likelihood of running. Michaud is considered a Blue Dog Democrat and has voted against some of the Obama agenda. He is said to be concerned about his House District going red if he departs. However an honest observation of the electorate would show that Michaud has a better chance of getting Senate votes in Pingree's district than Pingree does in Michauds. Michaud would be a strong candidate and with Obama at the top of the ticket would be the most likely to win.
The Republicans are tossing out names like Charlie Summers and Steve Abbott but clearly the candidate with the best chance to win would be Kevin Raye. Raye would poll well in the second district and especially if an Independent is in the race could win.
The elephant in the room is or I should say are Elliott Cutler and Angus King. King is said to be considering a run and has the added advantage as an Independent of being able to wait to file until early summer. Much of the blue and red drama will have played out by then and King will be able to size up the field. Cutler I do not think is as viable a candidate for the Senate seat, one would think that he is spoiling for a rematch against Mr. LePage.
The danger of course from a left of center point of view is that calling King an Independent does not change the fact that he is closer to the left than the right. In effect you would have one candidate of the right and two candidates of the left or at least center left. This could create a mirror of the LePage election.
If I were betting today I would bet in order of liklihood of winning the following.
1. King
2.Michaud
3. Raye
4. Baldacci
5. Pingree
This is an estimate not based on who is in the race but the overall likelihood of who are next Senator is. When the primaries are done and all candidates announced we will have a better picture.
In the House races if Michaud were to run candidates such as Emily Cain and Debra Plowman would most likely be running from the left and right respectively. Were Pingree to run much has been made of the likelihood of her daughter Hannah Pingree running for her Mom's seat and one interesting name I heard from the right was Mark Gartley. Wasn't he in Congress thirty years ago?
It should be interesting.
I will address the Senator's decision, thought process and what this means for politics in general in a later post but today I want to talk about the blood in the water in Maine politics.
It has not taken long for the major Democrats to surface. Both of Maine's House members have taken out filing papers as they consider a run as has former two term Governor John Baldacci. If the House members seek the Senate seat then a domino effect takes place.
When I first heard about the seat becoming vacant I actually remembered names like Joe Brennan and Sean Faircloth. It seems, however, that whatever crypt Brennan is being kept in will not be opened. Faircloth has risen and fallen in politics in Maine, but his electoral probability is probably quite small. To put it nicely Faircloth is not a great fit for the Maine electorate.
So looking at the three Democrats all have distinct pluses and minuses.
The potential candidate with the biggest buzz right now, especially from the Progressive left is Chellie Pingree. Pingree seems likely to run but it is my opinion that Pingree would be the weakest candidate in a general election. Following on the footsteps of Tom Allen, and earlier Tom Andrews, Pingree might be too liberal too win a statewide race. In fact I will go so far as to say that Pingree will lose if she wins the primary.
John Baldacci was not an overly popular Governor. He won a second term but much of his agenda has been dismantled by Paul Lepage. One has to wonder what it says about a Governor if as he leaves office his chair and both the State Legislature and the State Senate are filled by Republicans and or their majority. Still Baldacci could win, but it would not be easy.
Perhaps of the three candidates with the best chance to win would be the one with the least likelihood of running. Michaud is considered a Blue Dog Democrat and has voted against some of the Obama agenda. He is said to be concerned about his House District going red if he departs. However an honest observation of the electorate would show that Michaud has a better chance of getting Senate votes in Pingree's district than Pingree does in Michauds. Michaud would be a strong candidate and with Obama at the top of the ticket would be the most likely to win.
The Republicans are tossing out names like Charlie Summers and Steve Abbott but clearly the candidate with the best chance to win would be Kevin Raye. Raye would poll well in the second district and especially if an Independent is in the race could win.
The elephant in the room is or I should say are Elliott Cutler and Angus King. King is said to be considering a run and has the added advantage as an Independent of being able to wait to file until early summer. Much of the blue and red drama will have played out by then and King will be able to size up the field. Cutler I do not think is as viable a candidate for the Senate seat, one would think that he is spoiling for a rematch against Mr. LePage.
The danger of course from a left of center point of view is that calling King an Independent does not change the fact that he is closer to the left than the right. In effect you would have one candidate of the right and two candidates of the left or at least center left. This could create a mirror of the LePage election.
If I were betting today I would bet in order of liklihood of winning the following.
1. King
2.Michaud
3. Raye
4. Baldacci
5. Pingree
This is an estimate not based on who is in the race but the overall likelihood of who are next Senator is. When the primaries are done and all candidates announced we will have a better picture.
In the House races if Michaud were to run candidates such as Emily Cain and Debra Plowman would most likely be running from the left and right respectively. Were Pingree to run much has been made of the likelihood of her daughter Hannah Pingree running for her Mom's seat and one interesting name I heard from the right was Mark Gartley. Wasn't he in Congress thirty years ago?
It should be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
