Newliberals

Obama is tricking Republicans with Keystone. He will support the pipeline.

2012-02-01T05:01:00.000-08:00

The Keystone pipeline issue is so good for Republicans and bad for Democrats that I'm convinced the President is tricking Republicans into negotiating with themselves. Here's my thinking:

The crazy left wants to stop all drilling. They are willing to sacrifice almost anything. They WANT higher oil prices to discourage consumption.

The President needs the green left in his re-election. But contrary to perception, he doesn't have to pander to them because the Republicans are so so bad on the environment that he can take the votes for granted. In addition, there is so much overlap on liberal issues that people who vote "green", are generally pro choice, against tax cuts for the rich, etc. But since people think that the President needs to pander, Obama is faking as though he's pandering to the extreme Green movement.

He has convinced the Republicans that he will take the political hit for blocking the Keystone pipeline plan to placate his base. By doing this, the Republicans have taken the bait, and made this a big issue. They think Obama is in a box between big labor and environmentalists.

Now the President can cut a deal to allow the pipeline in exchange for unemployment benefits, payroll tax cuts, and other things while giving up something he would have done on his own.

He gets the benefit of looking mainstream and bipartisan in his willingness to compromise.
There will be those disappointed on the left but they will vote Obama anyway, eventually.
President Obama is playing chess.
Nicely.

fact check: media narratives often wrong!

2012-01-31T08:44:00.000-08:00

media: the tea party hurt Delaware Republicans' chance to win by helping a horrible candidate, Christine O'Donnell get the nomination against Chris Coons. Furthermore that she was destroyed in the election.

Facts: from exit polls
O'donnell won the white vote (71%) 51- 45
she won Seniors (17%) 55 - 44
she only lost men (48%) 45 -51
she only lost independents (27%) 45-48

The fact is she lost because Delaware is a Democratic state with 22% black vote that went 93% for the Democrat.

It is correct to say that the Tea Party defeat of Mike Castle, a so-called moderate Republican changed the dynamics from a tossup to a strongly leaning Democrat race. But if you're a Republican why would you want to vote for a person who is moderate in a wave election?

Polling industry fails again

2012-01-31T02:45:00.000-08:00

Once again, after a full onslaught of polls, constantly duplicating themselves, from various polling outfits, on the eve before a big primary election that is known for it's historic volatility:
no polls for 1/30/2012 Florida Primary
That's right.
Not one report from any company that could tell whether Newt Gingrich has momentumover or not.
Two polls which surveyed dates from 1/28 and 1/29 had the race at 5 and 7 points. It's true others showed a larger lead but often the polling tide begins with one outlier that turns out to be the start of a trend.

What difference does it make since we're going to get actual results tonight?

The media is very lazy. They are also ideologically focused on "the winner". They determine that from the polls. This hyper-focus on election day drives turnout one way or the other. It's marginal but it's real.

If you're supporting "the loser" based on the coverage, then there's subtle pressure not to vote. It is disheartening to vote for the losing candidate unless there is a special bond or cause that personally motivates you.

For some reason, we all like to be associated with the winning campaign, as if it was "us" who put them over the top.

That's why even an ambiguous set of polls can help motivate the voters of the underdog:
"So you're saying there's a chance"!

This phenomena that keeps occurring gives reason why I support government intervention into free markets overall. It's clear we as a nation would be better off with polling results all the way up to election day IF media as a whole is addicted to talking about the race in terms of polls.

I'd probably support a law that mandated networks to use current polling data from the election eve if they wanted to mention ANY polls on election day. Or I'd probably go even more liberal and fund some college classes to actually do the polling and put the information out there so the media spin is at least accurate.

update:
democratic polling firm Publicpolicypolling (ppp) has released one poll from 1/30. Good for them. They have shown themselves to be among the best. Hopefully there's more polls released from yesterday.

People who bully aren't responsible for gay suicide

2012-01-30T07:02:00.000-08:00

Does bullying lead to homosexual suicide?

I think not. It is curious and wrong for many on the left to believe that "bullying" can control another person's behavior yet they defend the vulgar "free speech" of hollywood and music. I blame neither in large part. I'm sure there's some contributory factor that when mixed with other circumstances can lead to a bad and tragic result, but as a liberal I believe in freedom. People are free to make choices, and should be held accountable.

Even a poisonous atmosphere can't "make" someone do something they don't want to or otherwise would do on their own. While there are extreme cases where perhaps this breaks down and perhaps the environment overwhelms weaker and even normal people, that would be an exception that proves the rule.

We are responsible for our behavior. Other people can help or hurt; they can be constructive and informative or destructive and cynical but we as a society must elevate the concept of personal responsibility.

We shouldn't bully people; We should create a positive environment that makes it easier for people to be their best selves. I personally advocate for a better civil society where we define normal in positive ways.

However the absence of this isn't a license to project accountability for individuals onto others or society in general.

Barney Frank will not be married

2012-01-26T15:31:00.000-08:00

I don't care how positive the media coverage is, the fact is:
Barney Frank will not be married:
A marriage is between one man and one woman. Frank's arrangement doesn't fit

I personally like Frank as a politician. But here's where I draw the line.

But at least he not respectable, and less likely to give whatever their union is a good name.

Washington Post All-Met basketball Players of the Year

2012-01-24T10:04:00.000-08:00

1991 Johnny Rhodes - Dunbar, U Maryland
1992 Darryl Franklin - Chantilly
1993 Nathan Langley - Dunbar
1994 Victor Page - McKinley, Georgetown
1995 Louis Bullock - Laurel Baptist, Michigan
1996 Rolan Roberts - Potomac
1997 Alvin Brown - Gonzaga
1998 Donte Smith - Anacostia
1999 Joseph Forte - Dematha, UNC, NBA
2000 Michael Sweetney - Oxon Hill, Georgeton, NBA
2001 Delonte West - E. Roosevelt, St. Joesph's, NBA
2002 Jermaine Thomas - T. Johnson
2003 Linus Kleiza - Montrose Christian
2004 Rudy Gay - Spalding, UConn, NBA
2005 Dante Cunningham - Potomac
2006 Kevin Durant - Montrose Christian, Tex , NBA
2007 Austin Freeman, Dematha, Georgetown
2008 Jason Clark - O'Connell, Georgetown
2009 Dante Taylor - National Christian
2010 Quinn Cook - Dematha, Duke
2011 Greg Whittington - Oakland Mills, Georgetown

Mitt Romney taxes are too high!

2012-01-24T06:16:00.000-08:00

I know this is politically incorrect, but I haven't heard anybody argue that Mitt Romney's taxes are too high at $3 million in 2010.

Everyone has accepted the notion that the proper way to look at these taxes paid is to figure what percent of his income was paid to the federal government.

I think it is a fair question to simply look at the actual amount paid and leave it at that.
Many of the arguments about people who benefit most from our society have an increased obligation to share the burden could really be turned on it's head.

All throughout society, the "rich" pay more and do more in their lives to "give back":

When they eat a meal at a restaurant, even though the workers don't work any harder, the rich give bigger tips. Usually this is because their order is more expensive and the custom is to tip based on percentage. If someone orders the best steak, the best wine, and so on... There bill might be in the hundreds, and their tip will be high. Also, once it's known that they are rich, they "must" give a higher tip than normal because if they don't people resent them and can make their lives more difficult in various ways. Finally many people just want to be noticed and giving a big tip is one way.

The rich hire people to do things that most people do for themselves. This creates income for people that they otherwise wouldn't have. Also, typically just as the above example a person expects and often does get more from the rich while doing the same exact work. Think landscaping. If you cut a rich person's grass, trim trees, clean up, etc. You expect more one way or another (Christmas bonus?, tip?, higher rate) rather than if you did the same exact work for an office complex.

The rich don't use many of the services that they pay for. Mass transportation, public schools, social saftey net, even the police. Oftentimes they have their own security or live in such good areas where it is rarely a problem.

I could go on. The point is Mitt Romney paid $3 million in taxes which is less than 15%, while many middle class people pay much less money but at higher rates.

Ultimately, I don't really think Romney's taxes are too high, but I'm shocked that very few if anyone is taking the other side.

Will Smith's "Just the two us" needs "a mom"

2012-01-23T09:21:00.000-08:00

to be a good dad, you should do all you can and even more to be married to your children's mother for life.

Media shouldn't report threats against Obama and First Family

2012-01-23T05:30:00.000-08:00

Some things are so bad that they shouldn't be dignified with reporting or attention in any manner. Threats against the President and the First Family that the Secret Service and/or media deems serious should be investigated and taken care of properly. There shouldn't be any stories on this in the press.
I won't link to them myself.

We should live out what we really believe: that this is the greatest nation on earth. That we do politics instead of war. The media should cover politics. Ignore crazy threats. Ignore real threats.

Once the President leaves office (hopefully in 2017) then the government and media can and should detail what has happened.

Put simply, sometimes reporting on a topic is promoting that topic no matter how careful everyone is.
I don't believe this on very many topics, but this is an exception.

I don't like Bad Apple

2012-01-22T06:41:00.000-08:00

While there are numerous items where Republicans tend to be on the better side of the argument: such as vouchers, strong military (without being the world's policeman), a general belief in the free market (with a strong safety net), and of course supporting traditional marriage and being against gay right; I am a yellow dog democrat.

Read how Apple abuses foreign labor This is one of the reasons why.

Look at some of these facts:

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Nor should they. Having workers treated like this on a normal manufacturing job is just wrong. I could see if it was an emergency or if there was some reasons that was absolutely necessary, but this is Standard Operating Procedure. They need a union.

When an Apple team visited, the Chinese plant’s owners were already constructing a new wing. “This is in case you give us the contract,” the manager said, according to a former Apple executive. The Chinese government had agreed to underwrite costs for numerous industries, and those subsidies had trickled down to the glass-cutting factory. It had a warehouse filled with glass samples available to Apple, free of charge. The owners made engineers available at almost no cost. They had built on-site dormitories so employees would be available 24 hours a day.

The Chinese plant got the job.

“The entire supply chain is in China now,” said another former high-ranking Apple executive. “You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours.”

This is central planning, big government subsidies, and overall socialism that is bad for the world because it kills the human spirit by making people a cog in the process. It would never stand in American nor should it.

The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.

Foxconn employs nearly 300 guards to direct foot traffic so workers are not crushed in doorway bottlenecks. The facility’s central kitchen cooks an average of three tons of pork and 13 tons of rice a day. While factories are spotless, the air inside nearby teahouses is hazy with the smoke and stench of cigarettes.

Obviously it is absurd to pay people $17 a day, and to have them live in dorm rooms. The damage to the environment is also unacceptable.

---

The left of the Democratic party should become more energized. Not only because of the lost jobs, but the violation of human rights, and pollution of the earth. We should demand that more jobs stay in America and that those that leave don't go to people being exploited. There shouldn't be any financial incentive in treating workers this way. The Communists in China are using capitalism in a cynical way to build their military and clout worldwide.

Both parties have agreed to this "free trade" mantra that is an absymal failure as this article indicates if you read the facts closely.

We need "fair trade" where America is insisting on raising the standard of living worldwide with the people we do business with. It should be illegal for a country to get rich by treating it's workers poorly. This hurts us here and them there.

The cost of doing the right thing might be higher prices and some less goods but it's worth the right thing here.

Why Obama will win (style + substance)

2012-01-20T09:48:00.001-08:00

"Modern Family" is still disgusting

2012-01-19T08:44:00.000-08:00

Honestly, 2 dudes living as though they were man and wife is more offensive than a little girl cursing.

We need more
Democrats against gay marriage

Mitt Romney was "consistently" pro abortion

2012-01-19T06:13:00.000-08:00

"I make it clear, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose"
"There's not a paper's width bit of difference in our positions" (compared to Democrat Shannon O'Brien)
"I will not make any changes that make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself"
"There was a woman who was running for...US senate ...in a conservative state...my mom...she established a record of courage in that regard... she made it clear she thought a woman should have her own right to choice and believed in the separation of church and state. I've held that view consistently"

Obamacare helping seniors by closing donut hole in Medicare prescription drugs

2012-01-19T05:45:00.001-08:00

New health law is working to increase access and lower costs:

The Problem with New Gringrich's Social Security plan

2012-01-18T08:42:00.000-08:00

I agree with the notion that every American should "own" their social security account. Though conservatives have promoted the idea, it is really a liberal idea. Sort of like the health care "individual mandate" that once was offered as a conservative option, but now derided as a liberal expansion of government.

As long as participation into SS remained mandatory and there are rules that protect the individual and society, then the main insurance function of the program is maintained while modernizing it. Why conservatives would want to make a mandatory government program more effective and permanent is the vexing question. Are they being cynical? Or just playing politics offering something that might excite some voters while never having to deliver?

Either way, taking Gingrich at his word that Americans can have a personal account with a guarantee that they will receive the current benefit as a minimum if their investments don't work out is not a legitimate plan. He likes to state that Galvanston Texas and the country of Chile offer a similar guarantee in their pension plans without ever having to expend public funds. So the government can cut benefits, and individuals can get higher SS payments because of the power of investment, with very little chance of a public bailout being needed.

Assuming he's truthful about the past quarter century or so with these pension plans you have to think, Gingrich wants this new SS plan to last at least 50 years right?

Just because something has worked for 10 years, 20, 30, and 49, doesn't mean it will in 50 years. And then what? What if we have to bailout people every year for 20 years? Is this capitalism during good times (personal benefit), socialism during bad times (government bailouts)? But you say it hasn't happened in the 2 above instances?

Let's look at a few things unthinkable 50 years ago:
In 1962 who would have believed:
1. everyone in our country would have cheap access to a personal wireless telephone that they could bring wherever they go?
2. the US would have a black President, and at one particular time in his re-election campaign, the leading candidate of the conservative party running against him was also black.
3. the us economy could lost over 750,000 per month for a period, and experience the worst time since the Great Depression without any major disruption in the daily life of average American.

The point is you can't accept a plan that is based on something that is possible never happening.
If the former Speaker wants to say its ok if the government has to bailout investors, or that the Seniors would just have to take less money if their investments dipped, fine; but to sell the idea that that can't happen is just a scheme.

Republican debate hypocrisy

2012-01-17T03:18:00.000-08:00

If the economy is so bad... especially because of Obama regulations, higher taxes, uncertainty from policies like Obamacare
then
why would all Republicans running for President oppose extending Unemployment Insurance for people past 40 weeks?
If there aren't jobs to be found, how can they be faulted?
How can UI be a disincentive if there aren't jobs to be found in the first place?

The fact is the economy is improving, but we still need extended UI, because even in a good economy there is creative destruction that makes some people and sometimes their profession itself expendable, and they need help in that process.

Top 5 things press should ask Mitt Romney

2012-01-13T11:02:00.000-08:00

5. As a Mormon, what do you believe?

4. Is it proper to count job losses in Jan/Feb 2009 on Obama's record?

3. If so, does the President get credit for stock market rise since? If he's anti-free market why has it risen?

2. If you legally maximized your earning potential as a vulture capitalist without regard to job loss, would that be proper for Americans to judge negatively?

1. Would you reinstate "Don't ask don't tell' in military? (I hope so!)

2012 election maximum vote total

2012-01-13T10:54:00.000-08:00

As of today, according to my analysis of the democracycorps poll:

President Obama best possible vote total is 54%

I got that number by adding:

100% of 47% who already support him
100% of 3% who say fair chance might support him
50% of 6% who say small chance
35% of 5% who say small chance

btw. Obama is virtually tied with Romney 47-46 in the sample

Mike Miller a democrat against gay marriage

2012-01-11T10:20:00.000-08:00

Mike Miller leads the Democrats in the Maryland state senate.
He claims he's against gay marriage:

Maryland Senate President Mike Miller (D) spoke out against Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) push for marriage equality, describing the effort as “an attack on traditional families” this morning onThe Marc Steiner Show. “I don’t want to sound like one of the Republican candidates for President,” Miller joked, “but I am what I am.” Miller said he would vote against any legislation allowing gays and lesbians to marry,

but,but,but,but, (no pun intended)

promised to hold an open vote on the issue and predicted it would pass in the Senate:

MILLER: I’m a father married for 50 years, I got 5 children, I got 13 grandchildren, I’m a traditionalist. But at the same time, I’m also a Democrat and in terms of allowing the majority view prevail — democracy, all voices heard at all times. [...]
I’m a historian and I look at civilizations, I study civilizations, I read history every night. And I see it’s an attack on the family, I think it’s an attack on traditional families. That’s the way I see it.

This is outrageous. If you are the leader of our party and standing for traditional marriage, then you need to fight for it, not cave under political pressure. Or is it that he really supports gay rights and is posturing for political reasons?

There have been legendary stories about how legislation throughout our nation is bottled up by big party bosses. Miller should continue the tradition, and then furthermore educate the public, and win the hearts and minds of Democrats against gay marriage.

Huntsman will be New Hampshire story

2012-01-09T10:09:00.000-08:00

The media will rightfully devalue Romney's performance because he is from a neighboring state, has all the establishment behind him, and will come up a little short of expectations.

Jon Huntsman will be the story. He will surge into 2nd place, and the media bias will promote him.

1. a bias towards having a longer nomination fight rather than a short one.

2. a bias towards moderate-liberal sounding politicians.

New Hampshire predictions:

Romney 35

Hunstman 20.5

Paul 20

Gingrich 13

Santorum 10

Perry 1.5

Being that Huntsman has no future, Paul can't win, and the rest can't be trusted to run competent campaigns, this weak performance by Romney actually ends the race. Hunstman's only real shot was to win New Hampshire, or come really close and then win Florida. Americans like winners. You can't win by losing.

Race ends tomorrow.

Social conservatives ignored in 2012 Republican nomination

2012-01-08T03:59:00.000-08:00

Listening to the Republicans debate in New Hampshire was painful as a person predisposed to support some of the socially conservative messages the GOP is known for. I'm not pro-life, but I want that message presented personally and forcefully because it is necessary. Like many Americans I'm personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. The correct way to address the issue is to change people's hearts. You can't do that if it is just a talking point, and then you move on.

The talk about gay rights and gay marriage was most offensive. Not one candidate spoke out against people living a homosexual lifestyle. It was all about tolerance and even support for people's "personal choices", but that the candidates couldn't support gay marriage because it went too far.

That's not a conservative message. It's a moderate to liberal message. It was the stance of the Democratic party in the 1990's! Who's standing up for regular Americans who think gay sex (men) is disgusting? Who articulates the absurdity of two women acting as a "family"? It's not just that children need a mother and a father, of course they do, it's that gay rights is wrong. It is deviant. Being gay is not a condition, it is a lifestyle choice.

Everyone who has homosexual orientation is not in the gay lifestyle. Furthermore, there are millions who don't accept this declaration as a good thing, but rather a problem, deviancy, or a sickness. We should and still do love everyone as being made in God's image. We all sin in many ways on every day. We are all fallible.
But we don't walk around trying to turn our deviancy into a civil right! We either try to change it, hide it, or accept that there's something different about us.

The problem with the Republican debate last night was that no one made the case that "It is not ok to be gay". It is ok to be normal. One man, One woman. They should get married. Then decide if they want children.

They took the normal and made it ancillary; this from the conservative party?

Michael Jordan destroying marriage more than the gays

2012-01-05T06:48:00.000-08:00

My commitment against gay marriage is historic and vibrant. In fact, we need more
Democrats like me against gay marriage

but it's people like Michael Jordan who cheated on his 1st wife who is now
engaged to be married again, that have destroyed the sanctity of marriage the most.

michael jordan engaged to Yvette Priedo

If celebrities don't want to be faithful to one person, if they don't want to subimate their dreams to the union of one man and one woman, then simply DON'T GET MARRIED!

But to get married and then not take the vows and the institution seriously damages the prestige of the concept. If Michael Jordan does it, Kobe Bryant does it, John Edwards does it, John Kerry does it, etc. then it must be normal. Marriage is something you do when you feel like it. When you feel something else, you can do that to. No judgement. That would be wrong. Who has lived such a perfect life that they can judge Michael Jordan? or anyone else? How is he hurting me?

This nonsense has made it so bad that we are losing a generation of solid nuclear families. We are losing the capacity to establish norms and order. To define good and bad, right and wrong, normal and strange. We have cultivated a society where critical thinking is separated from objective morality.

We need to re-establish a sense of public outrage.
Michael Jordan's next marriage is not the same as his first.
The one with two children. The one we all thought he meant.

There should be different rules. Both with our congratuations, and our laws. In short, we shouldn't respect their union the same way we should respect Jay Z and Beyonce (crossed fingers?). Whether it's tax law, spousal rights, shield laws, or just attention, the counter-revolution starts with us in civil society.

Now, if Michael Jordan will admit mistakes and somehow demonstrate that THIS marriage is for good, then we can talk.

HBO should ban Bill Maher

2012-01-03T09:42:00.000-08:00

Bill Maher has once again insulted religious Americans, in this case Christians. Since they are the majority, he feels emboldened to go after believers in sick ways. He sent a tweet about Tim Tebow that shouldn't be linked to or repeated.

That's my standard as to whether something is offensive. If you don't even want to repeat the offense even for outrage purposes then it was bad.

My first defense for an outrageous joke is: Is it funny? Something that too profane and offensive looses humor.
I pride myself on being a true liberal. I defended Don Imus against the mob. I defended John Rocker against the mob. I defend all types left and right.

But Maher should be fired. You're allowed to joke. You're allowed to have crazy opinions.
In a civil society, you can't be allowed to make hurtful and inciteful comments; and then be taken as a "serious" political figure. No respectable person should go on his show. We shouldn't watch it either.

Now if HBO wants to let him do a monologue or some other type of show? This is America.

Is gay the new abortion?

2012-01-02T08:41:00.000-08:00

While I personally support abortion rights, I wonder about the political battles of the 1970's that have been lost now for over 40 years. People who are truly pro life live with the knowledge that over a million abortions have been performed during this time. Those who are fervent on the issue are left to their little corner:

Pro life blogs

While the rest of America checks boxes: pro choice or pro life; and then go about their business.

Hopefully marriage is not on a similar path where we who support traditional values won't be celebrating small victories as progress in a war where the other side has hijacked the moral high ground.

Democrats against gay rights

Arrested for illegal abortions

2011-12-31T05:37:00.000-08:00

Two doctors who Maryland authorities say botched an abortion last year in Elkton have been indicted on murder charges — in what appears to be the first use of the state's fetal homicide law involving a medical professional performing surgery.

Among other things, they are charged with aborting late term fetus' that could have survived outside the womb (viable).

What about the women?
If this is murder, then what about when an fatal accident occurs that kills the fetus at this stage?
What about lawsuits on behalf of the fetus' well-being at this stage?

While I personally advocate giving life to all pregnancies, politically I'm 100% pro-choice because the abortion laws can't be enforced in a free society.

Newliberals poll question

2011-12-28T05:14:00.000-08:00

I'm fighting the good fight in favor of traditional values, and against among other things gay rights.Join millions of Democrats against gay rightsThat's a big enough fight in and of itself.However HBO's Boardwalk Empire has not only promoted homosexuality but they've gone into incest:Boardwalk empire's homosexuality and incest is disgustingYou know the uphill battle against gay rights, do you think we need to add incest to the campaign also? Or am I being too sensitive?

flashback 2008: Democrats need plan to save marriage

2011-12-22T05:29:00.000-08:00

From a post I wrote in 2008 on mydd:

One lesson that everyone in politics should learn is that no matter what the issue, you can't win on defense.I advise all people who value the institution of marriage to advance a positive agenda that promotes the goodness of America.Democrats should have a plan to save and strengthen Marriage.Since the "buzz word" of our time is: SECURITY.I support MARRIAGE SECURITY.The reason this should be a Democratic rather than Republican issue is that our party believes in the use of the power we the people through our government can wield to promote the general welfare.The Republican Party at least rhetorically is opposed to the power of government, and therefore is in a poor position to actually do good in this area.For Marriage Security, I propose:First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman.We should increase the benefits of getting and staying married, while increasing the disincentives to divorce, "shacking up", and general out-of-wedlock births. For the latter, we must take care to do this while not promoting abortion.Here's how some of it could be done:1. Have candidates up and down ticket actually speak the words about the ideal. Almost all of them show their families as a political calculation, and use their spouses and kids as props, so this is just one more step. Using the bully pulpit to promote goodness. We need Obama to say in his stump speech:A. you should wait to have sex until you're married.B. you should work hard to keep your marriage strong--stick with your vows.C. Divorce should be a last option not a first, second, or third option unless there is physical abuse or other imminent danger.D. If your girlfriend is pregnant, you should try to convince her to marry you. You should be a man accept the responsibility of a family. If you don't want to, then don't do what creates this whole topic.I support birth control education.I support abortion rights.and I also support trying to do things the right and ideal way.E. Family and friends should work to help couples stay together like most of them pledged in a church at the wedding.Worse case scenario, it doesn't work, but we will have tried to do good.2. Use the tax code to promote marriage so much so that reasonable people would choose to stay married for the money rather than get divorced over petty differences. We should have an exemption for abuse or other extreme examples where people could keep the financial benefits and still separate for the overall good of the victims. *This could include a big marriage bonus on the tax deductions.*Bigger deductions for children if the parents are married and living together.*overall lower tax rate for married-working families.3. We need to increase the stigma of divorce both in civil society and also in the law. First and foremost people should think harder and longer before getting married. It should be more serious and permanent, than, "for as long as it shall last".We should have various marriage preferences in the law such as*mortgage interest rates/middle/working class housing programs*choices of public school (I support vouchers but if the govt. is going to control school selection, then make it matter for some good)*health care benefits (I support universal healthcare--but again if we won't cover everyone then we should try to support our values in the ones we choose to cover)The point is, getting married should be a really big deal, and getting divorced should be even bigger. 3. The government should fund artists who are more mainstream in their thinking. Right now, everyone is trying to "out liberal" each other on television, and in the movies. There are very few if any solid nuclear families portrayed. Where people leave the program thinking, "I want to get married and be like them". We need people to be as creative in building up an ideal life as they are in dissecting and promoting alternative views. If Democrats can support the NEA and other public broadcasting. We should make an effort to find people to create:entertaining and positive programming that can influence young people.I don't have any problem with popular culture being the way they are. That's their choice. My problem is with mainstream Americans not getting in the entertainment business and fighting it out in the world of ideas. Right now, having the govt. on the sidelines is not working. We should expand the NEA and other groups so that we set some common sense goals and try to reach them.It is easy to criticize other people and play political games. Republicans do that well. But I think the Democratic party should step up to the plate and actually work hard to keep perfecting our Union.Craig Farmermaking the word "liberal" safe again!

Stephen A Smith is cool but...

2011-12-21T07:12:00.000-08:00

his embrace of the "gay marriage" meme is disheartening.
I figure that might be a part of the ante to get on tv, however when I turn on First Take, I don't want to hear him talking about how Skip Bayless wants to marry Tim Tebow; and how he wants to marry Tom Brady.

Yeah it's funny.

But we are destroying our culture for a laugh?
Marriage has been beaten down and almost choked to death.
You can't name the last time some man joked about marrying a lady. A pretty one. A smart one. Any one.
It's 'inappropriate". It could be sexual harassment. It is politically incorrect.

But gay inuendo? gay jokes? Fine as long as they are pro-gay rights at the core.

Sports should be about sports.
If it's going to be about culture, it should be about strengthening traditional values, and finding ways to make them better.

I support positive change to our culture. But just because someone or some thousands or even millions say it's good doesn't make it so.

There is objective truth.

Democrats against gay marriage

2011-12-20T05:02:00.000-08:00

Our Disturbing Marriage Gap

If current trends hold, within a few years, less than half the U.S. adult population will be married. This precipitous decline isn’t just a social problem. It’s also an economic problem.Specifically, it’s an income-inequality and economic-mobility problem. The steadily dropping marriage rate both contributes to income inequality and further entrenches it. The latest numbers, from the Pew Research Center, are startling and disturbing. In 1960, nearly three-fourths of those 18 and older were married. By 2010, that number had plummeted to a bare majority, 51 percent. Four in 10 births were to unmarried women.In 1960, the most- and least-educated adults were equally likely to be married. Now, nearly two-thirds of college graduates are married, compared with less than half of those with a high school diploma or less. Those with less education are less likely to ever marry and more likely to divorce if they do.“Family structure is a new dividing line in American society,” Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution told me.As marriage increasingly becomes a phenomenon of the better-off and better-educated, the incomes of two-earner married couples diverge more and more from those of struggling single adults. There is a chicken-and-egg conundrum at work here: Did lack of financial stability contribute to the decision not to marry, or did the decision not to marry contribute to financial instability? Either way, the phenomenon is self-reinforcing.Of even more concern is the generational impact of this increased inequality. Being raised in a stable, two-parent household is a strong determinant of educational achievement. In turn, educational achievement is a strong — and growing stronger — determinant of lifetime income. As a result, the marriage gap becomes a grimly self-perpetuating process.Rhapsodizing about the benefits of marriage may have a conservative air — promoting marriage among welfare recipients was a big deal during the George W. Bush administration — but you don’t have to be a conservative to bemoan these statistics.It’s not only that those at higher education levels are far more likely to marry — they’re far more likely to marry each other. “Men used to marry their secretaries,” Sawhill observed. “Now they marry the woman they met in med school.”As a result, Sawhill said, “These two-earner couples at the top are just making out like bandits and these single parents at the bottom have miserable lives. If the single parents were married, their life wouldn’t be so miserable. And at the top, if these high-earning professionals weren’t getting together and forming little collaboratives, they’d be worse off.”About those collaboratives: More people are cohabiting these days, but as an economic matter, this doesn’t solve the problem.An earlier Pew study found that the typical college-educated cohabiter enjoyed a slightly higher household income than a college-educated married person, which only makes sense. For the college-educated cohabiter, living together tends to be a step toward marriage and children, at which point household income may drop as one spouse works less.But for those who aren’t college-educated, cohabitation is more an alternative to the marriage track than a precursor of it. They are more far more likely than college-educated cohabiters to have children — and they enjoy significantly lower median household incomes than comparably educated married couples.Not only that, cohabitation is not the equivalent of marriage in terms of family stability. Demographers Sheela Kennedy and Larry Bumpass found that, by age 12, about two-thirds of children born to cohabiting parents will see them split up, compared with a quarter of children born to parents who are married.Nor does the marriage gap seem destined to lessen. Pew found that 27 percent of those with college degrees say they consider marriage “obsolete.” But 45 percent of those with a high school diploma or less took that view.A different arm of Pew, its Economic Mobility Project, found that among children who started in the bottom third of income, only one-fourth of those with divorced parents moved up to the middle or top third as adults. By comparison, half of children with continuously married parents — and, somewhat surprisingly, 42 percent of those born to unmarried mothers — moved up the income ladder as adults.Is marriage a magic-bullet solution to the broader problem of income inequality and lack of economic mobility? No, but fewer marriages will mean more inequality. Neither development is healthy. (c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group

Here's what we need to fix it:

1. government investment in the popular arts that promote traditional values. That means leveraging government money for movies, tv shows, musical artists, etc. that promote good things while still being entertaining to the masses.

2. public policy that prefers once married and still married couples; a penalty for divorce, and an incentive for unmarried couples to get married. In addition we should try to discourage abortion without outright banning it. This is a tough mix and balance, but it can be done. For example, if a couple gets a divorce one or both have to pay back the tax benefits from the marriage. To entice people to get married, there should be a slew of benefits like less time at the DMV, lower taxes, less time at the voting polls, etc' many things big and small to increase the benefits of the institution.

3. constitutional amendment to define traditional marriage as one man and one woman. This special institution should be treated as such. We shouldn't have other arrangements elevated.

4. ban pre-nupitial agreements, and make it so that once you get married everything you have is now your spouses 100%.

Now we would get much less frivolous marriages, and many more serious ones.

Top 5: Whatever happened... stories

2011-12-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

The Rick Perry is gay story, if true would be an incredible disappointment. First, if the details alleged are true, he is sick, perverted, and desperate beyond the typical. Second, he would be an embarrassment just because of his sexual activity/, even were he not promiscuous. Third, he would have made a sham of his family, and it's portrayal in the mainstream culture; which hurts him foremost, and all of us in real ways.

But the msm hasn't been covering it, and there's a good chance it will disappear. This got me to thinking about the top stories that just stopped being covered with no real conclusion:

5. Gary Condit and the Chandra Levy murder investigation While someone was charged, and apparently Condit is innocent, we never found out why he acted so guilty. What could be worse than being an accused murderer?

4. Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of raping her when he was in Arkansas in the 1970's. He denied it through his lawyers, but has never given his version of the truth. In my book, that makes him guilty, but the press never asks him. It's tough to say, other than the rape allegations I like him...

3. Bill Cosby accused of having a love child. Autumn Jackson was found guilty of extortion, but did he cheat on his wife or what happened?

2. Michael Jackson was a pervert and a criminal. Yet, somehow the truth wasn't exposed and the media let it go. After looking at the facts, it hard to believe he didn't do anything wrong, and also that any normal person would leave their kids around him. What happened?

1. Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan- when the media wanted to be anti-war we got the story of every dead soldier, now that there's not the proper political angle we hear only the bare minimum. Also, what about the civilian deaths in both places?

Newt Gingrich makes case for traditional marriage

2011-12-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

I know Gingrich has been married 3 times.
I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances for obvious reasons: I'm a yellow dog Democrat.

But it's great to hear him make the case against gay marriage:
around 20:30 mark in talk with Des Moines Register.

...Remember we need Democrats against gay marriage

United States of America is the best country on earth

2011-12-13T13:36:00.000-08:00

Ever heard of Alphonse Fletcher or Sean Carter or Janice Bryant Howroyd

They are apart of the top 1% , and they are African Americans.

The Wealthiest Black Americans.

Day 1: Who will be first?

2011-12-13T13:29:00.000-08:00

A. 1st openly gay athlete on a major men's sports team?

or

B. 1st openly traditional values athlete to proudly speak out against gay rights (like a minister)?

I'm hoping for B and that person will be vilified for being honest about who they are and called hateful.

but I'm guessing it will be Choice A and that person will be celebrated as a hero. Unfortunately.

---

We need Democrats against Gay Rights

Can ABC hire an American for "This Week"?

2011-12-13T13:22:00.000-08:00

Christiane Amanpour is preparing to leave as the anchor of “This Week,” the Sunday morning news program on ABC, two people with knowledge of her plans said Tuesday.

Please hire an American to host this important show! I've stopped watching since George Stephanopoulos left.

I can't take the British accent. Also the foreign references and the global perspective.

I don't mind a conservative bias or a left wing bias, but not European centric nonsense.

I'm sure Europeans would like British, French, or whatever to bring them their news, and I'm likewise.

Next up, Piers Morgan needs to be out at CNN.
Followed by Martin bashir at MSNBC.

As bad as Al Sharpton is on Tv. And I like the Reverend in general, but not as a host of show, he's better than these types with the accent.

Prayer is allowed in public schools

2011-12-13T08:14:00.000-08:00

There is no ban on prayer in public schools.
The Supreme Court has not taken prayer out of public schools.

Students and teachers may pray in schools in a way that :

is private, voluntary student prayer that does not interfere with the school's educational mission.

Students (and teachers) have the right to engage in voluntary individual prayer that is not coercive and does not substantially disrupt the school's educational mission and activities. For example, all students have the right to say a blessing before eating a meal. However, school officials must not promote or encourage a student's personal prayer. Students may engage with other students in religious activity during non-curricular periods as long as the activity is not coercive or disruptive. In addition, while students may speak about religious topics with their peers, school officials should intercede if such discussions become religious harassment. It is essential that private religious activity not materially disrupt the school's educational mission and activities. Personal religious activity may not interfere with the rights or well-being of other students, and the threat of student harassment and pressure must be carefully monitored. It is also critical to ensure that the religious activity is actually student-initiated, and that no school employee supervises or participates in the activity. Any school promotion or endorsement of a student's private religious activity is unconstitutional.

Voluntary prayer presented and led by students without official permission or sanction may be constitutional, provided that it is not coercive in any way.

Mitt Romney hates black voters

2011-12-12T15:32:00.000-08:00

and any other Americans supporting President Obama. Not them or anyone else personally, just the fact that the President will win the 2012 election. Here he is in French:

Mitt Romney misses chance to attack gay marriage

2011-12-12T09:33:00.000-08:00

Gay veteran challenges Romney

When Romney found himself talking to two homosexuals "married" in New Hampshire, instead of vigorously defending traditional marriage and the values needed in America, he did the political thing, pulled his punches and allowed their assault on our culture to continue.

Here's what Romney and others who are against gay rights in general should have said in that situation:

I respect your service to this nation.

All Americans have the right to marry one person from the opposite gender.

It is necessary and proper for Government both at the state and federal level to define marriage as one man and one woman, and to put into place public policies that indicate a preference for that union; as well as benefits like no other relationship. This is good and normal. This helps create and maintain order in society. This provides a role model for our children. This creates the most healthy lifestyle for all involved.

We the people through our government have the right and duty to define right and wrong. It is an essential component of being human. In doing so, any particular individual or groups of people won't be able to do what they want and call it "normal". That's part of life and trying to deny it or rebel against argues against the best interest of human civilization itself.

As usual, I'd like to remind my readers:
We need Democrats against gay marriage

The top 5 Republicans President Obama didn't want to face in 2012 election

2011-12-12T09:17:00.000-08:00

5. Bob McDonnell - governor of Virginia. Good pol and would be difficult for President to exploit his major weakinesses: lack of experience and foreign policy
4. Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana. A person of color who could match wits with the President who had a record of accomplishment.
3. John Thune - Senator South Dakota. Made for tv candidate similar to Mitt Romney without the flip flops but comes with consistent conservative record and giant-killer history of defeating Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle.
2. David Petraus - military leader. If he declared as a Republican, identified with the best of the tea party and Occupy Wall Street, while respectfully criticizing the President; he'd be tough to beat and to attack.
1. Marco Rubio - Senator Florida. His potential to excite conservative base and cut into the President's latino voter base, in addition to potentially taking Florida off the board.

Something good in America...

2011-12-11T17:25:00.001-08:00

President Obama on CBS's 60 minutes!

I initially supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Mostly because I thought Obama wasn't qualified and ready to be President.

For the umpteenth time I was wrong!
I supported Obama in the general election 100%, but I hadn't changed my mind.
He was a great campaigner, plus the media was in his camp for various reasons (race not being insignificant).

The President is smart, capable, competent, and should be on the short list for Greatest President:

stopped the economy from free fall through American Recovery Act (stimulus)
saved our banking system from collapse
saved the auto industry
passed historic health care reform
passed historic Wall Street reform
found and eliminated Osama Bin Laden
attacked and killed numerous terrorist leaders
successfully ended War in Iraq victoriously
improved our world image as a nation

The President should be re-elected in 2012!

Top 5 things...

2011-12-11T12:59:00.001-08:00

Republican Presidential candidates should support:

1. Obamacares- It is the most conservative healthcare reform that Democrats would support, and it is overall good policy.
2. Marriage reform-Make it harder to get married (waiting periods, counseling),and harder to get divorced (pay back tax benefits, all property is communal, no prenupital agreements)
3. School choice- Every American should be given a voucher to use at whatever school they want including homeschool.
4. Anti-gay rights agenda (re-instate Don't ask Don't tell, define marriage as one man and one woman for life, develop and enforce decency laws for t.v. programming including commercials, use bully pulpit to support traditional values). We need Democrats against gay rights
5. Fair trade- We should use the leverage we have from the enormous American market to force other countries to raise their enviromental and labor standards. This is good for american workers and for our morality.

Boardwalk empire: incest and homosexuality is disgusting

2011-12-09T13:21:00.001-08:00

I haven't seen it written. So I'll be the first to say it.
The storyline on HBO's Boardwalk Empire is disgusting.
It is disturbing.

The only redeeming part is that by linking the incest and the homosexuality, it is easy to be outraged by both.

I enjoy good movies, t.v. shows, etc.
I expect the typical left-wing nonsense promoting decadence and attacking traditional values.
I usually criticize it and move on. Most times I can still be entertained. I am somewhat liberal minded in my personal viewing habits, but that doesn't extend into what society should promote. For instance, the lesbian scenes not only don't bother me, I'm like most normal men, but to promote the concept as a good for society is wrong. Incest and male homosexuality is off the charts perverse. One day, Ill write about why the seeming contradiction is normal, but I digress.

What bothers me most is that no one is bothering to criticize the show. Is it because nothing shocks us anymore? Is it because no one knows about it? Or do people not want to bring attention to it?

Take a poll:

They are free to put it on tv. We are free to criticize and not watch it.

It's one thing to show something bad to denounce it, and it's another to sensationalize it.

Just like much of hip hop and rap music, it has become obscene in celebrating evil.
Hopefully just like with rap music, normal people will recognize and not accept it as normal.

For those of you thinking that the incest isn't celebrated or portrayed in any kind of good way, remember that is how these leftwing radicals start to reel you in.
Please refuse to watch season finale.

Traditional values voters taken for granted again

2011-12-09T11:00:00.001-08:00

Rick Perry releases an ad attacking the President's "War on Religion".

I agree with the insinuation that is absurd that gays can openly serve in the military:

The shame is he doesn't actually come out against gays in the military. He should. All Republicans should.
Democrats should have mainstream leaders like me who don't think it's normal to include the gay lifestyle.
As I've stated over and over, we need more Democrats against gay rights and especially against gay marriage.

but not about the comment concerning children praying in school:

Children and teachers have a constitutional right to pray in school, sing Christmas songs, and otherwise be who they are. They don't have the right to have the school itself through the Principal or teachers either force others to join in or create an environment where the government (the the school) is sanctioning any particular religion.
For example, if they have a talent show, students can sing a religious song or recite parts of the bible. As long as everyone else can do what they want also.

The main point here is that Rick Perry wouldn't have released the ad if he wasn't desperate. That says that traditional values voters are being ignored and pandered to only in emergencies. Also, we have to fight for normalcy, rather than just try to live normal lives. That's because the radical left works everyday to change our mores.

It would be great if Republicans actually believed in traditional values and worked towards them. But they only truly believe in tax cuts. You can tell by what they do in power.

We need a Democratic party that is progressive enough to fight for average people's interest including their desire to fight the homosexual lobby.

Democrats against gay marriage

2011-12-09T06:29:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the newliberal update. Twitter

I'm Craig Farmer,
a Democrat whose goal is to make the word liberal safe again!

Just to let some of the new viewers understand, a newliberal is a person who is dedicated to using their best judgement to solve problems. This is as opposed to tradition, ideology, party position, or even emotion. There are many conservatives both on the left and the right who don't use their judgement and analysis of the facts to come to conclusions but rather accept a predisposed outcome and then they seek out facts that corroborate their opinion. Rather than leftists or right wingers, being a newliberal means you are trying as best you can to look at the real world and make an indepedent judgement.

Just to give you an indication of my politics: I support President Obama in his bid for re-election 100%. I am a yellow dog democrat. I seek to change the party from within. With a country so vast and large, no thinking minded person could/should agree with any political party completely, but I feel it is best to cast your lot with whom you please and work to make them as good as possible.

Issues wise:

education: I think the government should guarantee everyone a quality education as defined by parents. So I support vouchers and other free market reforms as well as revamping public schools to be more acheivement oriented.

abortion: Though I recognize the loss of potential human life, I support a woman's right to choose an abortion because there is no other workable system available in a free society. I think the phrase, "safe, legal, and rare" should actually be policy rather than an empty slogan.

gun control: I support gun control because it is clear to me that on balance, the less guns, the less crime. I know there are many individual instances where people with guns prevent crime and protect themselves and others but there are also many otherwise law abiding people who wind up using guns to hurt people they are associated with in a violent moment that without guns would never have occurred.

foreign policy: I support a strong military that actively defends our interests both home and abroad. I was against Iraq but for Afganistan. I think we need to define our missions clearly, acheive our goals, and then get out. I think Pres. Bush fought Iraq in a leftwing mode where he tried to please too many people, and wound up making the war worse than it had to be.

health care: I support universal healthcare for all Americans. We should use the private sector to deliver the services and have the govt. regulate their businesses. This could be done through some sort of voucher or tax credit program that leaves choices up to the American people. since this is not being discussed today, I support the current bills in the House and Senate, though I hope Sen. Wyden of Oregon gets his way to open up the exchange to everyone, so we all have choices.

affirmative action: I support affirmative action for all types of people to be included throughout our society. I think it is fair to take race, gender, economic status, body type, family background, etc. as 1 of many factors in making important decisions. By the way, this also leads me to respect some aspects of racial/religious profiling if it helps reduce crime and protect our nation. There you have it, as you can see, I am independent.

Today's topic is "Gay Marriage".
We need Democrats to stand against gay marriage.

We need Democrats to stand against the agenda of the gay rights lobby.

There is a group of people who are determined to change our society regardless of the implications and whether the American people agree. They have been working in Hollywood for decades, and you can see the results not only in many t.v. shows and movies, but even in commercials. There has been an assault on traditional marriage, a celebration of divorce, and a drive not only to tolerate but accept as equal people engaging in a homosexual lifestyle. I would stipulate some people are born gay. But some also choose that and other deviant lifestyles. In America, we shouldn't seek to make everything bad or strange illegal, but we should strive to build our culture strong and make it sustainable for our future generations. As Democrats we need to strengthen the insitution of marriage by making it harder to get married, and harder to get divorced. Part of our problem today is that we have allowed the institution to wither and it has so much so, that the radical leftists are in the process of redefining it. We truly are defining deviancy down. So as Democrats we need to look at the tax code, waiting periods before marriage, rules about joint ownership, and just our approach in civil society to make marriage more meaningful. It is not enough to just be against gay marriage, we need to be for a stronger union. There are some who are celebrating all of the ballot initatives that are defining marriage correctly, and ban gay marriage. But I look at the closeness of some of the votes, where over 47% of people are either supporting gay marriage or not wanting to define traditional marriage as one man and one woman. Also, the younger generation is clearly more supportive of gay marriage and gay rights in general. This is an important time when we as Democrats need to reverse this trend. We need to say it is ok for us to believe it's not ok to be gay. I'm like millions of other Democrats who wouldn't want my children to be gay. While we should treat everyone with respect, we the people through our government have a right to define our culture and laws for the common good. Now realistically, I don't believe President Obama when he claims to agree with me that he believes marriage is between1 man and 1 woman. I think he is just pandering to the voting public. But we as Democrats need to strengthen his political hand so he doesn't keep moving left. We don't want openly gay people serving in the military. We don't want school textbooks presenting gay relationships as normal. We don't want the feminization of boys/men to continue in our entertainment culture. We don't want gay rights groups taking the banner of civil rights. We dont' want gay marriage. We can work to make sure all people are treated fairly in every situation without making false equations between African Americans and homosexuals. People are defined as gay by virtue of sexual behavior. The government has the right to regulate behavior. If it doesn't then that would attack the basis for most of our laws. I want the millions of Democrats who agree to take back our party from the activists who are controlling the levers of power. Don't allow them to control the language, and bully you into silence. You don't have to support gay rights just because you're a democrat. You don't have to be quiet because many of them support the rest of the Democratic agenda. We need a truly progressive agenda that is good for America. That means not only supporting traditional marriage, but making it better and stronger.

Craig Farmer making the word, "liberal" safe again!

to hear more go to: craigfarmer.blogspot.com

No racial discrimination in Bush pardons

2011-12-06T13:24:00.001-08:00

Big fake news story: Whites get pardons at 4 times the rate as blacks

This is sad that a news story ran with an unproven premise.

For instance:

Bush issued 1918 decisions. 189 pardons granted. That means 90% of all were rejected

Of the 189 only 13 went to "non-whites" including 4 to blacks. But how many African Americans applied in the first place? How many submitted a proper application? How many pursued it vigorously?

We don't know. Since we don't, people should find out before making negative judgements.

For instance, what if there were only 50 "properly" submitted applications from African Americans. By "properly" I mean done in the way that would maximize success politically. And furthermore, what if there were 500 "properly" submitted from whites.

Then the story would be about what has typically happened in the past decades between the races.
A problem of access, due dilligence, and most of money.

Furthermore from the article:

The ProPublica data show that applicants whose offense was older than 20 years had the best odds of a pardon. Married people, those who received probation rather than prison time, and financially stable applicants also fared better. When the effects of those factors and others were controlled using statistical methods, however, race emerged as one of the strongest predictors of a pardon

This shows that the issue of race being involved was a reflection of sociological issues that we all know exist.

With this being said, I think we should change the process to make it more sensible. While in most cases, I would love for society to value marriage (I talk about it all the time!), doing so here penalizes certain classes of people when they shouldn't be. Likewise, percentage wise African Americans are more apt to have "bad credit", and the lack of financial resources often lands blacks in jail rather than probation. On top of simple racism throughout our country. So we should develop a system that is fair and just based on the merits of the crime. But don't cry racism. You can cry racialism, though.

We need to fix traditional marriage

2011-12-05T09:46:00.001-08:00

Ginger White has been married and divorced 3 times.
This in addition to having an affair with Herman Cain.

Furthermore when asked, she said some of her family members knew.
This set of circumstances is the most dangerous threat to traditional marriage.
We need to value the union of one man and one woman both in civil society and in our laws.

People who divorce should have to pay the IRS back any tax breaks they received because of the marriage.
The burden should be on them to prove why they should be exempted.

We should empower the aggrieved spouses to sue for the damage to their marriage.

Family and friends, especially those who may have witnessed the wedding and "promised to help keep them strong" should make sure their comments and sentiments all direct towards a healthy maintenance of the union.

Lastly, we should abolish prenuptial agreeements, and have a federal law that stipulates that all personal assets become communal upon "I do". It should be nationwide because of all the federal benefits that accrue from marriage.

These changes would rightfully so, reduce the incidence of marriage, and that would be for the better. We need to venerate the foundation of our society, not spread it so thin and then discard it.

What if...

2011-12-05T09:40:00.001-08:00

Ginger White, a lady who received money from Herman Cain to help pay her bills and get by; a person who carried on a 13 year sexual relationship with him; went public to disclose that Herman Cain was cheating with her against his wife...

did so because she believed a person who would do the above is not fit to be President.
That she knew Cain, and he wasn't presidential.
Maybe she gave the Republican party a chance to dismiss him, and she thought the sexual harassment charges would mortally wound his campaign, but they didn't, and she knew Cain would find some way to resurface towards the top of the leaderboard?

She might just have felt guilty.
She might have been bored.
She might have missed him.

Do Republicans hate Obama or is it just politics?

2011-12-04T16:51:00.001-08:00

It is convential wisdom that Republican in Washington hate President Obama for many reasons. Yet, we must wonder if it is genuine?

Because after all they really hated Bill Clinton for over a decade. They investigated him and his family. Remember Whitewater(gate), Travel(gate), the death of Vince Foster?, Chinese fundraising scandal, all the names Clinton was called? how he couldn't be trusted because he was a liar? and of course IMPEACHMENT! As a party, the Republicans that Bill Clinton was unfit to serve, and voted to officially charge him with High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They wanted the Senate to remove him from office.

In addition, policy wise they claim he harmed the country with higher taxes and more regulations. They had to "force" him to balance the budget and reform welfare.

Yet, Clinton is now a model of a reasonable Democrat who understood how to work with republicans!
Newt Gingrich and all sorts of pundits have been name dropping him recently. All to say that President Obama is a socialist who doesn't love America like , LIKE BILL CLINTON!

I'm wondering did they ever really hate him or was it just politics then too? Do they care that he lied under oath and that he should have been punished or was it just playing a role? As a democrat everytime I think of Bill Clinton, I wonder why he hasn't answered Juanita Broadrick's rape charge. Using my simple approach, he must have raped her: if someone accuses you of a horrible crime, and you don't deny it and attack the accuser, you're probably guilty unless you're hiding something worse that would come out in defense of the this charge.

All of this shows the gap between real conservatives and the professional Republican party. They pander but deep down aren't conservative. Especially not on social issues. That's why we need newliberals to promote traditional values. As I try to do here.

Espn: An example why big government is bad

2011-12-01T01:44:00.001-08:00

As a liberal and a Democrat we seek justice and to the do the right thing. Often that means using "we the people through our government" acting through compulsion. That is dangerous and often bad. Whenever possible newliberals try to the free market and setting up situations where people have choice. Education is an example. While I think it is proper that the government compels children to go to schools. It is dangerous and bad for the government to actually run those schools. We need universal school vouchers with the government schools as a last resort option.

Take a look at Espn. In the sports world they have become like a government. There is no real competition against them. They are the only network that has the market power to decide what a story is, whether it should be covered, etc. Other networks do bits and pieces, but nobody is even close. Espn, Espn2, Espn u, Espn classics, espnradio, espn online are collectively very powerful in sports.

So when they mess up, they have the leverage within the sports world and the media world to cover up and to distort the story.

Take the Bernie Fine; Syracuse, assistant coach homosexual male boy abuse scandal. Some people at Espn had knowledge from alleged victims, and an audio tape that backed the claim up that Fine had sexually abused a kid. Maybe that he had done it to more than one. Yet, no one tipped the public or people at Syracuse?

I can understand if no one believed the story, but it seems that they did believe it but claims it couldn't be proven in a "journalistic" or a legal sense. But certainly you ask around and tell relevant people of the charges, no?

Even if I'm wrong, shouldn't this be a big debate?
It's not because Espn has chosen not to debate about their own morality like they did with the Penn State graduate assistant who didn't act properly to stop homosexual male child abuse at that university.
Since they are so big there's really not too many places except the internet that are questioning them. They are owned by ABC, they work with almost everyone else at some level. Would you want to have Espn ban your network from showing sports clips from their shows? Too much power. This is why monopolies are bad. They breed corruption. This is why big government is dangerous.

Espn enabled Bernie Fine.

What political lie can be told that won't have honest people giving the benefit of the doubt?

2011-11-30T10:01:00.001-08:00

All politicians lie. I not only accept it. I expect it. How else can one person represent tens of millions of voters, many of whom hold completely opposite views on numerous issues? It takes a person willing to lie with a straight face. A person willing to lie with "facts". A person also willing to be silent while others mis-state the truth.

That's politics. That's how we've lasted this long without political bloodshed since the Civil War.

But on policy issues, serious minded people deserve and expect the truth. But we are now in an era where people like Mitt Romney can change their position about abortion, and have people like Kathleen Parker believe him to be sincere:

Behind Romney's change of heart on abortion

I use really clear and simple tests:

1. Did Romney want to be President?
2. If he had stayed pro-choice could he have been the Republican nominee?
3. Was there any other path to the Presidency?
4. And what about all the other gigantic policy shifts? All towards the right that just happen to please right wingers?
5. If it was to his benefit, would he still be pro-choice today?
6. What evidence is there that he's done anything of principal and been willing to stand by it?

As long as fair minded people like Parker will accept any possibility as a reason to give the benefit of the doubt to people who don't deserve it, our country suffers.

Counterfactual: We would have thought...

2011-11-28T09:47:00.001-08:00

President Obama won Indiana in the 2008 election only because of the hometown Sen. Evan Bayh was his running mate.
Miami Heat didn't win 2011 NBA title because Dwayne Wade needed another superstar scorer.
Going into the 2008 election season that Hillary Clinton would never be able to work with Washington Republicans because they hate her.

Top Reasons college costs rising so much...

2011-11-25T15:26:00.001-08:00

1. Demand. It is now commonplace for everyone in society to encourage all students to aspire to go to college. This simply was not the case decades ago. A high school education used to be much more valuable than it is today, and many people began their adult lives. Now, even marginal students are encouraged to at least give college a try. So just like with any other marketplace with a relatively stable supply (colleges are popping up everywhere) and increasing demand, there will be higher prices to maintain a stable situation.

2. Technology and quality instructors . Universities are spending money on the latest gadgets, equipment, and vying to offer students the best possible opportunities with faculty with higher credentials. Better teachers and learning environment costs more money. Similar to #1, many parents want "the best" for their child. Academic services, advisors, access to the latest fad, recreational opportunities, etc.

3. Federal government. There are expanded pell grants, loan programs that help people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford school. This dovetails with #1 above. In addition, this guaranteed money allows schools the flexibility to spend more overall, which increases the value of what they offer students. Which leads to higher prices.

4. Business minded people working in college. If you could, wouldn't you try to get as much money for your job or office? In terms of salary, conferences, traveling, perks, etc? If people keep paying it why would you stop and cut back? Instead you would be incentivized to come up with great ideas that would absolutely be necessary for your department or the school in general.

1980's gospel/r&b spotlight: Alicia Myers

2011-11-21T14:36:00.000-08:00

1981 - I want to thank you

Alicia Myers

best line:
"I kept the faith, and didn't worry. My nights grew longer than the days. Until one day it really happened. You sent true love my way."

Top 25 Music that I find tolerable

2011-11-21T14:14:00.001-08:00

from billboard top 100

1-13. nope
14. Party Rock Anthem - LMFAO
16. Headlines - Drake
17. Niggas in Paris - Jay Z featuring Kanye West
18. In the Dark - Dew
19. Mr. Know it All - Kelly Clarkson
20. Dance - Big Sean featuring Nicki Minaj
21. It Girl - Jason Derulo
22. Work out - J Cole
23. Super Bass- Nicki Minaj
24. Fly - Nicki Minaj featuring Rihanna

(actually like)

newliberal flashback: I was against Hillary Clinton before I was for her!

2011-11-21T12:20:00.001-08:00

2004:

http://mydd.com/users/craigfarmer/posts/why-hillary-would-be-a-disaster-and-we-need-newliberals

2007:
http://craigfarmer.blogspot.com/2007/12/hillary-supporters-we-must-weather-msm.html

Understanding political polls: margin of error

2011-11-21T04:14:00.001-08:00

The poll showed 46 percent supporting Romney and 41 percent backing Obama if the 2012 presidential election were held now. The difference is just past the poll's 4 percent margin of sampling error. Thirteen percent are undecided

This is incorrect. In fact, Obama and Romney would be statistically tied.

Proper use of Margin in error in political horse race

For each direction, there is a 4% margin of error. This means that if the poll were taken 100 timeswith the same sample:

Obama's support would be 37-45
Romney's support would be 42-50

95% of the time.

5% of the time, the results would be something even more different.( outliers)

So the same poll could be done tomorrow and the result come up Obama 45 Romney 42.
Or it could be Romney 50 Obama 37.

In politics, we like to write stories about momentum. Also, we want a definitive storyline.
But due to money restrictions, custom, and simply not wanting to deal with reality, polling organizations don't constantly poll the same population regularly.

Now, if 10 straight polls with a 4% margin of error show Romney with a 46-41 lead, then there would be reason to make the above statement because the margin of error would be much smaller.

Guess when do pollsters actually sample the same population daily? Tracking polls usually a week or so from the election. Guess what they also do? They average the day's results with the past 2 or 3 days results. Because if they didn't, they'd report a wildly changing number that people wouldn't believe. Remember that when you see other polls.

Liberals against Gay Marriage

2011-11-17T07:42:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the newliberal update. Twitter

I am a yellow dog democrat. You can see some of my personal beliefs throughout this blog, but on today's topic:

We need Democrats to stand against gay marriage.
We need Democrats to stand against the agenda of the gay rights lobby.
There is a group of people who are determined to change our society regardless of the implications and whether the American people agree.
They have been working in Hollywood for decades, and you can see the results not only in
many t.v. shows and movies, but even in commercials.
There has been an assault on traditional marriage, a celebration of divorce, and a drive
not only to tolerate but accept as equal people engaging in a homosexual lifestyle.

I would stipulate some people are born gay. But some also choose that and other deviant lifestyles. In America, we shouldn't seek to make everything bad or strange illegal, but we should strive to build our culture strong and make it sustainable for our future generations.
As Democrats we need to strengthen the insitution of marriage by making it harder to get married, and harder to get divorced. Part of our problem today is that we have allowed the institution to wither and it has so much so, that the radical leftists are in the process of redefining it. We truly are defining deviancy down.
So as Democrats we need to look at the tax code, waiting periods before marriage, rules about joint ownership, and just our approach in civil society to make marriage more meaningful.
It is not enough to just be against gay marriage, we need to be for a stronger union.

There are some who are celebrating all of the ballot initatives that are defining marriage correctly, and ban gay marriage. But I look at the closeness of some of the votes, where over 47% of people are either supporting gay marriage or not wanting to define traditional marriage as one man and one woman. Also, the younger generation is clearly more supportive of gay marriage and gay rights in general. This is an important time when we as Democrats need to reverse this trend.

We need to say it is ok for us to believe it's not ok to be gay.
I'm like millions of other Democrats who wouldn't want my children to be gay.
While we should treat everyone with respect, we the people through our government have a right to define our culture and laws for the common good.

Now realistically, I don't believe President Obama when he claims to agree with me that he believes marriage is between1 man and 1 woman. I think he is just pandering to the voting public. But we as Democrats need to strengthen his political hand so he doesn't keep moving left.

We don't want openly gay people serving in the military.
We don't want school textbooks presenting gay relationships as normal.
We don't want the feminization of boys/men to continue in our entertainment culture.
We don't want gay rights groups taking the banner of civil rights.
We dont' want gay marriage.

We can work to make sure all people are treated fairly in every situation without making false equations between African Americans and homosexuals. People are defined as gay by virtue of sexual behavior. The government has the right to regulate behavior. If it doesn't then that would attack the basis for most of our laws.

I want the millions of Democrats who agree to take back our party from the activists who are controlling the levers of power.

Don't allow them to control the language, and bully you into silence.
You don't have to support gay rights just because you're a democrat.
You don't have to be quiet because many of them support the rest of the Democratic agenda.
We need a truly progressive agenda that is good for America.
That means not only supporting traditional marriage, but making it better and stronger.

Craig Farmer
making the word, "liberal" safe again!

to hear more go to:
craigfarmer.blogspot.com

How can a person shoot at the White House?

2011-11-17T06:09:00.001-08:00

The Secret Service has arrested a person who fired two shots at the White House.
Even though the President and First Family were out of town, the media hasn't quite focused on how is it possible for a person to fire at the President's home in the first place? What about a secure perimeter? What about some type of shield? Hopefully there's something more that we don't know about when the President and First Family are actually there. But this is scary.

I remember back in the late 1980's when I was at Seton Hall University and Vice President Quayle visited the campus. I wasn't frisked, my belongings weren't searched. Yet, the VP walked within 10 feet of me. I hope the same thing isn't happening with the President today.

I hope all this just shows my ignorance rather than lapses in security. Or maybe in reality a President really can't be protected from a determined person. But I think we should do more to make sure it's not possible to harm our valuable public servants. I would think at the White House there could be near-see through protection that could stop bullets. Also, the area within an assault weapon's range should be secured for firearms.

Gallup repeal healthcare poll: lazy and biased

2011-11-16T05:49:00.001-08:00

Here's the letter I wrote Gallup about their latest healthcare poll showing 47% want repeal:

Hi,
Your "Americans Tilt toward Favoring Repeal" of Healthcare is very misleading. There have been numerous polls that show that 13% or so of people who want repeal, do so from the LEFT. Meaning they support either Medicare for all or the ACA with a public option.
In your poll results 21% of Democrats favored repeal. Surely many of them do so for different reasons than many of the 80% of republicans.
Assuming that 21% of Dems equals about 10% of the sample, and about 80% of them are criticizing the bill from the left, that leaves a Majority that wants the healthcare bill OR something more liberal.
This has been shown in many polls for the past 2 years. For you not to research it and report is wrong and potrays and inaccurate picture.
Please include questions and analysis about people who criticize healthcare from the left versus those from the right.
Americans support Obamacare
In fact, a majority support President Obama and the Affordable Care Act, yes Obamacare.
42% support keeping the law, plus some of the independents and many of the Democrats who wanted either single payer or a public option. Most other polls show this percent to be in the double digits.

2012 Presidential election update: Reasons Romney won't be elected

2011-11-16T04:58:00.000-08:00

(prediction based on latest credible polls)
check back often! Read the best commentary in the business!
follow me on twitter: @newliberals

President Obama 51
electoral votes 343
Governor Romney 47
electoral votes 195
________________
national
pew: Obama 49 Romne 47

swing states:
Miss: Romney 45 Obama 42 (Rasmussen)
interesting:
Supporters of gay rights try to win on technicality, but liberal courts rules against them

_____________________________________

safe Obama: Cal, Col, Conn, Del, D.C., Fla, Haw, Ill, Me, Mass, Mich, NJ,
NY,ORE, PENN,RI, Vt, Was,
swing state Obama: Iowa, Minn., NH,Nm,Nc,OH,Va, Wis

safe Romney: Al, Ala, Ari, Ark, Ga, Ida, Ind, Kan, Ken, La, ,Miss., Mon,
Neb,ND,OKL,SC,SD,Tenn, Tex,Utah,Tex, Wyo
swing state Romney: Mo, NH
_________________________________
Mitt Romney has refused to defend traditional marriage. It is an outrage. Republicans are correct on some issues, and must forcefully advance them if they want any chance to win the 2012 election. The radical left tried to have the gay marriage ruling of a Federal judge stand because the elected politicians of California wouldn't appeal it. That is a ridiculous proposition. The California Supreme Court got this one right.
Democrats should be against gay rights and gay marriage. But my party isn't. We are going in the wrong way. Instead of putting pressure on mainstream Democrats to stand against gay rights and for traditional values, Romney is ducking the issue and lying about the President calling the American people "lazy". This will be one of the reasons Romney will lose the election. Issues like marriage and school vouchers are being ignored. They are legitimate wedge issues in the Democratic base. If Romney and the Republicans pursued strengthening traditonal marriage by changing divorce laws, tax laws, protecting it against radical change, and using the bullly pulpit to encourage loyalty, a movement similar to the gun rights lobby is possible. I generally disagree with the NRA and am in favor of gun control. But they have so dominated the debate and won on their issue that it is now rarely even debated. Until Democrats get a change of heart, we need Republicans, even losing candidates like Romney to pursue the right thing.

How I know Herman Cain is guilty of sexual harassment

2011-11-12T04:53:00.001-08:00

1. He hasn't filed a lawsuit against his accusers
2. He hasn't specifically denied the charges. Cain has said things like "I haven't harassed anyone".
This is different from:
"I was never in a car with Ms. Bialek"
"I never touched Ms. Bialek".

or even better.
"Ms Bialek is lying."

To the public:
"These are false allegations" is equal to "Ms. Bialek is a liar".

but legally they aren't. Cain is using lawyerly words to obfuscate.

If Cain attacks the accusers character, he would be subject to a libel lawsuit.

BTW. If he does say these and none of the accusers sue, then I would tend to believe Cain unless there was a good reason to wonder why someone would allow another person to blatantly lie about them.

Finally outrage...more please

2011-11-10T03:30:00.000-08:00

The media is outraged about the sexual abuse that happened at Penn State. They are disgusted by the inaction of people to stop it. I've heard numerous people tell their judgemental feelings and opinion without hesitation or qualification.

This is as it should be.

Only we need more high moral standards on more mundane actions.

It shouldn't take something so horrible as the homosexual rape and abuse of little boys to free the media of it's relativism and reluctance to judge.

I would imagine that they feel free to attack here because it's not something they would do. But the standard should not only be that but condemming things they wish they shouldn't or wouldn't do even if they once did or contemplated it.

Otherwise we'll continue this defining deviancy down.

I'm glad we have a floor, now we need to build the rest of the house.

Support Steve Williams

2011-11-07T13:41:00.000-08:00

His joke was a good and funny one. Not racist. Enough said. Move on.

Herman Cain is the new Tiger Woods

2011-11-07T07:49:00.000-08:00

I predict the number of accusers in Herman Cain's past will exceed Tiger Woods' territory.

As of today:

#4 is scheduled to speak out

Full disclosure:

1. I generally don't agree with or like Gloria Allred because she is a typical hypocritical feminist who wants to advocate women having it both ways: equal partners with men with it benefits them, being protected and having special privileges otherwise.

2. I generally don't agree with the notion of sexual harassment as it's understood. I'm of course against the textbook example of someone using their power as a lever to get sexual favors. Also I am against the negative work environment meme. But otherwise, the idea has been expanded way too far and is a tool of women who subscribe to #1 above.

...nonetheless

I think Herman Cain is a joke. His policies aren't serious ones. And if the media refuse to disqualify him, and the Republican voters keep moving his candidacy along, something must stop him; and why not a Tiger Woods- like parade of women?

Republicans and personal freedom

2011-11-05T14:36:00.000-07:00

Conservatives talk in broad strokes about how they believe in "personal freedom". Though they don't qualify it, they typically mean in terms of less taxes and less government regulations.

But I'm wondering do they really not recognize those in their ranks who are absolutely against "personal freedom" and in favor of more government regulations? Sure conservaties cry out against environmental rules, minimum wage laws, financial regulation, etc. but what about:

1. birth control and abortion rights
2. freedom to spend money to play poker and gamble
3. freedom to use their drug of choice not just govt. approved ones like alcohol
4. freedom to view any art they want
5. freedom to speak out against the military

The last one is not against the law but it is politically incorrect to speak against "the troops".

I personally don't believe we should be able to view any art we want. I support various restrictions and outright bans in many areas.

Likewise on drugs.

I am pro choice, and with personhood amendments sprouting up around America, even certain types of birth control are once again under assault. And many on their side would do much more if they were allowed. For instance, BYU a mormon school suspended a player from their basketball team last year because he had sex with his girlfriend. I personally approve of the school's right to have this policy, and it's enforcement, but that's becase going to BYU is voluntary. Given the chance many would do plenty that wasn't.

I believe in personal freedom up to a point. As do most people. That's why we shouldn't make grand statements about individual freedom, when almost all of us want a big government to impose what is right sometimes. We can argue when and how, but certainly it must be.

abortion is genocide for African Americans? No

2011-11-03T08:46:00.000-07:00

There's the statistics that show that African American women epecially those living below poverty line choose abortions at nearly triple the rate of whites in general.

These and other facts are conflated to advance an argument that the proliferation of abortion in the black community is genocidal and maybe a conspiracy. Usually there are assertions that this was the intention years ago of the first feminists.

Yet, a look at the facts used to bolster the claims shows the opposite.
How would it be genocidal for a group to abort the fetus' or potential babies if you will of the least educated, lowest income, and worst off among them?

That would leave the rest of the "born" to come from the relatively better educated, higher income, and overall better off. If the process continued, then this would naturally strengthen the black community.

Democrats for traditional marriage

2011-11-01T04:02:00.000-07:00

We need to stand up for marriage in all respects.
That certainly includes Democrats against gay marriage.
But we can't start and stop there.
We need to stop the practice of pre-nuptial agreements.
Once a man and woman get married everything they own and acquire should be community property.
This should be federal law. At least for federal purposes.
It is insulting to the institution and demeaning to people who have respected their marriage to have two people like:

Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphreys

They got married and divorced in 72 days. They made a spectacle of themselves.
This affects all married people because it devalues the respect people have for the practice and the dedication in general. It ignites and reinforces the idea that marriage is about convenience and personal whims.

If we as a society refuse to condemn them then we accept this change passively.

By changing the pre-nup laws then the act of "I do" would have serious consequences that couldn't be unwound. "I have" instantly turns into "we have".

Republicans offer crazy tax plans but not normal family value plans

2011-10-26T06:24:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain has a "999" plan that won't ever become law. Not close.
Rick Perry offers an "optional 20 percent flat tax" that won't ever become law.
Rick Santorum offers a "zero percent business manufacture tax" that won't make it.

...and so on.

Yet the party that depends on the most religious voters to support them don't promote normal family values' plans that America needs.

Remember the standard really isn't what will pass into law. It is what do you stand for?

Mitt Romney has tax plans that can pass into law, and he is being chastised by the rest of the field to be "bold". That means to offer something that can't ever become law.

Now if the social conservatives vote 3rd party or don't participate in sufficient numbers in 2012, the Republicans lose big time. So what do they get?

Pretty much nothing. Written answers to survey questions.

Here's what the Republicans (and Democrats) should be promising:

1. A constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman.
This is relevant especially because the two early states in the nominating process both has gay marriage.

2. pro life tax, education, government spending policies to reduce abortions by 50% in 4 years.
We should put the brightest minds to come up with ways to save lives and promote morality rather than making up craz tax schemes.

3. pass legislation that forces media to have family friendly programming and commercials on basic cable and over the air networks. The standard shoudl be that during normal viewing hours grandma through grandchild should be able to comfortably watch together.

4. Reestablish Sunday as a holy day.
For example, Pass legislation that forces businesses to close either Saturday or Sunday.

Now some of these probably won't make it into the law. But they show priorities and commitment.

How dumb are American politicians?

2011-10-14T08:35:00.001-07:00

They (and many of us) are complaining about China currency manipulation that actually helps us and hurts them:

China Currency manipulation helps American consumers

You can bet that

2011-10-11T06:16:00.000-07:00

Detroit and St. Louis won't meet in the 2011 World Series.

The tigers might come back and make it a series against the Texas Rangers; while the Cardinals are tied with the Milwaukee Brewers. So there are many possible combinations but Cardinals v. Tigers not one of them.

How is it possible that...

2011-10-11T06:12:00.000-07:00

5. The greatest nation on earth routinely fails to find top quality candidates for President? (Rick Perry, John Kerry, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Ross Perot,etc.)

4. no one asks Bill Clinton about Juanita Broadrick's rape allegation?

3. Steve Jobs was once fired from Apple, and no one talks about it in detail?

2. no one really cares about the NBA lockout and labor dispute?

1. Republicans are having a televised Debate tonight solely about jobs and the economy, when every debate has focused on that for the vast majority of the time. Republicans should debate the moral direction of the nation and how we can really reduce abortions, clean up our enterntainment, build up traditional marriage (fight back against the radical leftists), and grow the economy all along.

Why...

2011-10-10T07:37:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain won't be Republican nominee for President in 2012:

He's black.

President Obama will win re-election:

He's black. And he's a good President during a tough time.

Why stand up to Cancer?

2011-10-01T15:09:00.000-07:00

There are a series of ads and programs that invite people to work against Cancer to both find cures and to help stricken people overcome the disease. I like every other sane person supports this of course.

But when you see phrases like "stand up to"... you naturally think that someone is being bold and perhaps provocative in some way. Not fighting against something like Cancer that everyone is against.

Thought experiment: Name current political figures are "standing up". This defined as advocating political positions that won't help them with anyone yet they do it.

So far I've come up with:

Dick Cheney (unfortunately) support of gay marriage. He is so hated by the left wingers that even this is overlooked. He is so beloved by rightwingers that they pretty much ignore him on this.

Joe Lieberman support of Affordale Health Care Act. He didn't support Obama in 2008. The left hates him. His new friends on the right hate Obamacare. The easiest thing to do would have been to find some reason to stand against Democrats on this.

Hillary Clinton staying in the 2008 Democratic Primary when the political class turned on her.

....

It's difficult to come up with examples.

I'd sure love to see a prominent liberal Democrat come out against gay marriage.
I'd love to see a prominent Conservative Republican advocate for higher taxes.

The Great Debates: Abortion

2011-09-27T09:55:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE PIECE!

(The following is material created by Craig Farmer to be used for private purposes only. Any public display whether profit or non-proft must be authorized by the author at cfar1969@aol.com prior to usage.)

------------------------------------------------------

The Great Debates we deserve:

ABORTION

---------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS A TRANSCIPT OF A FICTIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE

INTRODUCTION BY THE MODERATOR

Thank-you, I am Shiela Lehman. I will be the moderator of this very important event. It is widely speculated that judicial appointments in the near future could possibly secure the votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade. At the current time the conventional wisdom is that while the additions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito move the Court closer to a fundamental review of Roe and Casey, there are still five votes for a woman’s basic right to an abortion. Roe vs. Wade was the landmark decision in 1973 that codified a right to privacy in the 14th amendment including abortion rights.

Since then there have been many votes that have more clearly defined and limited that right. There have been 5-4 and 6-3 votes affirming the basic tenets of Roe while permitting various restrictions to exist. The most important of those later cases is Casey vs. Pennsylvania, which establishes a viability test that balances the state’s interest in protecting an unborn child, versus a woman’s right to privacy. Once the unborn child is viable, and able to survive on its’ own, the states and Federal government have a compelling interest to limit and proscribe a woman’s right. In 2007, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld a ban on so-called “partial birth abortions”.

For the first time in the court’s history, it prohibited certain types of abortions irregardless of the mother’s health. The Court accepted the premise that this procedure was never medically necessary to save a woman’s health. Though both sides are making huge assumptions concerning the fate of future abortion cases, the facts are this decision actually upheld a woman’s right by stating that while partial birth abortions were heinous and unacceptable, a more traditional abortion was available. This is clearly an issue for our generation that everyone has had to confront on some level. Tonight we have gathered various leaders from different perspectives to debate the issue more thoroughly than usual. The nature of our current politics induces short answers with little detail.

Tonight we want each person to be able to explain all aspects of their perspective to you. Snyder Associates have found 600 Americans who are willing to listen to all sides and attempt agreement as to what our public policy should be. Towards the end of tonight's program these Americans will take part in a questionnaire that goes to the heart of the matter. Hopefully by seeing how fair-minded Americans decide after hearing a healthy debate this will help you determine what America you want to live in.

dumb argument

2011-09-27T09:41:00.000-07:00

We need more Democrats against gay marriage

yet here is an example of an argument not well thought out:

"Once we open the definition of marriage up to something other than the union of one man and one woman, there is no legal or moral reason to continue the prohibition against polygamy or polyamory [group marriage]," he says.

It seems to me gays getting married are worse than 1 man and 2 women or some other combination. They all change the definition of marriage in our country for the worse, but it's no question in my mind. This would be like saying:

If you allow murder then they'll be no way to stop people from fighting with each other.
We need better thinkers on the side of traditional marriage.

Real Education reform

2011-09-27T05:43:00.000-07:00

1. Universal vouchers/pell grants to all students to go where they please
2. Teacher bonus/student pay for demonstrated actual improvement
3. Challenge all levels of students equally including advanced students
4. Set high national standards in all important areas
5. Force failing schools/settings to close immediately.
6. Fire failing teachers immediately.

If you allow freedom in the education marketplace that solves many problems. Parents will be responsible for choosing the right situation for their child. The government's job is to make sure there are valid choices available. The federal, state, and local entitiies should encourage experimentation, expansion, and access to good education models without dictating how they should work. Government should design the tests that everyone would be judged by, and the consequences both good and bad. After that watch out for waste, fraud, and abuse; then get out of the way. In order for a school, center, parent, etc. to be eligible to receive a voucher payment they would have to demonstrate excellence and proficiency. We should look into paying students to be great students. It is a fulll time job to do well at school. There should be a profit motive. The system needs a shock. Public schools as we understand them today should only exist for people who just love the concept and as a last resort. We should demand that any education plan be radical. If it's not, it won't work because the system has so much inertia.

Presidential Debates should be debates

2011-09-23T06:14:00.000-07:00

These Republican debates are a disservice to the American people.

First and most of all they don't debate enough.

Next, the moderators seem intent on asking their pre-packaged questions.

Third, the producers of the debate seem intent on steering the program towards their predetermined topics.

Let the public see an inter-change of ideas!

Let all major candidates answer all major questions and have them respond to other's statements.

With nine people on stage, there should be numerous 3-4 people debates.

Perry is the only person who believes that illegal immigrants should receive instate tuition rates, so he should debate that issue with Santorium (he did), Romney (sort of), and Bachmann for at least 5 minutes or until Perry quits.

Ron Paul is the only person who believes we should cut defense. He should debate that with Romney, Gingrich, and Huntsman.

Romney and Paul are the only person who believe that states have the power to impose a mandate, and how does that impact their role as potential President. About the possible repeal and replace of the Affordable Healthcare Act?

If they're all pro-life, what about any exceptions? What can and should be done about the million abortions per year short of Supreme Court repeal of Roe v Wade?

...and on and on.

But to have 1 question to a candidate, and then another one to someone else, unless the RULE is implicated:
Anytime another candidate is referenced they get 30 SECONDS to respond!

How can you plan this event for months and have it be so bad?

---
btw.
I can't get over the fact that we have redefined marriage in numerous states and Washington d.c. to it's detriment and it's not mentioned in the debate. We let gays serve openly in the military and it's given 1 question to one candidate.

Fix this problem:

2011-09-22T15:57:00.000-07:00

Unwed Mothers:

•Nearly 72 percent of the births to black women were out of wedlock. Mothers were unmarried in about 51 percent of Hispanic births and 28 percent of non-Hispanic white births.

----

It starts with changing pop culture from denigrating marriage to raising the institution up as a high standard.
It continues with changing the prevailing notion that marriage is "for as long as I'm happy".
It needs to include high moral standards and community condemnation.

Talk of Marriage is even missing from Ministers

2011-09-22T15:51:00.000-07:00

Michael Waters is a Minister who wrote on Huffingtonpost's Black voices about the crisis among black men. He used the cheap shot Floyd Mayweather gave Victor Ortiz as an example of what's gone wrong with black men.

He then goes on to expand his criticism of current society with a citation of numerous ills:

Across demographics, men are displaying a lack of responsibility and accountability, gentlemanliness and class. In record number, men are abandoning the responsibility of raising their own children. Cowardly men are repeatedly assaulting women. Men are failing to pursue the opportunity to better themselves through the pursuit of higher education. Not only are men absent from the home and higher education -- they are absent from the church as well.

Yet, he neglects to mention the most important thing:

Men failiing to get and stay married to one woman for life; which is the foundation of civilization.

It's interesting that as he recounts what wouldn't have been accepted a generation ago, he is part of the problem. The idea that a minister wouldn't take the opportunity to talk about the elephant in the room:

lack of black marriages

shows that the problem is deeper than he thinks.

promoting gay is not ok

2011-09-21T08:50:00.000-07:00

We need Democrats against gay marriage.

If America is going to continue down the road of redefining normal then:

1. Shouldn't we abandon single sex restrooms or at least have gay-friendly rooms? Otherwise we'd be permitting the equivalent of boys and girls using the same batthroom in high school; men and women throughout life. (answer: no we should abandon this radical gay rights movement)

2. Is there anyone on the radical left who believes and promotes virginity until marriage? This shows what the real purpose is.

3. Is there anyone on the radical left (and much of America for that matter) who believe in marriage for life rather than "as long as I'm happy"?

...more later

President Obama really pursued a "new politics" with the Republicans, as he said he would during the 2008 campaign. It is to their shame that it hasn't worked. Let's hope the President keeps another campaign promise to stand against gay mariage and in favor of traditional marriage. Even though he's given so much ground rhetorically, perhaps he can hold the line.

Our society needs strong institutions that are being built rather than destroyed.
That starts with marriage.

Democrats against gay marriage

2011-09-15T07:39:00.000-07:00

I'm on a crusade to re-elect President Obama and also to establish that we need...

Democrats and liberals against gay marriage

---
Here's how bad the problem is right now;

Senator Malcolm Wallop passed away. God rest his soul.

He is described as having been a "Conservative". Long-time Senator from Wyoming from 1977-1995. Afterwards stayed active in politics.

...and

SURVIVED BY HIS FOURTH WIFE

If we honor people who take marriage vows and break them three times. Two times. One time.
If we accept the fourth wife as easily as we would a person's one and only,
then we have defined marriage downard. We've defined deviancy downward.

It hurts the institution of marriage. It hurts people, because marriage serves us.

It is almost impossible to really believe in your own personal marriage as well as you could when the culture doesn't venerate the concept.

If marriage is about "happiness" then marriage will cease to exist.
That means the ideas of loyalty, unconditional support, two coming together as one, and on and on are diminshed.

They are devalued.

That's how no fault divorce has harmed every marriage. That's how gay marriage is doing the same and worse.

It cheapens the brand.

Imagine if a famous designer allowed anyone to make clothes with the desiner label on it.

We need to start one person at a time, and at least talk about the ideal.
Regardless of anyone's personal situation, what's best for humankind?

Is it the revolving door of people searching for happiness and winding up alone and bitter?

When elections don't matter

2011-09-14T04:59:00.000-07:00

Democrats lost Anthony Weiner's former seat in the House of Representatives in a massive upset.

I follow politics because I love it. But let's be honest:

This election doesn't matter.

1. If you don't vote for Weprin (Democrat) then the Republicans will take over the House?
(they already control it)
2. Your vote won't determine a major issue like 2010's Scot Brown's Senate race with healthcare.
(it passed even though he was supposedly sent to stop it)
3. This is a temporary political embarrassment to President Obama, that won't matter unless it does.
If times have changed, and Obama doesn't win, then the results last night will have been the first sign of it.
But until then, this is just another vote in the HOR which votes as a party on pretty much every issue.
There's no real difference between 230 republicans and 231or whatever the number is. The Speaker only brings items to be voted on that have a majority of the majority unless it's an agreed deal between the parties.

If Obama wins in 2012, this won't even be a footnote.
On the other side, why vote for the Democrat? Times are tough. Why shouldn't you want to send a message to the President that has no real world meaning? It's not like you're voting to end your job or lose a precious right. In addition, the Democrat "runs away" from the President during tough times (based on bad polling); how does that inspire confidence in him or the President?

Is this good for democracy?

Success stories from Obamacare: Affordable Care Act

2011-09-13T07:13:00.000-07:00

people with pre-existing conditions getting coverage without having to go broke

All new healthcare plans will cover birth control for women

Prescription Drug relief for Seniors

fake outrage

2011-09-13T05:19:00.000-07:00

There's a story that some NY met players wanted to honor the heroes of 9/11 by wearing a FDNY hat, but that MLB said that they couldn't. Apparently MLB wanted all the teams to commerate the tragedy in the same way with the special uniform additions that all teams wore.

Now there's a fake outrage spreading through the media about this.

I'm thinking:

1. If players really felt that strongly, they could have borrowed hats from the crowd or somewhere and just worn them.

2. It's not that big a deal. The first responders risked their life, it is silly to debate this in public. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, the conclusion doesn't matter.

3. If you really think it's outrageous, talking about it makes you part of the problem. You are reminding people of the insult.

Social Security is not a ponzi scheme...it's an insurance program

2011-09-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

Social Security is a government program that ensures each worker against death and disability.

That means all working americans and their families are benefitting from the security of the insurance protections of Social Security right now!

Only a cynic or an uninformed person would claim that if the family doesn't collect from the insurance policy because a tragedy didn't happen , the program is a fraud!

The most publicized part of social security is the retirement annuity.
Republicans lie about Social Security not being around for those in their 20's and 30's.

The facts are:

After 2037 the trust fund will be exhausted if no changes are made. After that time, Social Security will be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections.

The important part is that even with no changes. Based on current law:

Social Security would pay 3/4 of scheduled benefits!

Remember this can be 3/4 to all recepients. It can be 100% to the most needy, 50% to the well off, or some combination or formula.

Contrast those facts with a Ponzi scheme! Where there is a need for more and more investors to keep the scam going. When eventually everyone gets nothing. Social Security is a government transfer program that is healthy, but like everything else:

Social Security is a vital program that needs updating. This can be:

more money subject to FICA tax
different indexing of cola adjustments
raising retirement age for some/all
small benefit reductions

But the essence of it being an insurance program is sound and Americans should know that.

why many are afraid to speak out against gay marriage: good ole fashion ...divorce

2011-09-09T08:32:00.000-07:00

Here's a small example of why the media is so quick to accept the arguments for redefining marriage to include homosexuality:

Savannah Guthrie (NBC and msnbc) married Mark Orchard (bbc) after he divorced Anne Korneblut (washington post) who then married Jon Cohen (washington post).

Then the radical gay rights lobby comes along and says to their friends (implicitly of course) in the media, why shouldn't we have the chance to be happy once, when you're on your second time around.

The biggest problem is the notion that getting married is about personal happiness. That there is constantly a decision to be made: Do I stay? Am I being fulfilled? What's best for me?

People who think this way:

Shouldn't get married. We as a country shouldn't subsidize their union with any public benefits if they do.

We should restore marriage to being a permanent bond that only shatters in the extreme, rather than a moment that can be pushed aside.

Marriage is a one-time really big decision that you nurture, enjoy, deal with, benefit from, accept for the rest of your life. It is similar to adopting a child. You wouldn't think of un-adopting a child would you? That is your marriage.

When you do something correctly, there are numerous ways it can be attacked. Sometimes through friendly fire. Who would think a "friend" making sure you are "happy" is really attacking your marriage?

Certainly, a person trying to have an adulterous affair would be. Certainly, a conniving family member who doesn't trust your spouse would be. But it turns out the failure to truly commit; To end the concept of "I" in favor of "we" is what we've lost and need to re-establish.

To all of those who've divorced and given up on your marriage, don't try to share the guilt. Don't allow others to emotionally blackmail you into supporting deviancy for the sake of your feelings.

Do the right thing and stand up for the ideal. Going forward, demand that any marriage you recognize be a legitimate one that exists as a unit and not a combination of one man and one woman.

Make an effort to support their institution either by action or maybe more important inaction. Stay out of the way. Encourage people to work it out, rather than indulging their weaknesses at any given moment.

We need a healthy marriage institution in our society. It is good. It is better than any substitute or hybrid.

Everyone just say it:

One man.
One woman.
For life.

Amen.

Fighting Gay Marriage is not a distraction...Republicans take social conservatives for granted

2011-09-08T10:28:00.000-07:00

Working to restore traditional marriage isn't a distraction ...from the economy...from finding more jobs.

It is more important.

Sooner or later the economy will boom. We generally have a free market system. Once that rises and falls pretty much independently of what politicians do. Thankfully so. That is how we got a boom after a big tax increase (1990, 1993), and a bust after big tax cuts (2001, 2003).

But our culture matters. It matters what signals we teach our children.
It matters in what choices are made available and deemed "normal".

Politics is war by other than violent means.
There are many Republicans are social liberals advancing their agenda by putting taxes, spending, debt, etc. ahead of fighting for a strong nuclear family. Ahead of changing the poison on television.

Republicans are taking social conservatives for granted.

Just like on most important issues it is up to Democrats to fight against gay rights.

Republicans use Social Conservatives

2011-09-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

We're in a time and place in America where radical leftists are redefining marriage even further away from it's purpose and the 2012 Repubican Candidates for President don't mention it in their big msnbc debate. Don't offer a plan to fix it. They think talking about restoring marriage is a "distraction" from the real important issues. In fact, it took Democrat Chris Matthews to bring up anything of the sort in the aftermath during an interview with Rick Santorium. Of course Matthews is a big leftist on this issue. (Even though on most he is a good newliberal)

People like Rush Limbaugh who have been married numerous times have gone silent on the issue. The media is pushing their secular agenda, and the Republicans are proving that they use social conservatives for votes rather than pursuing their policies with the zealotry of "tax cuts" or "less spending". They have been mighty creative in breaking tradition, inventing stunts, and threatening the economy over their fiscal agenda. But when it comes to morality, "there's only so much you can do".

I'll say it once again, just as Democrats are the ones who are actually the fiscal conservatives when that is necessary, we need:

Democrats against gay marriage

Education reform needs reform

2011-09-07T04:18:00.000-07:00

Mayor Bloomberg of New York has failed in his bid to reform education.

My criteria is what the public thinks. So now the reforms need reform. A few years ago New York was the toast of America, closing the "achievement gap" and posting rising test scores.

Then, they changed the test. And boom.

That shows that the impressive results were the magic of teaching to the test. That means understanding the test format, the time involved, the question format, etc.

But education is supposed to be about the content and comprehension.

Quite simply, we need market place reforms that involve parents are the major decision makers: which school for my child.

As a Democrat, I believe in equal opportunity. This means giving poorer parents tax money to have more choices for their child. After that, let parents control the process with their choices.

Worst case scenario, they would be the ones responsible for failure and not "the government".

Best case scenario, schools would respond to what parents want and demand, and the system improves.

Here's why Republicans and Democrats should raise taxes

2011-09-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

...even during a soft patch in the economy
...even during a downturn in the economy
...even during a recession in the eocnomy
...even during a depression.

In a market economy, there are natural cycles of booms and busts.

After the booms, individuals and businesses invest too much money. There is a rush by the people who "missed out" to try to "get on the train" before the last one leaves the station. This creates a "bubble" where prices and profits are seemingly endless. It always happens. (btw this happens in sports and other areas of life too, when teams and the public believe a certain team is so good, the old rules don't apply, and they won't lose. THEY CAN'T LOSE!!!)

After the busts. People are excessively fearful, and rush to the sidelines to husband their money, and refuse to get back out into the investment world for fear of more falling prices and losses.

In the second case, this is where we are now. This is why raising taxes on certain people would help the economy and not hurt it. I'm talking about people who don't spend everything they have. I'm talking about the savers, and the investors (who are investing).

The government should raise taxes on the wealthy and upper middle class. People with disposable income that could be spending and investing, but instead are nervous. They could put an exemption or a credit in the law for anyone who takes a risks with their money. In terms of hiring, starting a business, or spending in the U.S.

The end result would be a stimulus to the economy as long as the government takes the raised revenue and spends it. The government could guarantee business loans, engage in public works projects, or many other things.

Paying off the debt would be a bad idea in the short term. Good idea in the long term.

btw.

to show I'm not crazy:

It would be a bad idea to raise taxes on the wealthy or anyone in a building economy where people are taking risks and expanding opportunities. Then the old rules would apply. There would be a zero sum gain between government revenue and private sector loss. If the government took an extra $30,000 from a person and it meant $30,000 less in investment or expenditure, then that would be bad. The best case scenario there would be if the government had a better use for that $30,000 than the individual.

In gerneral that's not true. Millions of people under normal cricumstances make better decisions that central planners. There are exceptions, but they serve to prove the rule. Like, if a town raised taxes to clean up after a hurricane and fix the damage (who does that anymore? Everyone looks to the feds). No one person would rationally clean up the whole city. They might try their particular area. The failure of everyone to look beyond their own personal space would harm everyone even more. So in that case, central planners would do better than individuals acting in their best interest. They could get the power back on, the streets clear, and business thriving. So under normal circumstances as Americans we should go with the market and freedom.

The question is what to do under abnormal circumstances where people are spending too much and investing in bad ideas or when people are too nervous to do anything at all?

If the government can raise taxes on people during booms, it inhibits their ability to waste money on bad decisions and ideas. If you'd have to pay higher taxes, you'd think twice before sinking your money into a dotcom company in the 1990's. You'd have less money to speculate with. You'd make sure what you did do was more solid.

This is how tax policy can and should work in support of a free market system.

If not, the system can destroy itself from getting too hot or too cold.

What's the worst thing that could happen to a rape victim?

2011-09-02T06:46:00.000-07:00

One pro-life activist says abortion

not having the child.
not the psychological damage.
not the physical harm.
not the fear of dealing with the attacker again.

This shows there are all types on every side of each issue. This lady is a child of rape. She is respecting her own existence, and not wanting others in similar situations to be aborted.

But really.

If we accept her logic, and make that law that would be terrible.
In addition, if that thinking stood, it would invite other equally horrible outcomes on rather unthinkable topics:

incest
being a vigilante
medical research

From what I can tell, the Mississippi personhood amendment is slated to pass. This could just be political theatre, with voters believing the US Supreme Court will be there to stop bad laws. But everytime a state acts, it gives an idea credibility and new life.

Personhood? Really?

2011-09-02T06:40:00.000-07:00

Mississippi Personhood Amendment

If a person as defined by law really exists at conception, and we are to treat them in a Constitutional sense just like all other "born" Americans, then everything changes. Now right wingers don't really believe this. They just want to ban abortions, and then move on.

But think about it. If a person is created at conception and has 100% human rights (inside another human) then they deserve healthcare the same as everyone else. Realizing that over 50% of all conceptions are naturally miscarried (spontaneous abortions) then that instantly becomes the #1 health research and policy issue. Forget cancer. We have millions of people instantly dying. Most before we even knew they existed, between menstrual cycles.

Taking the Personhood people seriously, we would have to find ways to identify these people before their death, and try to help them. We would do that with anyone else. But the point is, no one focuses on the miscarriages that happen everyday as dead human beings. If so, we'd name them, have a ceremony for them, and respect their existence. In addition, every embryo should get a social security number and be eligible for government benefits and protections separate from the mother.

We would need a crusade to work towards the day that every conceived embryo is born. This would presumably include diet, exercise, medicine, etc. all at a stage today when no one (even the woman) no there's a pregnancy.

Now, somehow we can just focus on the abortions and skip over this, but then that wouldn't be "pro-life". That would be discarding the value of human life because there wasn't any political issue.

I'm pro-choice.

What happens when Republicans root for failure?

2011-09-02T05:56:00.000-07:00

US gets no job growth in August

There's a viscious negative cycle within the business community and Republican voters' psyche that is spreading throughout the nation. They want Obama to fail. If the economy does well, he won't fail.

They highlight every negative in the economy, and in fact they help it stay that way.
This will continue as long as everyone is "depressed". Once these negative forces feel they are missing out on a personal economic boom, they will change their stance. But Republicans control so much of the financial media news that it is difficult for optimism to flourish. That and the fact that people tend to believe the negative and cynical much faster than the opposite.

To add to that, Republicans are controlling and driving a counterproductive political debate for austerity.

Cutting government spending and talking about how Social Security won't be there for future generations saddles the economic confidence and seeps into behavior.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the U.S. economy like a natural disaster that prevents work, or social unrest that is blocking growth. This is all political attacks from the Republicans.

So far, it's working.

Please say "You're Welcome" on tv please

2011-09-01T07:44:00.000-07:00

I'm getting tired of guests on tv news programs responding to the host thanking them by returning "thank you".

No, it's "YOU'RE WELCOME". or even "SURE, ANYTIME". or even "It's been a pleasure".

NFL picks

2011-09-01T05:34:00.000-07:00

Redskins over 6.5 - coach wants to prove he's so smart
Cincinnati Bengals under 5.5 - No Ocho no over
Baltimore Ravens under 10.5 - Ray Lewis meet Father Time
Eagles under 10.5 - Vick is one play away from not playing
Vikings over 7 - McNabb will be in playoff hunt once again

Late Great Democrats:

2011-09-01T05:18:00.000-07:00

God Bless John "Jack" Murtha 1932 - 2008

If Abortion is murder, prosecute the killer

2011-09-01T04:59:00.000-07:00

Woman challenges Idaho abortion laws

She had an illegal abortion, yet is not being presently prosecuted.
If you are really pro-life, step up and honor the life of the baby.
That means you should fight for prosecution and punishment of the woman.

I'm pro-choice. Not just up until the fetus is viable to become a baby,
but for all 9 months. It's a tough subject. It's gruesome when thought about.
But it should be policy. Otherwise, women are subject to the state in a way
that men won't be. It's fine to speak in generalities, but I try to deal on a
practical level.

I personally would support life in almost every situation save a woman's life being in danger or serious health injury. But that's the point. That's my conclusion about another person's body.

The extreme left is right on this one.
Abortion rights equals human rights for women.

Activist judge: Sam Sparks rules against Texas anti-choice law

2011-08-31T07:30:00.000-07:00

Federal Judge blocks parts of Texas anti-choice law

I agree with the ruling on the merits. Women should have the right to choice an abortion or continue a pregnancy and give birth to a child without government interference.

I realize that the Supreme Court disagreed with that, but any ruling that gets us closer to what's best is probably good.

But...

This is a judicial activist!! and it's bad.

All throughout the ruling he makes political comments against the Texas law. He makes clear his determination advance his agenda. While he is mindful to remain in the legal sphere, it is a political decision nonetheless.

This ruling is simliar to Judge Vinson striking down the entire Affordable healthcare act.

This is a judicial activist!! and it's bad.

---

We need an independent judiciary that won't take sides in the political debates of the day. That is part of what you give up when you accept a lifetime appointment. Your opinion doesn't matter anymore. Except now, we have people barely trying to conceal their politics, if at all.

Judges should be using their knowlege of the Constitution, the Supreme Court jurisprudence, and their analytical judgement of the law to decide cases. Determining whether someone has standing shouldn't be political it should be time-tested and fair. Each ruling should be a document we can trust regardless of ideology.

Of course we all have ideology. I'm a true liberal. Another might be a true progressive (leftwing) or a true conservative (right wing). But being a judge means, all three of us agree on the process and a determination to be intellectually honest.

Take Judge Vinson's ruling, if he had struck down the individual mandate and left the rest of the law standing (as the 11th circuit Appeals did subsequently), his ruling would actually have helped President Obama and Democrats. That's because there would be a roadmap to instituting the new law, and an excuse for Democrats to jettison the most unpopular part of it. Plus Republicans might be forced to work together to replace the mandate with something better.

I'm saying the Judges' ideology prevented that. It took a Clinton judge to rule against the mandate in a way that actually helped the law. Again politics. I wouldn't doubt that Judge Frank Hull (female Clinton appointment) ruled against the mandate and in favor of severability as a political compromise. THIS IS ALL WRONG!

In this case, Sparks seemed more interested in the political issue, and using his power to advance that as far as possible. The worst thing he did was actually legislate from the bench.

Part of his order is that the word "solely" be struck from the law in a strangely worded section concerning punishment if a doctor didn't advise a pregnant woman of all that the law requires.

By taking "soley" out, it changes the meaning of the statute. That's not Judge Sparks' job. He should determine whether that section is permissable or not. He's not supposed to change it to what he thinks works better.

The Judge should have granted an injunction, and ordered the Texas government to fix the law to make it Constitutional or leave it dormant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a partisan Democrat and like the back and forth.

It's just there really should be official score-keepers who don't get involved.

Sort of like the referee in John Robert's Congressional testimony.

Pro-lifers wouldn't want Sparks to be the referee.

Pro ACA healthcare advocates wouldn't want Vinson to be the referee.

For now, we have to accept that the judiciary is political, and fight for judges on our political side.

The problem is no one agrees with their political party all the time. What then?

Bush v Gore.

hollywood...giving liberals a bad name

2011-08-30T10:55:00.000-07:00

We've seen endless shows promoting:

-independent women (if only they wanted true equality which includes equal responsibility for unpleasant things like protecting our nation)

-the homosexual lifestyle

-the virtue of divorce

-gun control (I generally agree)

-skepticism of religion

-a woman's right to choice an abortion (I generally agree)

-anti-bullying

-left-wing parenting styles

-environmentalism

-the dangers of parents living through their kids

-the idea that our top goal in life is to be personally happy

-false idea that everyone's equally gifted

...and on and on.

Just in case you don't already know from a myriad of other postings:

We need more...

Democrats against gay rights

But for this post, imagine you left your favorite show having seen:

1. the main character having saved the family from a crime by properly using a firearm.
(even though I'm in favor of gun control)

2. a popular character changes their life and finds God. That's it. No tricks. No jokes.

3. a couple argue. The man hits the woman. He apologizes and promises not to do it again. She accepts responsbility for provoking violence within the relationship and promises to try to avoid the situation. They stay together. He changes. She changes. It doesn't happen again. They move on.

4. Parents convince their son to try a sport that they both played. He.doesn't want to. They "force" him to work at it or else he won't get allowance. He learns to love working at the sport and is on his way to being a star.

5. A nice young girl tries her best at math. She keeps getting B's. Her brother tries his best. He keeps getting A's. Parents celebrate both for trying their best and recognizing we all don't have the same skill or aptitude.

6. An Irish American family convinces their daughter to seek a Irish American man to marry instead of an African American. Not because of racism or anything negative. Because they want to celebrate their European culture and extend to the next generation without changing it.

7. A person turns down a career opportunity they've always wanted, like a job in China, to stay home and live in the same neighborhood as their parents. Sometimes life is about making other people happy, and that can make you happy.

I'm a true liberal. To me that's about being open-minded to all good ideas and making the best decisions for the most people possible.

Take #6 from above. There's everything right about wanting to preserve your family's tradition and culture. A family has a right to share and advocate this viewpoint to another member. Doing so isn't racist. I would support an Irish girl marrying a black man also, but that storyline is all over hollywood.

Craig Farmer

making the word "liberal" safe again!

What if Obama just hates politics?

2011-08-30T08:49:00.001-07:00

Ezra Klein offers a very good roadmap for the President in his upcoming jobs speech.

It involves thinking political, and how best to acheive your policy goals. Also, what would work for the 2012 election.

But for years now, the President has persisted in his refusal to do political things for show.

To push for a way more progressive healthcare bill for the purpose of compromising to the best possible. He instead kept announcing his best guess of what was possible. Either not realizing or caring that by being "honest" or "naive" he was rapidly eroding what was possible.

In the 2009 Stimulus, he tried to put together a plan that was balanced and could have gotten many Republican votes. The old way of politics, which turns out is still the new way, would be to push for as much a liberal stimulus as he could defend, let the Republicans offer their ideas, and then compromise at the end. Obama wanted to skip the process.

But the process is America. He thought he could change it. So far, not so good.

Republicans need to hate Democrats. Democrats need to hate Republicans.
Politics needs to be war. So if you give land up voluntarily, the enemy (opponent) will demand more. Until you agree to fight.

Now what Obama could do is to continue his moderate approach, but once he proposes it, let it be known THAT IS THE COMPROMISE. No more haggling. Any changes will be worse for your side.

That would take backbone, because the media would attack him as inflexible. Even though the substance wasn't extreme. Plus it's counterintuitive. The President has a great record of acheivement in spite of himself. Perhaps the real strategy is over my head. I must admit that possibility. He is the President. The Presidency I never thought possible.

But this compromising logic (in addition to experience) is what led me to support Hillary Clinton back in 2008. The approach didn't make sense then and still doesn't.

I support Obama 99%. If he would fight gay rights, gay marriage, and the whole left wing nazi crowd, it'd be 100%.

So this is really just friendly advice:

play the politics. Win more. Lose less.

Michael Vick rewarded...wrongly

2011-08-30T08:35:00.000-07:00

1. The Eagles shouldn't have given Vick a $40 million guaranteed contract with the possibility of making $100 million because he is unrealiable. It's inevitable with his wild play that he will get injured in the NFL because the defensive players are too fast and strong not to get devastating shots on him. While I enjoy watching Vick as most fans do, his contract should be year to year.

2. If dog fighting is so bad. And running a dog fighting/betting ring is worse. Then Michael Vick should never be able to reclaim the star status he once had. I'm not in this camp, but since most everyone is, Vick should not be given any more security than is mandated by NFL rules. Some crimes should never just be "let go". We should never move on. The media put Vick's crime in that category. The general public put Vick's crime in that category. They should honor that and not honor Vick. This is separate from the criminal justice system. This is the court of public opinion. All you have to do is ask yourself, could a reasonable person think Vick came out a winner? could a reasonsable person think I would go through everything Vick did if this is the outcome? You want to know how to treat Vick is you really think dog fighting/toturing of animals is that bad?

Think:

John Rocker
Al Campanis
Woody Hayes
Pete Rose