I call bullshit.

This is the latest piece of propaganda we received at our house.

If you can't see it, it says:

"End discrimination against women. Covers pre-natal screenings and well-baby care for free."

Look at the small print under the left-side headline:

"Starting January 1, 2014, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to discriminate against women by charging us more than men."

"ObGyn Provided and Other Preventive Services for FREE"

"Complete Coverage for Contraception"

"Well baby, well child and preventive care for pregnant women with no co-pays."

The whole study is referenced from the Affordable Health Care Act, which is from the law itself and bears no comparative discussion, fact checking or truth telling.

Lucky for you, I am here to help.

1) I don't know how else to put this, but NOTHING IS FREE. NOTHING IS FREE. NOTHING IS FREE. For a person to receive health care that isn't paid for one of three things needs to happen.

A) The doctor or hospital doesn't get paid, which means the staff doesn't get paid, rent doesn't get paid, equipment goes obsolete and the doctor eventually quits and works at WalMart. Ok, so that won't happen - but the truth isn't far behind. Insurance companies negotiate health care at pennies on the dollar which means doctors and their staff have to see large volumes of people to maintain their practices, which means lower quality of care. It's a doctor's cattle call.

B) The hospital absorbs the costs. See letter A.

C) The rest of of share the costs. DING DING DING! There's the answer.

For a person to pay nothing for health care means they have to have an insurance plan, which isn't free, or if they don't have insurance, the money is being paid by someone else's insurance plan - in fact, nearly 35% of your insurance premium goes to pay for the deficits in someone else's health care. So what may be free for one person, gets paid for by someone else.

Now - let's dig into this discrimination crap.

What do you think is a more complicated machine? A skateboard or a bicycle? In theory, which of the two may require a more complicated fix-it strategy? Which machine has the potential for higher repair costs?

Well, a skateboard has a platform to stand on and solid rubber tires with some minor tilt-steering ability. A bicycle has multiple gears, tires with inner-tubes, moving gears, steering and brakes. The bicycle is the more complex machine and on average it costs more to maintain the bicycle over the skateboard.

Women are the female of the species which means they are the baby-makers. Men can't do that. Men are skateboards. Women are bicycles. Traditionally, the female body requires more maintenance than the male body. Yes, there are risks in both... a woman can get breast cancer (so can a man albeit less likely) while a man could get prostate cancer, while a woman can get cervical cancer, while a man can get testicular cancer. But men don't have periods, don't require pap exams, don't need mammograms, don't have ovarian cysts, don't have ectopic pregnancies and are less susceptible to bladder infections. Being a woman and being responsible about taking care of yourself as a woman is more intensive, thus is more expensive to take care of because you just plain require more care than a man does, all other health issues being equal.

NOT ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL. People are different, their genders are different, their motivations are different, their goals are different and dammit - life isn't fair. The idea that everyone should be treated equally as their health care is concerned is seriously stupid. I don't smoke, use drugs or eat fried food for every meal. I'm not obese, I don't put myself at physical risk and I'm not a female. Not everybody is like me, so they shouldn't be expected to have the same health care expenses that I do, thus, they shouldn't expect to pay the same that I do.

Did you know that statistically men pay more for their car insurance than women? It's just because they're men. At one time, there were more men on the road than women because women just didn't drive. Nowadays, the numbers are much more equal, as are the statistics regarding traffic violations and car accidents - yet men continue to pay more just because they're men. I think people should pay higher insurance rates if they're risky drivers, not because of gender. Risky drivers cost more than safe drivers.

Women cost more than men to take care of too. It's not a position of hate or discrimination and doctors are not holding your gender against you. Women are complicated machines and it takes a little more work to keep them healthy and working properly.

And that's the way I see it.

Election 2010

I'm purposely staying off of Facebook for a few days after the election because I've just plain had enough of the liberal hatred of the republicans, the tea party and George W. Bush. But in addition, I've also had enough of the right bashing the left. The ideological differences in our country have been reduced to a continual regurgitation of partisan talking points, and nothing positive will ever come from it.

All that aside, there are some moments of clarity, for me, that have come from this election cycle and it would be a good thing for both parties to think about the aftermath.

Republicans were able to do something rare - they pulled off historic numbers for the second election in a row. Granted, the first election was a historic "behind-the-shed-butt-whoopin'" when they lost the rest of whatever they had left in 2008, but it was historic nonetheless. This one was historic too, but for a different reason. They had the biggest swing since the 1940's. Having a Republican take the governorship of Michigan was a monster-size surprise. I'm actually a little surprised the republicans did so well because I thought they were over-confident most of the race.

That being said, I don't believe that this is a referendum for Republicans. This is a chance. Obama is still a popular guy, and there are still people who disagree with everything republicans stand for. The republicans need to get their act together if they want to prove to the American public that their rhetoric is actually fact-based. Here is how to do that:

1) Communicate/Educate

Something that is rarely done is a good old-fashioned reach-out. If republicans want to get people to understand why they believe and do what they do, they need to stop celebrating and start educating. They need to play devil's advocate with themselves and answer the questions that "Joe Sixpack" will want to understand, because right now, he ain't happy.

Governor-elect Kasich has a plan to privatize much of Ohio's governmental structure including the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Development. He needs to have televised town halls and published white papers that explain why he thinks that this is a good idea and positive for the state of Ohio. He's going to have to lay out the plan and sell it to us. He's going to have to keep his opponents in mind and figure out how to solve their problems too. Just because the other party is in play doesn't mean that everything is solved, or that everything is better. Now, I don't in any way assume that everyone can be made to agree with the decisions the republicans make. But I believe that the partisan divide can be lessened with outreach and civil debate. Maybe each side will learn a thing or two.

2) Trade deficit

Truth of the matter is, nobody can deny that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated and that the trade deficit needs to be rectified. While some conservatives may like the lower prices they receive from labor being done elsewhere, and the while the world may be mad at us for raising tariffs on imports, the benefits of balancing US trade policy cannot be underestimated.

3) Health care

One of the things that people said after the 2008 elections is that "republicans had their chance to do something about health care and they refused to act". Republicans talk about repealing Obamacare, and that's fine, but they need to come up with a plan. Americans' appetites are whet for a solution. The republicans need to tackle it now. They can't run away from it any more. The American people have said they want health care reform, or even more so - insurance reform. Republicans cannot sweep this under the rug for the next 4-6 years or Democrats will come back into power, and that's not a good idea - balance is a good idea.

Here's what I think they should do to take care of this: Leave health care up to the states.

Let the states set malpractice award limits. Let the states decide whether a single payer system is a good idea. The federal government should have two roles in health care, and two roles only: 1.) to allow health insurance sales across state lines and to 2.) legislate anti-trust oversight to keep the larger companies from swallowing the smaller companies, thus eliminating healthy competition. But here's the rub - they have to do it on their own, with no federal assistance.

Republicans are going to have to tackle issues that are important to democrats and all the people if they're going to show the US that they can be trusted into the future.

...and that's the way I see it.

State Of the Union 2010

I felt the President's speech was good. I like the guy. I don't like his politics, but I like him as a person. He speaks like a populist. I'm actually a little miffed at Fox News for being more negative than normal. I yearn for Bill O'Reilly's take on the speech, because I don't feel FNC is being "Fair & Balanced" on this particular occasion.

That being said, despite the fact that Obama is a likable guy, I have strong concerns about "between the lines" promises and veiled platitudes.

I worry about his continued progressive ideas of how education should be paid for, cap and trade, health care and union roles. I felt the President's public chastising of the Judicial Branch and of the Republican's blockage of left-leaning legislation was inappropriate.

The president has to take some blame. He has to. He criticized the GOP for blocking legislation, but he takes no blame for being the engine for legislation that many feel would have been destructive to our nation, or would have increased the size of the federal government and its role in our everyday private lives. Why were the bills rushed through and not placed online for Americans to read and respond to? If truly we have lived for decades with the problems we currently have, surely there's time for legislation to be reviewed responsibly and debated fully. The President has four years... he didn't need to ram everything though in his first year in office while the 60-seat majority was in play. How is that in any way a bi-partisan effort? Republicans were left out of the drafting process, being told they they didn't have the majority anymore and that the Democrats didn't want or need their help.

Health care? You want suggestions? You have had them all the time. If you want to lower costs, increase coverage and abolish the denial of benefits because of pre-existing conditions, just increase competition. Allow companies to sell across state lines and the market will take care of itself, and I would believe that it will happen relatively quickly. If an insurance agency wants to finally do business outside of their jurisdiction against the agencies already in place there, they're going to have to be able to offer one hell of a deal. But make no mistake - this should be regulated to be sure that the agencies deliver on their promises and pay out what they promise to pay out, and so larger companies cannot come in and buy up all of the competition and return things to the status quo, which would remove the incentives for them to offer more for less. Also so there is some sort of guarantee of reciprocity should an insuring agent go out of business and be forced to port their client list over to a new insurer. The new insurer should be chosen by the insured through the fair market and no-one else.

What a CEO gets paid is not under the jurisdiction of federal roles. It is under the jurisdiction of the board of directors that the entity puts in place. To that end, it's also the responsibility of that board to do what it takes to keep themselves out of trouble, and to tighten things up or make hard choices when they fail.

For the government to get involved is to seize control of private enterprise, which is the nanny state of "Red Scare" proportions.

For the President to propose a tax on the biggest banks is to invite a trickle down cost increase to the consumer. Banks are already increasing interest rates on their credit cards, charging fees for ATM and debit card use and tightening their belts on credit lines for companies, even those who are profitable. But then, that's been his MO all along. He promises tax cuts for the middle class, but then he imposes increased taxes on middle class consumables.

He's kept lobbyists out of Washington? Is he kidding? The majority of his "czars" are former lobbyists that still maintain ties to their focus constituencies.

I'm tired of the "Bush-bashing", but Obama has one extremely valid point about a major failure of the Bush administration... Bush rushed to war and didn't raise taxes to help pay for it. These are the only times in American history that we have been involved in a time of war without a tax increase. That was a huge blunder of that administration - but Obama and the Democrat leadership doesn't take the blame for the other half of the economic crash, which is the Congressional mandate of banks to engage in risky lending behavior by offering sub-prime mortgages.

He talked about transparency again. So far he has not shown us that transparency to the extent that Americans have come to expect it. Where were the open, televised deliberations? Why weren't the proposed bills put online for constituents to read like they are on the state level? Why aren't the lawmakers given the time to read over the bill and discuss them with their constituents? The people must have the opportunity to speak.

He spoke a great deal about job growth, and this is one area that sounded great, but it has me wondering about where his thoughts are about the roles of unions in this job growth. Unions had their place. Unions had their time. I'm not saying that they have no place in today's society, but I do believe that unions have contributed to America's mass-export of jobs to other countries where the labor is cheaper. I do believe that unions exist in part to propagate themselves, just like any other enterprise. They should do a better job of working together to make sure the company can survive and the workers can continue to have a place to work, but this isn't always the case. And I might add that when I heard about unions being exempt from the taxes that everyone was going to have to pay to fund health care, I about flipped my lid.

...and the new rail line in Florida... it's work and it's clean energy (by historical comparison), but why did the Government (the taxpayers) have to foot the bill? Sure, grants are often expected for portions of these projects, but if CSX can invest in themselves to build rail lines and prop up their industry, why couldn't the rail line in Florida have been partially funded by private dollars in exchange for the chance at entrepreneurship and personal prosperity - which could lead to more than just work, but real jobs. Careers. Lasting security. Retirement potential.

While I applaud the President's plea to higher education to start to control their own costs so tuition can be more reasonable, I think it's irresponsible to put an expiration date on student debt. One of the problems in America is that people spend and spend, but don't feel the responsibility to pay back the debt. They file bankruptcy, they negotiate pennies on the dollar, they withhold payment until banks and credit card companies are thankful to get whatever they can get just to get the debt off their books. Is bankruptcy necessary? Yes. Is it abused? Yes. But if there's an expiration date on student debt, or if the idea is to send everyone to college to wants to go, who pays for that debt? The American taxpayer.

Nuclear energy. A reduction in capital gains. A step-back and cool off plea regarding health care. Calling Washington out on their bickering. I agree with all of it. Off-shore drilling, new industry in tech and clean energy, I'm good to go.

I like him. He's good TV, he's good family. He has a great sense of humor. I have hope that he'll move more to the center and be a uniter, based on what he said tonight. But his record so far makes me a doubter as to what he's really thinking. I have doubts about the truth behind the teleprompted eloquence he predictably delivered, despite the fact that I want so badly to believe he'll come through for us.

...and that's the way I see it.

Brand New Day

Obama campaigned on the ticket, "Change You Can Believe In". Tonight's landslide in Massachusetts is the beginning of change HE can count on.

He said some tell-tale things during his stump speech for Martha Coakley that really showed his true colors, and showed what we Americans need to know about his character. We already know he dislikes America. We already know that he believes that Americans are stingy, selfish, uncultured and self-absorbed. But his comments last weekend offended me to no end.

Some highlights and my comments:

"Martha knows the struggles Massachusetts working families face because she's lived those struggles. Their stories are her story. You heard her -- she was raised in North Adams, one of five kids. Her dad owned a small business. Her mother was a homemaker. She worked her way up. Nothing was handed to her."

This "hand-out" idea was a major theme for Obama that day. Let me ask... if he's so against hand-outs and so proud of Coakley for rising up on her own, why is he so intent on social justice, redistribution of wealth and the idea that the successful people need to provide for the unsuccessful people? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

"It's whether we're going to have a future where everybody gets a shot in this society, or just the privileged few."

This is the comment that ticked me off. He blathered on as if the only people who can get ahead are people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. He should know as well as anyone - this foreigner with black skin and a drug habit in his youth who is now President of the United States of America - that with enough hard work and self-determination, anyone can pull themselves out of the quagmire and succeed. He did it. He's not privileged. He wasn't born into money. He had a broken home. He's President now.

I've never asked for anything from anyone. I own my own company, but it was a struggle to do so, and it continues to be a struggle every day, particularly now. I'm not privileged, and nobody gave me my shot. I wanted a shot AND I TOOK IT.

I was VERY offended by that comment of his. He knows better. He's playing the populist, but he's doing it wrong and he's pissing off his constituents.

Now - let's move on:

"Because it's easy to say you're independent and you're going to bring people together and all that stuff -- until you actually have to do it."

Oh. Really? No kidding? For two years or more he used the phrase "bring people together", but all he's accomplished is to divide us even further and to stick a middle finger up at anyone who disagrees by just shutting them out. He shut the doors of transparency and has been working behind closed doors on his pending health care and energy bills. It was easy for him to use that phrase himself, but when he couldn't do it he just plain gave up... and considering he has an overwhelming majority in both houses, there's no reason for that kind of snubbery.

Here's more:

"I kept a campaign promise to cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans. Cut taxes. And these members of Congress right here voted to cut taxes here in the commonwealth not just for individuals, but also for small businesses. We cut taxes for middle-class families. That was part of the Recovery Act."

Sure. Legislate a tax cut. Fine. But he's going to get your money, no matter what bracket you're in. Whether he's raising taxes on energy, or taking more money out of your paycheck to pay for government-run health care, or causing banks to raise their fees (and pass them on to you) because of the taxes Obama wants to impose on them. His tax cuts are "virtual". They're up in a cloud somewhere, because I'm a middle class businessman and I was really afraid of what his policies were going to do to me and my business.

"It was your tax dollars that saved Wall Street banks from their own recklessness, keeping them from collapsing and dragging our entire economy down with them. // Now, we've recovered most of your money already, but I don't think "most of your money" is good enough. We want all our money back. We're going to collect every dime. That's why I proposed a new fee on the largest financial firms -- to pay the American people back for saving their skin."

If the money is paid back with interest, why do we need to punish the banks? Their debt to the American people is paid, so let's let them do their private business out of government hands. Can we regulate the financial sector better? Sure. Some additional regulations will go far towards helping us avoid another meltdown. But those recommendations should be made not to limit wage compensation, but to stifle predatory lending, restrict unsecured mortgages and to build non-governmental watchdogs who can tell the Barney Franks and the Chris Dodds that they cannot pressure private entities to mire themselves down in risky debt the likes of which caused this terrible recession. The credit market is already overly tight. Additional fees and taxes will slow down the credit market even more.

Obama and Coakley were counting on the "progressive", liberal track record of the Massachusetts voters:

"You will carry on the best, progressive, forward-looking values of this proud commonwealth..."

No, they didn't.

But as happy as Republicans are about this victory and this message to Washington DC, they cannot get too full of themselves. The GOP still has a long way to go to fix their own house. Just like the Democrats had difficulty getting themselves together for years, the Republicans have a similar dilemma. The centrist/McCain republicans have almost become a separate party from the Tea-Party Conservatives. The Pawlentys are disagreeing with the Palins in the direction of the GOP. While I mention it - Sarah Palin should NOT run for President in 2012. She should NOT have quit the governorship because that was her best chance to redeem herself politically in the eyes of the nation. Now she's got no political clout, she has too many fires to put out and she doesn't have anyone except the Tea-Party conservatives on her side... and many of them don't want her to run either.

Tonight's Massachusetts vote changes the game a bit in Washington, but it's only one more vote. Yes, it kills the 60-seat filibuster-proof Democrat stranglehold, but the majority stands. The GOP has about 6 months to get their house in order, or they're going to unravel and the Democrats will maintain a heavy majority. The GOP-vs-Conservative fight cost Republicans the Senate seat in New York. They need to settle down, buckle up and come to a consensus.

But in the meantime, the Dems lost a seat and tomorrow may be the dawn of a brand new day. For the first time in a year - almost to the day - I feel some hope towards the future.

... and that's the way I see it.

An Open Letter To The GOP

Hey! Michael Steele! Knock it off!

So here I am, getting the mail, and stuck in the middle of the pizza coupons and the Time Warner Cable advertisements is a letter from the RNC. It's a "survey" (picture me putting my fingers up in the air to pantomime the quotes) that they are going to use to tell the GOP where we stand on the issues. I'm sure they sent it out to registered republicans as a way to rally the troops, so to speak. Oh, and they also want to raise money. There's an area on the back where I can write in my credit card number.

Of course, they worded every question in such a way that any good republican would have to answer in the way they anticipate. Even their "surveys" (insert visual of my fingers once again) are dripping with spin. Hey - Grand Old Party - this isn't helping you at all!

You see, it's the liberals that are the traditional rabble-rousers. They're the war protesters, the radicals, the parade marchers, the people who bitch incessantly. Now that the republicans are doing it, not only are they raising the ire of liberals and the DNC but they're actually deepening the divide that exists in the country. Do I mind the protests? No, not really. As a republican I'm pretty pissed off at what Obama is trying to do. I'm pretty angry about the snide comments coming from the mouths of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The utter contempt they have for the American people is disgusting.

But neither side is helping things any.

The democrats have essentially nationalized our banking and auto industries, and now they want to nationalize our health industry. They discount every attempt by republicans to work together to solve anything, except of course for the RNC's resident RINO, Olympia Snowe.

The republicans refuse to hold the industries accountable for their mistakes. The corruption on Wall Street, the crumbling of General Motors and the intense lobbying and unscrupulous practices of the pharmaceutical industry.

While I don't want the GOP to start to skew towards the middle on the majority of their policies, there are a few areas in which I believe there's room for some shuffling.

First: Regulation. I love capitalism. I believe that we should be able to keep what we earn because, well, we've earned it. But when large corporations aren't regulated, it leads to monopolies which leads to price gouging and inflation. Insurance is one area that needs intense regulation. They should be able to make a fair profit, but they shouldn't be able to deny covered claims. They should be able to shy away from pre-existing conditions, but they shouldn't be able to price gouge if they decide to cover someone with a PEC. Insurance companies should be able to sell across state lines to create more competition, but they should be regulated strongly so big companies can't swallow up small companies or out-price small companies so the competition ends up short-lived.

Similarly, credit card companies should cease their predatory practices. They should be prosecuted when their own due diligence is ignored. Credit card collection agencies should be restricted by federal law not to be harassing, rude and threatening. Credit card collection agencies should be required to offer information on credit counseling services that help people to get out from under their debt. Credit companies should not be allowed to raise fees the way they have been, without reason and without warning.

Wall Street... as much as I hate to say this, Wall Street needs a czar, or maybe a bi-partisan, non-governmental watchdog group to make sure that trading is fair, that ponzi schemes are noticed and shut down and that accounting reports are true and not fraudulent. Investors should not always see a return. That's not realistic. For books to be cooked in such a way that stock prices always go up so capitol can always be raised even if the company is failing - it should be a felony and we need someone there to be on top of it.

One of health care's biggest battles is cost. Some people go bankrupt because of medical bills. But the truth is that the costs of being a doctor can easily overwhelm a talented hand. Medical malpractice lawsuits are out of hand. Medically based litigation is on the rise. The amount of TV commercials for law practices who chase ambulances are at epidemic levels. We need to find a way to better regulate the judicial industry. It's sad that law has become an industry, but it has and it's every bit as unscrupulous as the world's oldest profession, only it's still legal.

Second: Education. One of the questions on my (see the fingers) "survey" (fingers down) was this... "Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the US is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability?"

How are you supposed to answer that? Jeez! Of course, any GOP member will say no to that. However, I have a different answer.

Of all things, I believe that YES, federal dollars should be spent on education. The dollars should be made available to the states so the states can ascertain troubled districts and sift the funds out proportionally to the need. We have smaller districts all around us with brand new schools, yet our city is still stuck in schools built in the early 1900s because despite living in a pretty affluent town, the levies for new schools keep getting voted down. Ohio's own system of distributing money to the schools has been regarded as unconstitutional. If dollars come from federal sources, new schools will be built. I believe that the fed shouldn't do it all, though. There should be a system in place for fund-matching so that if a district needs new schools, the municipality must come up with a certain percentage of the money as well. There needs to checks and balances though... if a school district like the one I'm in has the money but keeps saying no because of sentimental reasons, there needs to be a way for the fed to step in and work something out... or maybe the state steps in. Somebody needs to. Also, John McCain said that teachers should be held accountable and that bad teachers should be rooted out and sent packing. I agree, but it goes deeper than that. Right now, teachers teach for "the test". There's no creativity in the classroom anymore. There's not enough time for real education because teachers have to stick to an agenda. There are good teachers out there who find the time to prepare the children for their tests, but also find time to truly teach, and encourage, and inspire. Those are the teachers we need. If they're not willing to go that extra mile... g'bye!

Third: Pharmaceuticals. I know, I already mentioned them. But these guys need an ass kicking. They research a drug. They make it, pass it by the FDA, market it, sell it and so on. Then, they add another ingredient... something innocuous like, say, ibuprofen. Then they can say it reduces swelling or pain too! Wow! Then they charge a lot more for it and all they did was alter the first drug by some microscopic amount. That's bull! Sure, I get it, the money they make funds new research and development. Well, think of how much research and development money they would have if they would stop all of the ridiculous advertising they do! Their drug ads are so careless that they have to say 30 lines of disclaimers so people know the risks before they take them.

I think drug ads should be regulated the same way as liquor and cigarette ads. They shouldn't be on TV, billboards or radio because it can be argued that their concoctions can be every bit as dangerous as cigarettes or hard liquor. Then, with the money they save by not being able to advertise, they can put more money into research and development. Truly, the people who NEED to know about new drugs are the doctors, not the hypochondriacs at home watching Oprah or General Hospital.

Breast Cancer research is now an industry. What's the chance that someone hasn't already figured out a cure, but some CEO is holding it back because to reveal a cure for cancer means the end of the road for their company? That's pretty cynical - I know. Forgive me for that one.

I believe that herbal supplements SHOULD be evaluated by the FDA before they can be allowed to advertise. Truly, I've seen enough of "Smiling Bob" and his Enzyte commercials. If his crappy pill will really make my shlong longer, I want it to be proven by the FDA first. I want to see that the scientific research that went into that pill is sound and safe and has conclusive results. Otherwise they're just snake-oil salesmen in the back of their conestoga wagons hoping that some poor shmuck thinks his dong needs enhancement and will fall for it.

BUT: Some things the GOP has right are as follows. Government needs to shrink. Power needs to be retained by the states as allowed for in the 10th amendment to the Constitution. Government needs to spend less. If you don't have the money, don't spend the money. People who work should be allowed to keep more of their money. People who don't work should have to find some way to earn what they're given, should receive training so they can find work (and then pay that back once they find work... payment schedules should be fair, based on income and expenses) and should be limited as to what they receive from the government based on circumstances. Obviously, no one should go hungry, especially children. But we the people shouldn't have to pay for their food if the recipient is also paying Rent A Center for a big screen TV, Time Warner for cable and Road Runner, Alltel for their cell phone and 24 Hour Fitness for their daily walks and cardio workouts.

I've been told not to judge. I've been told that if people want to spend their money on those things that I shouldn't judge them for that. My view is that if a person puts a cigarette habit and a cable TV payment ahead of feeding their children, there needs to be someone to tell them no, you can't have public assistance. Learn to spend your money more wisely until you can afford to have the luxuries that are available.

Democrats have it wrong when they say that all people should be equal. The business-owner who worked for years and sacrificed his or her own sweat and life savings to make the business a success does have the right to succeed and reap some rewards. The illegal alien who sneaks across the border and wants that business-owner to pay their way... they're not entitled to anything except a ride back to their own side of the border.

Bottom Line

One way to end the party bickering is term limits. It's a fact. Politicians put their own careers ahead of the will of the people. (Our own Lt.Governor Lee Fisher continues to get paid by the taxpayers even though he's no longer running the ODOD and is focusing on running for Senator Voinovich's seat in Congress). They cater to special interests who offer big fat campaign contributions so they can be re-elected and keep their jobs. That makes for an ineffective leadership. BOTH parties do this. In 2010 we should get rid of all eligible incumbents regardless of party affiliation. We should then do it again in 2012.

The polarization of American politics is not going to get any better until party politics are out of the way. The best way to do this is to get rid of all the old dirt on the hill and bring in some fresh bodies. Without the special interests poking and prodding and asking for favors in lieu of campaign contributions, you'll find that politicians will be much more likely to do what's best for America... not what's best for their parties, or themselves.

...and that's the way I see it.

Petty Partisan PUNKS

Obama's White House is snubbing Fox News. MoveOn.org is asking people to sign a petition asking Democrats to similarly snub Fox News for the same period of time, 'til the end of the year.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

So, because Fox News isn't kissing Obama's backside and is actually holding his administration's feet to the fire, the liberals are pitching a big ol' hissy fit. They're pulling their toys out of the sandbox. They want their records back. They're starting a playground rivalry... "If you play with them, I'll hate you forever and I won't be your friend!"

The Republicans never pulled any crap like this! These old stodgy schmucks are so scared of dissent and the possibility that they may lose their seat that they're actually working to stifle free speech and to coerce some sort of faux adulation and ya know what? It's going to help them lose their seat even faster!!

Like it or not, Fox News is the #1 rated news network. For a Democrat to snub an entire network with better ratings than all of the other news networks means they would be snubbing more than half of their own constituencies, particularly since Fox's audience is made up of a large amount of independents as well as republicans and yes, some democrats too. You snub your constituencies, they snub you at the next election.

I'm not a politician. How can I understand this and our elected officials don't?! Here's why: They're so caught up in their politics and their White House mandates that they forgotten what they're there for - to serve ALL Americans, no matter their political ideology.

It's time to clean house (and senate). I don't care what party - if there's an incumbent they need to be defeated in 2010. When the kids can't get along, we send them home.

I'd give Congress a spanking, but they'd probably like it.

...and that's the way I see it.

MoveOn.please

President Obama went on Letterman last night. He got the whole show, except the monologue, which was wholly appropriate considering the fact that a sitting President is visiting a late night talk show. He was treated with the pomp and circumstance that the office deserves by Letterman and the rest of the posse, which is also wholly appropriate. Letterman was respectful and asked good questions, albeit it at times they were soft balls - but then, Letterman is an entertainer, not a news pundit (even though he seems to get confused about that sometimes these days, which is why I don't watch his show as much anymore).

I read a report that said that Obama has had more TV time so far than Bush and Clinton had accumulated combined by this point in their presidencies, so in a bit of constituent aggravation I posted a thought on Facebook that I thought Obama was getting too much TV time. I wasn't disrespectful, I said nothing idealogical and I wasn't even overly critical. I just commented that I thought he had more things to do than to spend more time yukking it up on TV.

Boy did the flood gates open - but they weren't the flood gates I expected. I expected demagogues to go at me over policy, or Obama-lovers to continue their slobbering love affair but instead I got something else, and as I think about it I guess I should have expected it more than I did.

Bush is gone, but the hatred and the nastiness hasn't faded. For the most part, Bush has remained silent and out of the way in regards to politics (I know, Cheney hasn't, but the hate isn't directed at him, oddly enough, even though Cheney is probably more deserving of it), yet everyone is continuing to lash out at George Bush. Even the Castro/Chavez loving power house that is Oliver Stone was more fair to Bush ("W.") than everyone else has been.

A couple of the retorts:

better on tv than at camp david like some other prez...

Better than him being on vacation most of the year...

I wasn't being mean to Obama, yet people from the left continue to go back in time and attack Bush rather than face today with open eyes and ears. Yeah, okay - Bush screwed up. He wasn't the smartest guy to ever take the office, he was incredibly polarizing because of his religious beliefs and he started a war in Iraq that most view as unnecessary (and I'll even go so far as to say that I was also opposed to extending the conflict to Iraq because the people that hit us on 9/11 were from Afghanistan, not Iraq). But he's not in office anymore.

It's like the schoolyard bully that just beat up the school dork. Except the bully isn't putting his arms up in defeat and walking away victorious. Instead he's continuing to piss on the guy, spit on him, taunt him... he's following him to his home and yelling at him through the screen door, "Come out here so I can kick the shit out of you again!"

"But you won! I lost! Isn't that good enough for you?"

"No! I still hate you and I want to step on your face with baseball cleets!"

"But I haven't done anything to you! I haven't bugged you at all!"

"It doesn't matter. If I keep beating you up, no-one will ever focus on the now and they'll make me stand on my own two feet. If I live in the past, everyone else will too, so get out here and let me womp on you a little more!"

Obama ran on an anti-Bush platform against McCain. Obama continues to roll Bush under the bus (whether it's investigating the CIA, deflecting economic blame, explaining the lack of global support on the Afghan war, or whatever). Even Letterman continues to punch Bush in the face, even when he's got Obama sitting in the wings waiting for the spotlight (again).

I don't want to spend the next 3 years and three months listening to the past. I would rather this administration and its admirers accept their victory and move on towards taking care of the things that need taken care of. Obama - get Bin Laden. That would be good. Obama - find a way to get the money back out of the banks and GM and pay down our debt to China and the taxpayers and whomever else you and your Congress borrowed from. Obama - reform the insurance industry (inflation stays stagnant but the premiums go up? WTF?). Obama - let's fix the financial industry by getting some oversight on Wall Street and by regulating the predatory practices of mortgage and credit lenders. Let's allow insurance companies to sell across state lines without federalizing the system, but let's also set up anti-trust committees to keep large companies (like Chase and AIG) from buying up all the little companies and eliminating the competition that will keep the prices from growing at an unsustainable, unaffordable rate.

In a nutshell. Obama - Quit Bush-bashing and live in the now. Quit taking up TV time and spend some time focusing on what's important. BUT - keep being likable and smiling a lot, because we as the American people need a confident, affable President just as much as we need an effective leader and Commander-In-Chief.

See? I can be politically centered when I want to be.

... and that's the way I see it.