Making Your Voice Heard

If you really want to end gun violence and institute sensible gun laws, you have to do it from the ground up. You have to make this a primary issue of local elections and you have to hold those whom you elect responsible for making it happen. If they don't propose those laws, vote them out in the next election. Or, if they do and the laws aren't voted in, vote out those who voted against the law and vote in more officials who will take it seriously.

I am a gun owner who moved from the US to Canada. In order to have my firearms in Canada, I had to take a firearms course, become licensed, and register the weapons. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the gun laws and instructions here are sensible. They don't really impede anyone from owning the firearms they want (within reason), and those who want to target practice or hunt have all the options they could need to do either. While there is political back and forth every now and then about certain semi-automatic weapons being available, there is debate and discussion about it each time and every side listens.

Why isn't this happening in America?

The politicians are afraid of the gun lobby. But, here's the thing: The best estimates of the membership of NRA (National Rifle Association) show it to have about 5 million members. That's about 0.015 percent of the population. And, since 2018, that number has declined. The revenue it generates is down by over $100 million and continues to fall. How do we let such a small number of radicals set gun policy for an entire nation?

Next, of course, you have firearm manufacturers. They are a small, but financially powerful group of lobbyists who contribute in the tens of thousands to, primarily, Republican lawmakers each election cycle. Anywhere between $40,000 and $100,000 is donated to each lawmaker to ensure they are pro-firearm and pro-Second Amendment. What's funny is that these amounts are really not significant to each individual elected official, yet their voice is outsized after each and every gun-related tragedy.

So, in order to enact common sense gun laws, we need to make these payments public, we need to question those who take those donation publically, and we need to ask sensible questions about why politicians are giving outsized voice to such a tiny minority of people in America.

Lastly, America thinks it always has to reinvent the wheel. It can't look at literally every other industrialized nation on the planet and cherry-pick the best, most sensible, common-sense laws and programs from countries that have already gone through this process, it must create its own system from scratch with as many loopholes and bootlicking of industry and lobbies as possible. As I noted above, the Canadian system is reasonable. So, too, are systems from many other nations around the world. Use that knowledge, call in their experts and politicians who went through this process, and figure out what will work for the majority of Americans.

But it all starts from local elections. Make common-sense gun laws a priority. Every single town meeting, Q&A, and interview they need to be asked about this topic. They need to be held accountable for this issue once in office. They need to be voted in or out based on what they do or do not do on this topic. This is true for Judges, elected police/sherrif officials, mayors, district attorneys, etc. And then, do the same for higher offices (county and state). And then, press onward and make it a primary talking point at every single Presidential and Congressional election rally, interview, and town-hall meeting. You can find conservative and liberal politicians who will agree that this is an issue and would be willing to back common-sense laws if the people press them to.

It's up to YOU to do this, though. You have to be willing to make this an issue that is important, visible, and sustained. You have to hold your elected officials accountable if they don't do anything about it by not re-electing them. And you have to be in it for the long haul; it's not something that can be fixed after one election cycle. It could take a decade or more. But isn't the safety of our children, our coworkers, our friends, and our family worth it?

The Future is Now

You hear people saying that we need to get Trump out of office to avoid the US becoming like The Handmaid's Tale. They think that 1984 cannot happen. What these people fail to understand or realize is that it already is that!

Trump has allowed and encouraged racism, sexism, and general prejudicial behavior. He has approved of violence enacted against anyone who does not agree with him. He has encouraged limiting the free press and the advent of a virtual government-run press.

None of this seems really all that bad. Not really. But what people fail to understand is that he has gone much, much further. He hasn't done much as president but he has appointed over 200 ultra-conservative, religion-based judges to long-term and permanent positions throughout the country. This is so that the country will continue to sway more conservative for the next 20-30 years. He has rounded up and caged a large number of people in concentration camps. Within those camps, he is allowing the forced sterilization of people he has deemed "undesirable." People of Color (PoC) are already being killed and subjugated at alarming rates. They have privatized prisons and detainment such that those who own these companies are making deals with police and prosecutors to keep detainment artificially high so they can maximize their profits (and give plenty of kick-backs to those in power who need it).

Trump is using newspeak and lies to make those who do not want to put in the effort to find the actual truth believe that what the Republicans are currently doing is what the Democrats want to do if they get into office. He ignores the rule of law and does whatever he can to stretch it, bend it, and break it. These redefinitions of what is "right" and lawful further eases the willingness of his adherents to push further.

What gets me the most, however, is the number of women he has hoodwinked into thinking they matter to him and his cronies, like Moscow Mitch McConnell. Just like in The Handmaid's Tale, they have enough white women believing they will be important and have a voice in their regime that they throw in with the white men. However, just like in The Handmaid's Tale, they will then be divested of their voice and power immediately after the PoC are removed or encaged.

Trump has all but authorized militias to kill PoC and threaten anyone who doesn't agree with his skewed politics. They storm capital buildings with impunity, they kill PoC without remorse or repercussions, and the police and Department of Justice (DOJ) do nothing to stop them. Actually, to the contrary, the police and DOJ do not bring charges against those who commit these crimes and criminalize being of a dark skin color at the same time.

Trump has approved of China and Russia, two of the US's most deadly, subtle, and consistent enemies, to do what they please. He has encouraged China and Russia to meddle in the US's affairs, he has not villified them for their human rights abuses, and he hasn't encouraged the US's allies to work together to overcome these failings.

Trump loves authoritarian governments. He loves "strong leaders" -- dictators. He constantly buddies up with them and approves of them even as they round up opposition and kill or cage them. He wants to follow in their footsteps. He can't see these leaders laughing at him... he's too stupid to understand he's being used to legitimize their rule.

What do you get in the stories of The Handmaid's Tale and 1984? Authoritarian governments who use some form of newspeak to confuse and control the populace. Undesirables are done away with. Power is wielded from a position of domination and control, the rights of the many are enforced upon the few, and religion is used as a basis for their control and authority. That's exactly what is occurring in Trump's America. It is happening NOW.

Pregnancy in America

I suggest the following laws be proposed and debated.

Deterrents:

• All male rapists must be either chemically or physically castrated after conviction.
• If the father of a child does not help care for the child, either by missing childcare visits, payments, or similar, the father will be chemically castrated until such time as he is able to fulfill his minimum duties as a parent (i.e., he makes restitution for the missed childcare).
• All children of male rapists that are not wanted by the mother must be given to the rapist to raise.
• Vasectomies can only be performed after the age of 25 and with a partner's, or the person's parents, consent. There is a waiting period of a minimum of 7 days to get a vasectomy. The person requesting a vasectomy must watch an hour-long video on the dangers of the surgical procedure and the joys of parenthood.
• In Texas, both the male and female participants will be tried and, if convicted, sent to the death penalty if the woman has an abortion. DNA testing is mandatory to determine with the greatest accuracy who the father of the child is.
• Males must wear athletic supporters and protective cups whenever performing any sports activity or dangerous activity to ensure their reproductive organs are safe from harm. Anyone found to be willfully harming the penis or testicles can be arrested and confined for up to 5 years or a fine of $25,000 per offense.
• Males must see a doctor a minimum of once a year and have their reproductive organs checked, including providing a semen sample to check for sperm viability.

If we make it in any way illegal to have an abortion, and it is done to "protect the child," then we must also propose the following laws to ensure the safety and welfare of that child:

• Increased federal funding and mandated minimum staffing for foster care.
• Increased federal funding and facilities for pregnant mothers to help ensure successful pregnancies and births. Alternately, a program by which all pregnant women get free healthcare while pregnant and for a pre-determined time after pregnancy to ensure both the mother and child are healthy long-term.
• Funding for and research into accessibility to medical care to ensure that all pregnant women have "reasonable" access to healthcare. Reasonable will be defined to mean within a 1-hour car, bus, or train ride from the person's home, a fully-staffed hospital, clinic, or other facilities that can perform all identified healthcare needs for a mother and child through the age of 5.
• Increased funding and accessibility for mental healthcare for pregnant mothers and post-partum women.
• Increased federal funding and increased access to food and post-birth medical care to ensure as many children that are conceived live to see the age of 5 (an age where mortality rates drop significantly).
• Federally mandated vaccinations.
• Increased federal funding for schools and all education programs.
• Federal funding for childcare services after birth so the parent(s) can go back to work, if needed, or can get child care services when required.
• Federal minimum time off requirements of at least 6 months for both the mother and father to care for the newborn baby.

If the pro-life, Republican politicians that are so stringently against abortion are *really* proposing these laws "for the children," and are not simply about controlling women's bodies, it seems like these rules are pretty much the *bare minimum* they should be proposing to both a) ensure that every child conceived has the best chance to survive to birth, b) to give every mother the best chance to carry the child to birth, and c) to give the parent(s) the best chance to raise a healthy child after birth.

Somehow, though, I don't think these suggestions will even be considered nor do I think these laws would make it even up for a vote. During the debate, I bet these white, male, "pro-life" politicians will laugh at the suggestions that males be held equally accountable for the pregnancy. I know already that they won't even consider plans to educate, care for, feed, or otherwise provide for the best welfare of the child once it is born as they have systematically attacked all of these institutions already.

These people are not pro-life. They are simply against women's rights because they know that to keep women "in their place" is to keep the men in power and to keep the current power structure strong. Women are a threat and this group is scared of them.

Fear and Loathing in America

In my experience, most hate and anger stems from fear: fear of the unknown, fear of consequences, fear of loss, fear of something. Lately, Americans and much of the world have been reacting in anger to a lot of different things: homosexuals and homosexuality, dispossessed people/immigrants, change. And I simply don't get why they are so afraid.

President Trump rode to power on a message of fear. He told Americans to fear immigrants, to fear gays, to fear Democrats, to fear change. He promised to do things to stem the fear. He was going to build a big, beautiful wall. He was going to send all the immigrants away. He was going to protect your job in an out-dated and failing industry. He was going to make America look to America first and foremost.

But, as has been proven by the world and by his first year in office so far, none of those things are things to be afraid of so he cannot enact his policies. Immigrants are actually vital to America's growth and continued economic dominance. Why fear immigrants? Immigrants start more companies than any other group of people. In addition, every non-partisan report you can find shows that by embracing immigrants you actually lessen the chances of terrorism. Those immigrants are too busy creating jobs, raising families, trying to fit, and being grateful for being out of the oppressive regime, war, or whatever caused them to flee in the first place to want to commit terrorism. And increasing the vetting process? Creating "extreme vetting"? I'm not sure that is possible. America already has the most stringent process that takes years and numerous background checks and interviews to make it through as it is.

How we treat those immigrants is important, though. If we just dump them in the rural south and expect them to be okay, then we might create home-grown terrorists. If we truly embrace them, however, the sky's the limit for them and for us.

Fearing gay people, transexuals, etc.? There is literally nothing there to fear. They just want to be left alone, to marry and divorce and live their lives just like everyone else. The world won't end, religion will be fine, and people won't see any more overt acts of sexuality that they are uncomfortable with and fear than they do right now. But they get the safety of the law on their side when medical emergencies arise when their loved ones die and other circumstances. All liberties that non-LGBTQ people take for granted now extend to all people. Period. That's a good thing.

The two political parties in America didn't use to fear each other. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were simply people who had somewhat different priorities. They could sit down and work toward some common, middle ground and reach a consensus. Repubs would put up with a few more dollars going to a social program and the Dems would put up with an easing of regulation here or some more defense spending there. But they didn't fear and hate each other. It was all civil.

Somewhere around the 1990s, that really started to change. And, before Obama took office, the Republican leadership was already saying they would block anything he and the Democrats put forward, even if it was beneficial. So, we had eight years of works projects blocked, eight years of infrastructure proposals blocked, eight years of gridlock and bitterness. Now, with Trump in office, you have someone who can't get anything passed. And, the one thing the Republicans did pass will likely harm America and the very Americans they claim to serve. Why do they fear the common man so much?

What America needs more than anything right now is someone to lead us from a position of love and acceptance. Obama tried, but was blocked by right-wing rhetoric which, even when patently proven false, too many bought into. We need someone like a Reagan or a Clinton, who both made us feel good about being American and who were both able to build bridges between the Democrats and Republicans and get a lot of really good legislation passed. Or someone like a Kennedy, who got both sides of the aisle working together toward incredible achievements. The last thing we need is someone in office who may be unfit for the job, who definitely isn't smart enough for the job, and whose only position is of fear and loathing.

In your own life, look toward your fears and really evaluate them. Why are you afraid? Is there really something there to be afraid of? Can talking it out, researching it, or confronting it help you to move past it and on to something better?

Let's all try to be better. Let's all try to ignore the bombast and rhetoric that surrounds us on a daily basis. Let's all try to talk with people who challenge our beliefs and our assumptions -- and I mean really listen to them -- and see that maybe they aren't so different from us as we previously thought. Maybe then we can realize that we're all in this together, that we can ensure that it all works out, and that there isn't really that much to be afraid of.

Except spiders. Of course I don't include spiders. :-)

Has Hate Won?

I think, sometimes, that hate has won, that America will eat itself from the inside and splinter into  many smaller nations. American could become the new Middle East, with many nations constantly at war with one another over ideological differences. I think this way because of how people are talking, and not talking, to each other.

The recent shooting in Orlando is a tragedy. But, to me, the bigger tragedy is reading the posts filled with hate about the shooting. If you evince any sympathy for those who were killed, or if you think that America needs to look at its gun laws and make revisions, you are instantly vilified as "left," "Liberal," "Democrat," "stupid," and a bunch of curse words that amount to being a woman or being gay. On the other side of things, people are "stupid," "Conservative," "right," and "Republican." I definitely agree with the "stupid" axiom, as that is true of either side and how they are reacting. You also see a lot of Bible quotations espousing the killing of gays (but, as always, taken out of context), calls that we don't need more gun laws (or that we need to take away all the guns), that there will be more mass killings if someone tries to take away the guns, comments about the mental health, race, and religion of those who believe one way or the other. The hate, and how it is expressed, seems endless. And the goalposts of hate constantly shift and move whenever any rationality and love seeps through.

Which is why, as long as people are going to become rabid on topics, rather than talking them through and seeking compromise, hate wins. As long as people buy into this "us vs. them" rhetoric, hate wins. As long as people continue to teach that some groups are somehow "less" than others, be they a different gender, a different sexual preference, a differing religion, a different race, a differing political ideology, or whatever, hate wins.

I'm willing to bet that the gun enthusiasts and gun-banning advocates can reach common ground, somewhere in the middle, where closing the loopholes in gun shows, making background checks mandatory, and requiring some sort of gun safety course and/or licensing is required to get firearms. I think the two sides can even reach agreement that some weapons do not need to be sold to civilians, and should stay in the purview of the military and police. But it takes cool heads and a willingness to listen and put away the hatred to do it.

I think we can even agree that the person is at fault, and not the firearm, if we talk it through. I think we can figure out that not all people of one religion, nor all people of a particular race or creed, are filled with hatred. We can probably come to common ground and agree that this person did what he did and that he is to blame for it, not the victims or their lifestyle nor the person's religion or race.

But, right now, seeing all the hate being hurled at one another across such a silly divide, for all political divides are ultimately silly, makes me think that hate has won. That the population has fallen for it, and is spending too much time hating and vilifying each other rather than looking for solutions and growing our strengths.

I wonder what kind of community we could have if we stopped hating and starting simply disagreeing?

Do Unto Others...

The Golden Rule exists in nearly all religions, and many philosophies, of the world -- and is absolutely foundational to the top four religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). However, the news seems filled with stories about people and groups are not following it or are actively ignoring it.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

How is it that so many people in politics are making rules that they themselves would not want to live by? How is it that so many get radicalized by religious leaders who ignore this vital part of the religious code? How is it that so many businesses ignore the people in their quest for profits?

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

In politics we are seeing it from all sides. The Republicans have spent 7 years doing their best to veto anything that President Obama put forth, refusing to help make policy, refusing to seek compromise in any meaningful way. Yet, I’m certain, if a Republican president is chosen in the next election, they will want the Democrats to work with them, not filibuster, and seek compromises. For the brief time that the Democrats had control of Congress, they rammed through everything they could without regard to the opposition’s concerns.

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

In Canada, Harper’s government has ignored popular opinion, the will of the people, and the advice of counsel (including most scientists, government oversight groups, and local leadership) in order to promote its agenda.

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

In the world, you have groups like Al Queda and ISIS ignoring whole swaths of the Quran in order to recruit people to go on jihadist terrorist missions. You have people like the Westboro Baptists who are militantly picketing any military burial, location that performs abortions, and others. But, would they want their own rallies and churches picketed and their own lives disrupted? Probably not.

This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

In the pursuit of the all-mighty dollar, businesses are ignoring the pleas, safety, and security of the people. They destroy the future (by way of destruction of the environment, disloyalty to local markets and people and favoring outsourcing, lying to employees and customers, etc.) to gain more wealth now.

Stupidity, Fear, and Illness

There actually is an axis of evil. The axis comprises three things that keep those in power in power. Those three things are health, education, and fear.

Ill health results in poor decisions. If for example, you have no insurance, you will keep working and ignore those weird pains in your chest until you drop over, dead. If you cannot afford to go to the hospital, you cannot get over that cold you have had for two months as it slowly becomes pneumonia. If your insurance is poor, you cannot afford the best tests and the best doctors, so you do not find out about that lump in your breast until it is too far advanced. Poor health keeps you working long, stressful hours that can make you sicker after your loved one dies from something you couldn't afford... but are stuck with the insurmountable bills.

Poor education results in bad decisions. When you are uneducated, you cannot get better jobs. You are stuck, most often living paycheck to paycheck. And then something unforeseen happens, and you have to take a loan out. Maybe that loan is from a payday loan service, at 150% interest, and you can never get out from under it. Maybe that loan is from a criminal element, that breaks your legs when you cannot pay. Low education means you can get a taste of a decent job, but cannot go higher. So you are stuck living on the edge, never falling behind all the way, but never getting a head. The low-level work means you are always taking order and never giving them. The long hours means you are slowly working yourself to death, as the lack of sleep and constant stress build and build until you have a heart attack. No or poor education often means a person can be preyed upon by those with more education. An online college can promise them everything they need, and the person isn't smart enough to read the contract and see what little they get for all that money and time. Even a good education can sometimes have unintended negative consequences. A good education often means you are saddle with thousands, often hundreds of thousands, of dollars of debt when you need that debt the least... when you are just starting out and need every cent you can earn to start your life.

Fear results in horrible decisions. When people are afraid, they are willing to trade their most valuable assets for protection and security. They will trade their Constitutional rights for the illusion of safety. People will say things and do things things they would never normally do or say when they are afraid. They will listen to anybody who proposes a solution to their fear. Mob mentally often rules when people are afraid.

Does any of this sound familiar?

America has been waging a war on its people for the past 30 years. Those in power, either in the government or in commerce, have been doing everything in their power to stay in power. They have attacked teachers unions, driving educators out of the business and weakening the educational system everywhere but in private schools. They have driven up the costs of education every year. They have made it harder for people to get scholastic loans. They have cut corners in business and government so that more toxins are in the air, water, and foods, making people sick -- often with unintended side effects. They have slowly turned the news into a biased barrage of negativity and depressing stories that keep people afraid. They talk loudly about the "good of America" while voting against anything that actually improves the infrastructure, economy, or wages. They keep us so afraid that we allow them to make laws that subjugate our Constitutional rights and gather unprecedented data about us, all in the name of security -- which we don't actually have, as not one piece of data, not one airport body scan/screening, not one collected phone call has yet to stop a terrorist attack. They pass laws that enact absurd educational systems that keep people ignorant and uneducated. They give the power over the people's health to those least able to keep us healthy and who are most driven by profit -- and our health cuts into those profits.

And we allow them, because we are too sick, too stupid, and too afraid to stop them.

In this coming election, we each need to vote OUT any person who has been in office for longer than two terms. ANY PERSON. Find your representatives' voting record online and review what they say versus how they actually voted -- you might be surprised. After every Presidential debate, not matter which side you are on, go to sites like Politifact.com, FactCheck.org, major newspaper fact checking sites, and others, and review what your favorite candidates said and how much of it was actually true. Again, you'd be surprised.

In other words, do everything in your power to educate yourself. Because education will lower your fear levels and help you get healthy. And once you are no longer sick, no longer afraid, and no longer ignorant, your politicians will fear you.

John Basil Barnhill, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

Compromise

It's like we have all forgotten how to get along. You are either right or wrong, and there is no middle ground, these days.

If you have a baby and want to breastfeed it in public, you are right and everyone else who does not want to see that happen while they are out enjoying their day are wrong. If you are speaking loudly into your phone, or playing a game on it with the sound on, in public, you are in the right and everyone else subjected to your fun or phone call is wrong... and not only wrong, but why are they listening to your 'private' phone call in the first place?

If you are liberal and want to do something, you are right and the conservatives are wrong. If you are conservative and want to do something, you are right and the liberals are wrong. If you are a politician and you are speaking about some new topic that came up, you are right and everyone else is wrong. If you are shown evidence of the multitude of times you have said the direct opposite of your current stance, you are somehow right each time, and right now, and everyone else is wrong, especially the reporter who is somehow taking your previous comments out of context or misconstruing what you said or did before (even though they are your exact words).

The list goes on and on.

What happened to compromise? Compromise has never meant that you get your way and everyone else is screwed. It means that each side gets some of what they want and each side loses some of what they want. Hopefully, the most important bits are what are kept and everyone has something they can work with.

If you need to breastfeed in public, covering your breast and child allows you to perform the action and allows those who do not wish to witness to both be satisfied. Each side gets what they want, each side loses a little (the "right" to flash your breast and show your suckling baby to all who glance your way versus the "right" of all those who would rather eat their meal, shop, or just be out in public without seeing 'that sort of thing' at all).

If you need to speak with someone on the phone, or are bored and want to use your game for entertainment, going off to the side, leaving the room, or otherwise minimizing the effect of your conversation and game playing on the rest of the public in the area allows both sides to get some of what they want.

Just because you are Liberal and tend toward wanting to help people doesn't mean Conservatives are wrong to want to figure out a way to pay for those services, or make sure they aren't abused. Just because you are Conservative doesn't mean you can axe every program without repercussion or issue or that your constituents want you to. We used to be able to have low taxes and meaningful social programs without breaking the bank, with decent oversight, and while meeting in the middle on the hard choices about how to fund them properly.

If you think before you speak, and speak for yourself, you will often find your responses to media more consistent and without hyperbole. Instead of rejecting outright and being embarrassed when called on the carpet for saying one thing and then voting or doing another, how about you be smart, fess up, and admit when you are wrong? How about living with honor and acting like you care for your constituents instead of looking like you are only in it for the job (and all those perks that come with it).

And, as the public, how about we all try to get along? How about we look up the best candidate, regardless of party, that embodies what we want done in Washington and vote for him/her, instead of just voting for party? How about we walk next door and say Hi to our neighbor and talk with them a bit about what they want from life? How about we all listen to what is being said by those with whom we disagree and see if there is any truth to it that we can work with?

Mid-Term Elections 2014

The mid-term elections are just a month away. I have a suggestion for every voter, regardless of party affiliation or conservative/liberal leanings: do NOT vote for any incumbents. The incumbents of both parties have proven they cannot do the job for which we hired them, so show your disapproval by voting as many of them out as possible.

Our founding fathers did not think that anyone would want to serve for longer than a term or two, so they didn't put term limits into the Constitution. And, for the first 150 years of our country, the number of people who served more than two terms was very small. However, in the mid-20th century, people started to realize that politics could be a lucrative career. Priorities shifted to spending more money to get in, and stay in, Congress.

Since the 1950s, we see incumbents slowly dominating all of the elections until today we see about 90% incumbent success rate. This has led to cronyism, graft, and the further widening of the political divide until you have the worst Congress in history, one that had the majority party saying they refused to work with the current President and would block anything he or his party put forward. Both sides lie with impunity. They pass laws that make no sense when they do work, like shutting down the government, but allowing themselves to keep getting paid.

So, I say enough. Let's show our displeasure by voting them out. Both sides. My proposal is this: simply look at the length of time a person has been in office. If they have served more than two terms (or this will be their third term), DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM. If you can't find it online, call their office (easily found in a quick websearch or through going to congress.gov and searching for the person in question).

You may be asking yourself about now, 'Who am I going to vote for then?' Easy: anyone except an incumbent. You can easily find liberal and conservative alternatives in other parties (for example, the Green party leans liberal and the Libertarians lean conservative). Many races have multiple Republicans and Democrats running -- pick one that hasn't been in office before.

Once this is done and we've kicked as many incumbents out of office as possible, we should press our Congressmen to enact a Term Limits law to keep what is currently happening from ever happening again.

It's time for our government to fear its people once more.

#revolution

Related topics:

http://jmc-omniverse.blogspot.ca/2013/07/congress-must-go.html
http://jmc-omniverse.blogspot.ca/2013/09/i-have-revised-my-set-of-rules-for.html
http://jmc-omniverse.blogspot.ca/2013/02/congressional-reform.html

Not Out of the Woods Yet

America voted and America chose. They re-elected President Obama to a second term. He even has the popular vote, so a (small) majority of Americans prefer his policies and visions to the policies and vision of his election rival. However, this does not mean that we are 'out of the woods' by any means. The President has a vision, sure, but he so far during the campaign has not given specifics. Neither has his opposition. This election cycle was incredibly devoid of specifics, of plans, of details that the public can use to keep the President-elect on topic and judge his overall course and value as president.

When Mr. Obama was elected to his first term, he spoke much more specifically about what he would do and how he would do it. Few people realize this, but he got more of his bills passed through Congress than any previous President during his first two years. Were they all winners? No, of course not. But he was trying to overcome the mess left to him (and the American people) and he was trying to follow the plans and specifics he provided during his campaign and during his first speech as President.

The American public, disenfranchised with how long the recovery was taking and some of the antics of the Democrat-controlled Congress, rebelled in 2010 and gave the House to the Republicans. Shortly thereafter, John Boehner famously said that the House of Representatives would not pass any bill that the Republicans thought would help Mr. Obama get re-elected. And they were good to their word. They filibustered and stopped every bill designed to get the American public back to work, even if it hurt their own constituents and the American public in general. They refused to help every single time Mr. Obama asked for bipartisanship, and then blamed the style and content of the bills for not being bipartisan. They designed bills using terms and conditions that were abhorrent to the Democrats and without asking for Democratic buy-in or assistance simply so that the Democrats or the President would stop or veto them, and then complained that everything they did was stymied by the President (even if the Senate was what stopped the bill).

In the end, however, their plan failed and Mr. Obama has been re-elected. This failure is, ironically, mostly on them for what they said (anti-woman, anti-GLBT, racist campaigns and comments) and what they did not do (all the filibustering and bill denials). What I wonder now is, will they take the President up on his desire to work with them to make bills and laws that are bipartisan and compromise, or will they continue the tactic of hurting all of America? Will the Democrats work harder and smarter to try to get Republican assistance and buy-in on the vision that Mr. Obama will, hopefully, be sharing with us soon? We do not know if any of the President's bills would have been successful, but we know for certain that having nothing continues to hurt America. Will they step to the plate and help out?

American politics have become so fractured, so partisan, so divisive that I am not sure that any president can get much done unless his party has a majority in Congress. And this, simply put, is not American. America is all about compromise. I am certain that I could sit in a room with people on the far right and far left and moderate nearly any topic to a compromise. Will either be totally happy with the results? No. But will we have a work-able solution that gives a little to both sides while minimizing the negatives to both sides? Yes. If I can do that, why can't our elected officials?

As I said, we are not out of the woods yet. The public has spoken and the President was re-elected. But he still has a Republican House to contend with and the antipathy of the Republican party to overcome. But, here's the thing: We control both. If we educate ourselves on the policies and bills, if we contact and hold accountable our elected officials, they WILL do what we want, or we can throw them out of office and get people who will. WE HAVE THE POWER. Let's use it to make the Republicans and Democrats work together, compromise, and right this ship. Let's find a way out of these woods and back to a place where America is great and its people are powerful.

We CAN do it.

Get Low

I don't have much to post today except that the Presidential race this year may be one of the dirtiest we've ever seen. I'm already shocked and surprised at the lies and acid that are being slung about by both parties. I'd like to reiterate that I think lying in political ads and speeches should be illegal and the party that is found guilty of it should be automatically disqualified from the race.

And I am so tired of only hearing the far right and far left talk. We need moderation, we need consensus, and we need to work together to get America back on track. Why is it when my educated friends from the far left and right get together, we can agree on middle ground and reach consensus on most every issue, yet the country's official politicians can't do that to save their lives?

Building a Road Map

The President of the United States cannot really make any laws. Executive Orders are pretty limited in scope and use. Therefore, the President must challenge Congress and the people by being the "big picture" guy and leave the details to those who can write laws.

In last night's State of the Union address, the President laid out what I thought were generally fairly bipartisan challenges and asked Congress to get busy writing the laws that would do what he recommended so that he could sign them into law. During a surprising number of those challenges and "big picture" blueprints, both Republicans and Democrats cheered, stood up, and/or clapped. Yet, when it came time for the Republican responses to the President's address, they pretty much toed the same line they have been for the last 18 months: we are not going to do anything to help this President get reelected.

The problem with this philosophy is that they also are not helping the people they are supposed to serve. Independent polls consistently show approval ratings of Congress at single to very small double digits; otherwise known as the worst in history. Independent polls also show that people want a lot of what the President proposed during his address. The only quibble among the people is on how it gets done, not what needs to be done. Yet the Republicans don't seem to care about this; their agenda is simply to block the President, make him look weak and ineffectual, and to get him out of office.

I used to proudly be a member of the Republican party and voted party often. Bush 2 ("W") changed all that. His politics, in my opinion, were so biased, were so based on helping the few and damning the many, and, in some very specific instances, so illegal and unconstitutional, that I changed my political stance to Refuse to State. Bush was warned about the housing bubble and chose to do nothing. He was warned about Wall Street and chose to remove even more regulations instead of policing the situation. He had a clear objective to go after terrorists and then, by all evidence both at the time and now, manufactured a reason to go into Iraq and get us into a war we couldn't really afford and for which we had no clear plan, strategy, or exit.

I didn't join the Democrat party because I didn't see much better from them. They blindly voted with W for war, without doing their due-diligence or questioning it. They ignored or passed many of the bills that helped W loosen regulations and damage the economy long-term. When I felt W had gone so far as to be provably doing things illegal, I even contact each representative and asked them to start Impeachment proceedings. My reasoning was that the Repubs impeached Clinton for lying, but not really breaking the law. Bush actually broke the law, in my estimation, with his unconstitutional practices toward Muslims in America and detainees everywhere, and he lied to get us into a war, Impeachment proceedings should have started immediately, as this, and the end result of thousands of Americans dead and many more Iraqis killed was much worse than Clinton lying about an affair with an intern. Yet they all wrote back with very weak excuses as to why they didn't feel impeachment was the right choice for that time. Hunh?

America needs help right now. Party politics are at an all-time low, infighting, backstabbing, and rhetoric are at an all-time high. The President consistently has asked for bipartisan cooperation in Congress and he consistently hasn't received it. We, the people, need to start demanding it of our representatives and kick them out of office when they don't perform up to those expectations. We need to be emailing, mailing, phoning, telegraming our representatives with our opinions. I strongly believe that the vast, quiet majority of people can come to a compromise that works for them, regardless of party politics, and get things moving. We just have to push, prod, pull, browbeat, and force our representatives to work toward that same goal.

Americans seem to be in a feedback loop where all they watch, hear, or read are items that share and reinforce their existing opinions. They don't seem to be seeking out antithetical opinions or challenging their thought processes. They don't seem to be questioning their leaders, regardless of party affiliation, and insisting on accountability. We all need to step up and start doing this and make our voices heard. The politicians will come into line or get kicked out of office.

SOPA Explained

American politicians cannot understand the internet. They are primarily old, white males who are taking literally millions of dollars from the entertainment industry to put SOPA in place and end the Internet as we know it today. In addition, the restrictions put in place are so nebulously explained and so widespread in content that it would allow the RIAA, MPAA and others to effectively control all content on the internet, internationally.

To explain why this is bad, I figure we need an analogy that these old "I'm not a nerd" politicians, who are ignoring reams and reams of data provided by those who created and who continue to innovate the Internet, can understand. Since most of them are idiots, but likely drive, I think using the roadway system in America as an example.

The internet is very like the roadways in America. There are nodes and servers equivalent to cities and towns spaced here and there, with connections between them that carry data, like the highways, freeways, and streets that connect those cities and towns to each other. Right now, without SOPA, the internet works just like the roadway system: you can travel from city to city, from state to state and from coast to coast without anyone stopping you for no reason. If they suspect you are doing something wrong, the cops have to have probable cause, get a warrant, and then pull you over as you drive along. And the cops only pull over your car; it is very rare that they have to shut down an entire street.

SOPA will change all that. SOPA makes it so that the cops can pull you over for virtually no reason. "You've been driving between this city and that city an awful lot, which is suspect behavior, so we're shutting you down and checking into everything you've done to make sure you aren't doing something wrong."

SOPA also makes it so that if someone anywhere buys a billboard and puts it up next to Interstate 10 in Los Angeles, the police have the right to shut down the entire interstate, from LA to Florida. They don't just look for the person who posted the billboard; everyone on the Interstate is assumed guilty, the interstate itself is shut down, and no one can use it.

Now, the area where my analogy falls down is this: Interstate 10 only goes from California to Florida. Imagine that it actually continues on to Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, South America and then back to North America. Now you can see how shutting down the entire freeway can affect the entire world, not just Americans.

Do we need to curtail our rights, especially to freedom of speech and freedom from illegal search and seizure, among others, in order to catch a very small number who misuse the internet?

What the RIAA, MPAA, and the other companies like Disney that have signed on as proponents of this bill and are paying our Congressmen absurd amounts to pass are not realizing or are ignoring outright are:

1. Online piracy is an incredibly small percentage of overall usage. Every independent (i.e., not paid for by the entertainment industry) report states this categorically. Even those reports done by groups in the pockets of the MPAA, RIAA, and others have to be incredibly doctored in order to support their results. These reports do not consider the many who download movies and music illegally, like it, and buy the album, DVD, or whatever legally later. It does not consider much easier, simpler means of piracy, like getting a Netflix subscription and then copying the DVDs a person receives each week.
2. There are plenty of technological systems in place where these companies can legally sell and provide their data reasonably. Amazon.com and iTunes stores prove this; people are willing to pay reasonable amounts for access to the data they want. These companies choose not to use them, choose to hinder or subvert these systems if they do use them, choose not to sell them at reasonable rates, and they want Congress to allow them to continue using old technology and practices that never worked when dealing with an increasingly savvy purchasing public.
3. Technology allows individuals to bypass the MPAA and RIAA altogether, and publish directly to their audience (be it music, movies, art, etc.). Artists can no circumvent these old establishments and make money directly, one to one, with their audience. This is the real root of the problem that SOPA is designed to fix. The entertainment industry is bleeding money, cannot reconfigure itself for a new technological truth, and doesn't want to lose decades of power and influence over the public.

The last point is this: the internet is out there. The entire world uses it. If America passes SOPA it will be a huge knock and will affect the entire world. Entire websites will be shut down by SOPA agents for one or two bad apples breaking the rules. The tenuous world economy will spiral into flames.

But the people will not stand for it for long. A new, different, and once again unregulated internet will crop up, as people rebel. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle at this point. Too many people have the technology and know how to use it.

Each American (and even those who aren't) should contact their representative and state clearly, "I'm not in favor of piracy, but I'm also not in favor of SOPA." There are plenty of laws already in place that actually do what SOPA claims to intend; let's try actually using those.

Contact your representatives through: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

The Silent Majority

What America needs is a great Moderate leader to come out of nowhere. This person needs to be erudite, well-read, versed in politics in some fashion, and charismatic. He or she needs to have salient facts and a winning disposition and a virtually unassailable background. And, best of all, this person should be a third-party candidate.

People laughed when Jesse "The Body" Ventura ran for governor of Minnesota. They laughed until he won, and then got reelected. What was fabulous about Ventura as a governor was that a) he came out of left field, b) although he was best known as a wrestler and sometimes movie star, no one could find much dirt on him, and c) he was neither Republican nor Democrat. He had new ideas and he completely turned around Minnesota's situation and got it going forward again.

That's what America needs.

America was never intended to be a two-party country. Amendments to the Constitution have made it two-party and strengthened those parties to the point where they have a near stranglehold on politics in America. However, for the vast majority of people I know, and I have a sneaking suspicion the vast majority of Americans in general, one party does not speak for any one voter 100% of the time. Instead, everyone most likely has certain topics that they are conservative on, some they fall on the more liberal side, a few they are more noticeably "Democrat," and some on which they are "Republican."

For example, I'm anti-abortion, but I'm also pro-choice. By that I mean that I, personally, am against abortion except in very specific circumstances. There are too many options available to both men and women to stop unwanted pregnancies from occurring to have abortion as a last resort. However, I also recognize and understand that others do not share my opinion. And they have a right to this surgical procedure and to have it be the safest procedure possible. So, where do I fit on the "right/left wing" scale holding these seemingly opposed ideas?

The list goes on: I'm very right-wing on crime but sway left-wing on the environment. I'm republican in my ideas on the economy in general, but have decided democratic ideas about certain areas of the marketplace.

And I think most people follow a similar pattern to that-- swinging with their conscience, beliefs, and how they were raised between ideals that are typically one party to ideals that are typically the other. In the end, I think that makes us all sort of land in the middle as moderates, and I think most people can find common ground if they sit down and talk about it.

However, in the last decade or so, American politics have become increasingly polarized toward the extremes within the two main parties. These extremes are swaying the overall vote in ways that the silent majority of people don't like and do not want. There is a great line from the movie The American President, "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand." Right now, I think we're in that state.

Obama was going to be the President of Change. He kept saying we can't keep doing politics as usual. Yet, even though his door has been open to the Republicans for his entire time in office, the leaders on the other side have railroaded him, lied to the American people, and sandbagged the changes he promised. On the other hand, Obama also didn't provide good, strong leadership to his own people; he let people like Nancy Pelosi run amuck, make bad laws, and put down the Republicans such that they didn't want to work with her or any other Democrats. So, Obama is not that person, or has failed to be the person who can make both sides work together.

And that's where my contention that a third-party candidate needs to come forward. Someone who is beholden to neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Someone who is savvy and charismatic enough to make them actually work together on things, find the common ground, and stop hurting the Republic and start helping the Republic's people. Someone who can hold the same disparate beliefs I'm convinced the majority of people hold, who can argue for both sides of an issue and make people see the reasonable middle ground, and who can build bridges between those moderate voices and show the extremes for what they are-- a small but very vocal minority that does NOT have America's best interests at heart.

If a third-party candidate cannot do this, then we need to find a new Reagan or Clinton. Many people forget that both Reagan (Republican) and Clinton (Democrat) had Congresses that were held by the opposite party during their terms. Yet they still managed to get a majority of their policies enacted with a minimum of issue by building bridges between the parties and by doing things that the other side couldn't fault. (Yes, I know: Iran-Contra and Blow Jobs from Interns -- I'm talking strictly party and lawmaking.)

America has a number of issues that can, and will, sink it in the near future unless the people rally. These issues include: distribution of wealth (America was made great by having a strong middle class, but that middle class is disappearing rapidly as more jobs go overseas), infrastructure (the roads, railways, bridges, water, sewer, and other infrastructure across the country is failing at an alarming rate), education (America is coming in last or near last in nearly every qualifier for industrial nations), and production (America is not producing as much as it once was, and is shipping what production is left overseas-- allowing those nations to become strong with a strong middle class and further hurting the American economy and other issues).

We need a leader who is going to create jobs at a good wage getting people to work on the failing infrastructure. This solves two problems (distribution of wealth and infrastructure) by putting Americans to work fixing America. Next, that leader needs to revamp the educational system; it needs punishment for disobedient children, it needs to focus public educated on making the best, most well-rounded students for graduation from High School, it needs to build more schools and better stock all schools with new textbooks and equipment, and it needs to make teaching a career choice that more people want to do so we can lower class sizes and allow the students to actually learn.

Lastly, this leader needs to encourage car, clothing, electronic, widget, and doodad manufacturers to make those products in America. This puts even more people to work and further stabilizes the economy. If people make it in America and buy it in America, then America's economy stays strong. And, yes, it really IS that SIMPLE.

I hope this mythical leader comes along soon. The country cannot go another decade with this kind of infighting, rancor, and apathy about doing what it needs to before it starts to collapse under its own weight.

What a Wonderful World

I wonder sometimes what would change in America if the news reported good things, if politicians told the truth and actually worked for the betterment of the nation and its people, and if the public at large heard a consistent, positive message about the country.

The closest analogy I can draw would be to Reagan's first term in office. The late '70s were a time of upheaval and grim news. America was down on America, and the world seemed poised to rip it to shreds globally. The economy was in a tailspin, gas prices and housing prices were through the roof, and America was struggling with its global image, especially in the face of a lot of press concerning the Middle East (including hijackings, military skirmishes, and threats from leaders toward the West). Then along came Reagan, with a hard but humorous stance that America was the best place in the world, we should believe in ourselves, we should buy American, and everything will be all right.

And, you know what? It worked. By making people think of themselves as great, and making convincing them to buy locally (even if the American product was a bit more expensive), America halted the economic slide and made itself great again. The economy rebounded, the GDP went through the roof, and America became a leader globally again as it was seen to have heralded the fall of communism and stilled the voices of the Middle Eastern dictators, for awhile.

I see a lot of the same issues today. When Obama ran for President on the "Change you can believe in" mantra, I thought he might try to do something Reagan-esque by making Americans believe in America again and turn things around. And he did try. But the world in which Obama was elected is a much different place than the era of Reagan; the twenty-four news cycle, the divisive politics didn't allow him to present the same message of hope and encouragement that Reagan expressed. Whenever he said, "Let's work together," the opposition said, "Okay," but proceeded to then turn on him and tear him apart and lie about him. The news media took a surprisingly hard stance (compared to past Presidents, Democrat or Republican) on each and every attempt Obama made to right the economy. With the media and the opposition not doing or proposing any solutions of their own, but hammering the perceived failures of the existing administration, it is no wonder that polls showed a quick decline to Obama's once very favorable numbers.

The funny thing is, the American public do not seem interested in finding the facts. They are told that Obama has been ineffective, yet the economy has stabilized. They are told Obama is doing little, yet he has passed more bills so far than any other President. They are told that Obama doesn't want to work with the opposition, so the opposition will not work with him. Yet if you go back to every speech he has given so far and you will see at least a few lines if not whole paragraphs devoted to asking for both sides to work together, saying he has an "open door" to the opposition, and asking for bipartisanship. They are told the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not going as well as it could be, and that Obama's plan to bring home troops will make it worse. And yet the number say fewer are dying, more enemy combatants are being captured or killed, the UN forces of America's allies are doing more, and that the people of each nation are moving steadily toward self-protection.

I have come to the conclusion that the American people no longer want to think for themselves, and that is the true problem facing the country today. The news media has become a money-making enterprise, which hurts the truth. It is all about ratings, grabbing viewers, and getting ad revenue. So you have to hook people any way you can. The way some outlets have chosen is by having pundits (note that very few are called "news anchors" anymore) with a message and an agenda. They want you to be afraid, to listen to them, and to revere them. When called on it, they simply shout louder, knowing the American public will listen to the loudest.

I believe that we are only really hearing from the far right and the far left on most issues. Think about it, there are 535 representatives in the House of Representatives (435) and Senate (100). From how many of them do you normally hear? It is usually the same 15 or 20 from either side of the debate that makes the media rounds whenever something comes up, isn't it?

I truly believe that the vast, silent majority of people are somewhere in the middle on most issues, are fairly moderate in their opinions, and just want all the sound and fury to go away. I believe that this majority understands that things are not as the far sides are constantly insisting it is. The problem is, though, that this silent majority does not want to speak out, make waves, or become political. They are silent for a reason; they have their noses to the grindstone, are trying to make ends meet, and be good people to their families and friends. They don't necessarily care about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Japan, global warming, or the global or national economy, per se. What they care about is their job, their car, the local prices they have to pay, if their child is in harm's way.

And I think that is where the solution is. Let's start taking a local approach to fixing the economy. Let's take a page from Reagan's "trickle down economics" package, but work it in reverse. Let's start buying locally, from small businesses and local farmers whenever possible, even if the cost is a little more. These people will then need more workers, will buy more products, and will invest more in the local economy. This makes the local economy, wherever it is, more attractive to others. People move (housing purchases, promoting growth), people open new businesses, people have more to spend on discretionary items, like movies, electronics, home projects, and similar. More products and people are needed from nearby locations to feed this growing economy, which benefits the next town, city, state. It trickles up to the rich and powerful, making for a strong GDP, a strengthened dollar globally, and a sense of pride and ownership in America and its products.

You may think me naive, but there are many organizations that prove this works in third- and second-world countries by providing what are called "micro-loans" or "micro-financing." The concept is the same; you loan someone in, say, Africa $100 US. They use that to open a, say, clothing store in their local village. That $100 goes to purchasing products, paying wages, and renting/buying a location. The people then have some place to buy clothes, which establishes the business. They soon need more product and more workers, so the money pays wages and buys product. Which then gives those people more money to buy other things (food, livestock, tools, vehicles), and the cycle feeds on itself and the entire area prospers from one $100 loan.

While America is not a third- or second-world nation, the economics work the exactly the same. If you have more money to spend, typically you do. Which provides the places where you spend it with more money to pay wages, to buy more goods, and to invest in the local economy. This in turn provides more money to those businesses that the first business works with so they can continue the trend. And the end result is that your local economy is strong, which ensures you have a job, can buy goods and services, and can keep buying from local businesses. Which makes the state's economy stronger, and the nation's, and finally the global economy

In the end, I think the media and the politicians need to start looking for simple, moderate, workable solutions like these, and reporting them. Make policy that helps it happen. Imagine how you would feel if the next time you turned on the news or read a report, it lead with "Economy stabilizing, trends are positive," "Global view on America bullish," and "Fewer lives lost, battles going well." Imagine if the next time a political person was in the news it was saying, "Bipartisan committee proposes economics plan all are confident in," or "Both sides working together toward stronger and better health care plans for all," or "Both sides agree on infrastructure changes." What if the press reported things as they are rather than using shock tactics and red journalism? What if we had even a one week moratorium on anything relating to pop stars, "celebutantes," and the latest drug overdose?

What a wonderful world it would be! One in which Americans would feel more proud, would feel more hopeful, and would work toward a better future. Call me naive if you want to. I can take it.

Shot Congresswoman

Someone shot a Congresswoman while she was out on a meet-n-greet in Arizona. Along with the representative, a Chief Judge for AZ, a 9/11 baby, and a few others were shot and killed, and some number more were injured in the shooting. I do not condone this violence in any way, shape, or form. This is a heinous act and I hope those responsible, including family members and others who may have known and can be held accountable as accessories before or after the fact, all get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

However, this violent act may cause some good. Hopefully, it will have a mediating effect on Congress. It is time for this asinine "war" between the Republicans and everyone else be shelved and the parts of Congress to work together to find solutions to the very serious issues that face America.

It is true that, after being under the thumb and steamrolled by Republicans for years, the Democrats when they got control of Congress turned around and did the same to them. However, neither side was right and the now Republican House needs to acknowledge that as they move forward with their small majority. If not, this "war" will continue and more Congresspeople may get caught in the crossfire, both literal and figurative.

America is on the precipice of a great fall. Political leaders are acting just as the leadership of Ancient Rome did as their nation was beset by both internal and external issues and relied on being the biggest and the best to survive. In the end, they ignored their people, they ignored the threats, they ignored the failing infrastructure, and they failed to heed the incursions by rapidly rising external forces long enough that Rome, as they knew it, ceased to exist and is now a minor player in the world. American political leaders need to stop the strife, figure out a way to work together toward the middle/common ground where solutions can be found, and solve the internal and external problems of the country.

America has a failing infrastructure of bridges, dams, sewage systems, levees, roadways, and railways that are in imminent need of repair, or more collapses like what happened in Minnesota will occur. This seems like an excellent opportunity to put Americans to work solving America's problems and injecting American cash into America's financial system, all of which would solve a host of other issues in America.

America needs to curtail military intervention in favor of diplomacy and respect toward other nations. Rome teaches us that a strong nation that always has its military off in foreign lands tends to leave itself open to attack at home. It also leads foreign nations to grow to resent and distrust the nation that solves all problems by military might. Any of this sounding familiar?

Lastly, we need to buy American, grow food locally, work toward energy independence, and respect the rights of citizens and the world. We need to once more be a shining light of progress and freedom, rather than the terrifying military and economic might of a decadent society.

Here's hoping that the reprehensible shooting of a Congresswoman can bring about the first steps of change and growth in the pompous, bombastic, and narrow-minded who now inhabit Congress. Let's hope for positive change that leads to economic growth, better leadership, and compromise that all Americans can accept.

Republican "Victory"

The Republicans and Tea Party got what they wanted, victory over the hated Democrats in Congress and a narrowing of the margin in the Senate. They also won a number of governor positions in many states.

However, looking at it historically, this may not actually have been what the Republicans wanted.

In the last 100 or so years, every President who lost the House and or Senate during mid-term elections has won re-election. This bodes well for Obama's presidency.

The Republicans, who brought us to a recession and nearly a depression over eight years of spending, tax cuts, and blaming Democrats, will now have to convince the public that the fact the economy has stabilized in the last two years is somehow their doing, even though they fought the Democrats every step of the way in some of the most contentious battles in recent decades. Will the American public buy into it?

In the past, cross party mid-term changes have allowed for some of the best compromises to be passed into law. Just look at the accomplishments of Bill Clinton after he lost Congress.

Obama has, from day 1 and contrary to what the Republicans have been saying for two years, met with Republican leadership weekly to hear their thoughts and try to get bipartisan support for his plans. He has repeatedly and publicly asked for Republicans to provide insight and thoughts into nearly all of the plans he has presented, which they have refused to do and then complained that they have no say. Now, if they so choose, Democrats can pull the same stunt on them with the added knowledge that the President has their back and will veto any bill that gets by them.

Historically, trickle down economics have never worked very well, causing the government to either spend money to balance things out or provide tax refunds to give people the money that isn't trickling down. The people get fed up with this and elect Democrats into office to solve the problem. They do and, the moment that the economy stabilizes and the things turn positive, the people kick the Dems out of office and go back to what didn't work before. Gee, sound familiar?

Now, the President has a chance to move even more toward the middle, has a clearer way to show the American people the rancor and refusal to cooperate of the Congressional Republicans if they continue to do what they did during the first two years of his Presidency. If anything, the Repubs winning has played right into his hands.

Hopefully, the Repubs and the President can form a good working partnership and continue to stabilize and improve the economy. Hopefully, the Repubs will start participating in the those weekly meetings with the President and offering their insights and opinions on his plans to help the country. Hopefully, we can move beyond the bickering, infighting, and childish behavior we have seen on both sides and get something done.

Did Repubs Even Listen?

We picked up one physical newspaper and I have since looked at a few virtual newspapers online and I'm left shaking my head and bewildered at many comments made by Republican representatives in the House and Senate concerning President Obama's health care plan speech made earlier this week.

It seems like they didn't listen at all, as the vast majority of the statements made by the Repubs are diametrically opposed to what Obama said. Here are some examples, from The Denver Post:

"... what the Democrats' plan proposes is a government takeover of the entire health care industry that will force Americans out of their current plans and will have a tremendous cost that can only result in higher taxes and a larger deficit." Rep. Doug Lamborn.

"I heard loud and clear from my constituents this August that the current Democrat proposals are unacceptable -- they won't help reduce costs and they'll kill millions of small-business jobs." Rep. Mike Coffman

In no way did Obama's plan hint at a government takeover of the industry. In fact, he went out of his way to say and ensure that it was the opposite-- he WANTS insurance companies to be around for more competition and he specifically said in no way will anyone with insurance be forced to change or switch that insurance. He also said (and I am dubious of this claim myself, but I'm just reminding you of what he said in his speech) that a bipartisan group of economists believes they can pay for this plan without raising taxes and without increasing the deficit.

As to the second... I find it incredible that Coffman reps for a group made up entirely of psychics and prognosticators! They found a plan that Obama had YET TO PROPOSE OR INTRODUCE so unacceptable. Also, apparently none of them, or the rep himself, understood anything about the tax credits and incentives that Obama believes will make the plans affordable to small-business owners.

While I'm not entirely sold on everything Obama said in his speech, I find it ironic that so many reps of either house, primarily Repubs, are saying and doing exactly what Obama said they would do (and actually took them to task and said they shouldn't continue saying).

Shortly after the speech, Rep. Charles Boustany actually said in an interview "Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer" and he's right-- which is why Obama specifically said that is NOT what his plan will do, should do, or wants to do. Weren't you listening? If you could not listen to this simple, fairly straightforward speech and understand that, then how can you listen to your thousands, perhaps millions of people who you represent in Louisiana?

I have my doubts about Obama's plan. I doubt it can be done without taxes or without increasing the deficit. While I applaud the comments about cutting waste from the Medicaid and Medicare programs to help the funding, I am dubious about whether that can happen, how quickly, and how much money will be saved.

When he spoke of cutting "other programs" and "government waste" I cringed; the representatives of the states with these unnamed programs will fight for them hard and long and might make it impossible to rid our bloated government of this waste... especially is it may affect the Rep's pocketbook directly.

Also, on a couple of these key points that the Repubs seem to be most anxious, Obama specifically said he was looking for THEM to give HIM ideas and plans to solve the issue/problem he brought up within the framework of his overall goals... so why aren't they proposing their own plans? Why are they instead only saying that his plan will not work without saying what they would do that would work? If you want a say, and you want to make sure that the plan covers areas in which you have concerns, then DO something, SAY something positive to get the results you want, don't just poo-poo what is out there now.

The good things I got from Obama's speech:

• Making it illegal to deny a person from having or getting insurance due to pre-existing conditions. As one who has a pre-existing condition and lived a long time with that fear driving me, I know first-hand that no one should have that fear or pay those exhorbitant costs when changing jobs or fired from a job.
• Making it illegal for a company to drop or change coverage when you get sick and have to use the insurance. The entire point of insurance is to have it when you need it; the company underwriting your policy shouldn't be able to yank that out from under you just when you need it most and after you've paid hundreds to thousands of dollars into it.

Obama's goals and the plans he proposed are legitimate first steps in the direction toward a universal system. I think there are a lot of good ideas in those plans and goals and I think America should look outside her boarders at the many similar systems that work in other countries. Namely, I think America should look at the French, Japanese, and German systems of universal health care, each of which has a piece of the solution and would make for a good model of what is right and how to work it. Whereas as many of my friends and acquaintances point to the Canadian system as a plan, it does not work well, has huge delays, and requires taxation that Americans would never find acceptible, so should not be considered (except maybe for drug costs).

The one thing that Repubs are absolutely right about and that they should keep an eye on as the Dems move forward with their plans to meet the goals the President proposed is that competition is absolutely essential to making this work. If at any time any of the plans do away with competition (and, FYI, the President's planned "gov't option" was specifically and repeatedly mentioned as only one option, not getting rid of or interfering with any existing insurance options), it should be decried and denounced.

Until then, I suggest the Repubs take up the Dems and President's challenge and actually start thinking about and proposing ideas that will meet Obama's goals but are in some way more palatable to their thinking. It is time to either shit or get of the toilet and DO SOMETHING instead of simply playing devil's advocate and otherwise not getting hands dirty.