I am much more willing to entertain changes to my life when I view someone living theirs in a way that seems compassionate and interesting on a day to day basis. When I see someone only paying lip service to something they purport to believe in, however, I am completely turned off. For me, it comes down to the actual actions versus the reality of those who claim to be religious.
Honestly, I am not an overly religious person. While I have beliefs, and some of them correspond with teachings of some churches and faiths, I do not go to church and I do not claim association to any of the formal religions. I have studied and attended a number of religions and religious services of various sorts throughout my life. I try to keep an open mind to spiritual things, but I also believe firmly that any faith that asks me to stop thinking and questioning is not a good fit for me.
Too often, I am disappointed in those I know who claim to be religious. They do not act in accordance with their religion's belief system, they are not practicing their religion's tenets, and they do not come across as overly faithful or spiritual people. It seems that the more traditional the religion, the less likely they are to follow the precepts and tenets. Yet, I know many who say they are only spiritual, or who follow a less conservative or traditional religion, and they often have the most faith, the most happiness, and the best lives (in whole or part).
When I first moved to where I live now, I met someone who claimed to be a Buddhist. Yet, his actions indicated otherwise as he consistently didn't actually follow any of the Buddhist teachings I was aware of and seemed to constantly ignore some of the foundational tenets of the belief system. I have known a number of Christians who seem incapable of following even the Golden Rule let alone any of the Ten Commandments. I have personally been harmed by people bearing false witness against me or those I know (9), and I frequently see Christians coveting (10), taking the Lord's name in vain (3), dishonoring their elders (5), and committing adultery (7). The only two that many Christians seem to find easy to follow are not stealing and not killing. But those are the easiest for a reason. I have known Muslims who had sex out of marriage, who consorted with those not of the faith, and who did not pray five times a day. I have known Jews who didn't follow many of the tenets of the faith, including the prescriptions against certain foods, ignored the commandment to keep peace within the family, to do good acts, to make the world a better place, etc. I know atheists that do more preaching and sermonizing on the topic than any Sunday religious leader and who espouse science in such a way that it is synonymous with "God." Do not get me wrong, I also know people who follow traditional religions and are upstanding people who follow their beliefs. I'm disappointed at those people seeming to be the exceptions instead of the rules.
On the other hand, I have known Wiccans who faithfully celebrated the Solstices and the seasons, who lived happy, outward-centric lives, and made the world around them a better place. Most of the Mormons I have known seem to be happy, healthy people who want to make the world better for everyone. If you don't agree with them, they are happy (usually) to let you believe differently and they will continue to strive to be the best they can be. I have known atheists and agnostics who followed more of the Ten Commandments than many of the Christians I know, but they do so because the rules are solid and make it easier for people to get along and be good neighbors not because some external force compels or suggests they should. I have even met people who follow philosophies from books and movies and lead more positive, caring lives than many of those who profess to be religious.
It all comes down to the actions you perform, not the lip service you provide.
You read about people like Mother Teresa, who questioned her faith and her religion on a daily basis, but still went out there and strived to make her world and herself better. Day in and day out her actions showed her to live a compassionate life and she tried to build up those around her. On the other hand, you also read about religious leaders lying and covering up abuse scandals, or performing them. Their actions are those of the faithless and immoral, yet they pay lip service to the religion every Sunday morning during services. I know which one I find better and which one I want to strive to be more like.
In the end, I am left thinking that all religions, philosophies, and belief systems have something to offer anyone. The point is to find the one that helps you to be a better person, to make yourself and those around you happy, and to be a good citizen of the world around you. I don't care if you are an atheist who follows the Boy Scout creed, a Roman Catholic, or a Jedi, as long as you believe fully, live compassionately, and adhere to that belief and try to make yourself and the world better. The point is to believe it and then to live it, honestly and faithfully.
An amusing Addendum to the above, just found:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion
March 25, 2013
March 13, 2013
Paul Ryan is an Idiot
Paul Ryan is the Republican's "best and brightest" budgetary thinker. However, his last few budget proposals have a number of errors in thinking that show that he is, apparently, an abject idiot -- or, if we use the definition of 'doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result,' insane. You be the judge as to which applies.
Mr. Ryan just released his latest budget proposal and it, too, has a number of flaws. One that he consistently and egregiously makes is using an "infinite horizon" philosophy when discussing Medicare and Social Security without also applying the philosophy to the rest of the budget. He used it throughout the election cycle, even after, literally, dozens of economists and politicos pointed out this mistake. He also doesn't seem to understand how Social Security actual works (or that it is funded well into the future) or that rising medical costs are the reasons why Medicare is floundering.
I finally found an article that summed up all of the mistakes. It points out his many factual errors, some of which I mention above. I also stopped researching "entitlement" program errors when I found that the same author conveniently summed up all of those errors that Mr. Ryan, and Republican leadership in general, keep promoting to the general population.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the budget cannot be balanced on cuts and closing loopholes alone. The numbers are simply too big. Taxation and stimulus is absolutely necessary, yet Republican leadership refuses to commit to those and fights them every step of the way. If Mr. Ryan is, in fact, the Republican party's best and brightest budget guy, he should know this!
If I were still a registered Republican, which I was for the first fourteen years of my voting life (I am registered "Declines to State" now, or Independent), I would be appalled, disappointed, and angry over my current Congressional leadership. I would be contacting them and telling them to stop the obstructionism, stop the filibustering, and stop the idiocy. If I were one of the silent majority of more moderate Republican Congressmen, I would be quietly talking with other Republicans and seeing about a vote of no-confidence and removing John Boehner and others from their leadership positions and getting people who want to work toward solutions in there (I also think the more moderate Democrats should be doing the same and getting rid of Nancy Pelosi, who is nearly as bad).
Why can't Republican leadership acknowledge what the American people want, work with Democratic leadership to come up with a compromise that gets spending cuts in many areas they want, closure of tax loopholes they originally proposed and Mr. Obama has agreed with, AND allows for stimulus and tax increases in areas that, while they may not like, are willing to stomach? Compromise is what the American system of government is founded on, but we have seen little of that for at least 12 years now. First it was the Republicans having both the Presidency and the House refusing to compromise and steam-rolling over the Democrats, then it was the Democrats having the House and then the Presidency and steamrolling over the Republicans, and now it is the Democrats having the Presidency (and Senate), and the Republicans having the House and no one can get anything done.
It is time for a revolution. We need to vote these people out of office, insist on changes to the rules of Congress, and we absolutely must have term limits!
#revolution
Addendum: Just saw this and thought it summed up what I was writing here very simply.
Mr. Ryan just released his latest budget proposal and it, too, has a number of flaws. One that he consistently and egregiously makes is using an "infinite horizon" philosophy when discussing Medicare and Social Security without also applying the philosophy to the rest of the budget. He used it throughout the election cycle, even after, literally, dozens of economists and politicos pointed out this mistake. He also doesn't seem to understand how Social Security actual works (or that it is funded well into the future) or that rising medical costs are the reasons why Medicare is floundering.
I finally found an article that summed up all of the mistakes. It points out his many factual errors, some of which I mention above. I also stopped researching "entitlement" program errors when I found that the same author conveniently summed up all of those errors that Mr. Ryan, and Republican leadership in general, keep promoting to the general population.
(Aside: The word "entitlement" has two meanings, and the Republican leadership always takes the wrong one when discussing these programs. The actual meaning of entitlement for these programs is: You paid into SS and Medicare and, when you reach the appropriate age or retire, you are entitled to the benefits/money you paid for. Why can't Mr. Ryan figure that out?)Another LA Times article also managed to sum up something about Mr. Ryan's philosophy, and Republican leadership in general, that I simply don't understand:
As the GOP's top budget thinker and its 2012 vice presidential nominee, Ryan acknowledged that he and Mitt Romney lost the election after running on these principles.
But Republicans believe Americans are ready for the GOP's tough-love approach to reining in deficits.
"The election didn't go our way. Believe me, I know what that feels like," said Ryan, surrounded by more than a dozen Republican colleagues. "That means we surrender our principles? That means we stop believing in what we believe in?"While the vote doesn't explicitly state that Republicans should surrender their principles, it does indicate, as do the plethora of polls since the election concerning the fiscal situation, that the American people are not buying into and do not want what Republican leadership is selling. They want a balanced approach that includes stimulating the economy, cuts, closing of taxation loopholes, and tax increases on the wealthy. Since we live in a Democratic Republic, that means our elected officials are supposed to listen to the public they were elected to serve and do what the majority has requested. Instead, the Republican leadership keeps proposing the same things they have that a) got us into this mess and b) ignores what the majority is requesting. They keep fighting when Independents, Democrats, and even some of the more moderate Republicans bring this up or make proposals that are in line with the majority opinion.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the budget cannot be balanced on cuts and closing loopholes alone. The numbers are simply too big. Taxation and stimulus is absolutely necessary, yet Republican leadership refuses to commit to those and fights them every step of the way. If Mr. Ryan is, in fact, the Republican party's best and brightest budget guy, he should know this!
If I were still a registered Republican, which I was for the first fourteen years of my voting life (I am registered "Declines to State" now, or Independent), I would be appalled, disappointed, and angry over my current Congressional leadership. I would be contacting them and telling them to stop the obstructionism, stop the filibustering, and stop the idiocy. If I were one of the silent majority of more moderate Republican Congressmen, I would be quietly talking with other Republicans and seeing about a vote of no-confidence and removing John Boehner and others from their leadership positions and getting people who want to work toward solutions in there (I also think the more moderate Democrats should be doing the same and getting rid of Nancy Pelosi, who is nearly as bad).
Why can't Republican leadership acknowledge what the American people want, work with Democratic leadership to come up with a compromise that gets spending cuts in many areas they want, closure of tax loopholes they originally proposed and Mr. Obama has agreed with, AND allows for stimulus and tax increases in areas that, while they may not like, are willing to stomach? Compromise is what the American system of government is founded on, but we have seen little of that for at least 12 years now. First it was the Republicans having both the Presidency and the House refusing to compromise and steam-rolling over the Democrats, then it was the Democrats having the House and then the Presidency and steamrolling over the Republicans, and now it is the Democrats having the Presidency (and Senate), and the Republicans having the House and no one can get anything done.
It is time for a revolution. We need to vote these people out of office, insist on changes to the rules of Congress, and we absolutely must have term limits!
#revolution
Addendum: Just saw this and thought it summed up what I was writing here very simply.
February 28, 2013
Congressional Reform
Every poll I can find says that a majority of Americans (depending on the poll, between 40 and 55%) agree with the President's proposals of cuts plus taxation to deal with the current fiscal issues. Those same polls show that Republican leadership is receiving between 20 and 30 percent (most of the more recent polls have this closer to 20 than 30). Of note is that Republicans are also giving Republican leadership the cold shoulder. These polls go on to show that the majority of Americans do/will blame the Republicans for any consequences resulting from this latest fiscal impasse.
So, a pretty significant number of Americans want a balanced approached to the fiscal issues, they want to keep programs in place and "close loopholes" as well as raising taxes, and they blame the Republicans for this stand-off. The majority has spoken...
And yet, John Boehner and his cronies refuse to believe this and continue to play brinkmanship with the President over this. I say, "Good!"
The only way to break this brinkmanship politics scenario is to get those idiots out of office! I think that, if this latest fiscal policy comes into play, the American people will demand accountability and will vote some of these career politicians out of office, most especially Mr. Boehner and his cronies. The public may even demand Congressional term limits finally, which is the only sane thing to do and one of the few ways to keep partisan politics from being a constant and ever-growing threat.
Here are my solutions to this problem:
So, a pretty significant number of Americans want a balanced approached to the fiscal issues, they want to keep programs in place and "close loopholes" as well as raising taxes, and they blame the Republicans for this stand-off. The majority has spoken...
And yet, John Boehner and his cronies refuse to believe this and continue to play brinkmanship with the President over this. I say, "Good!"
The only way to break this brinkmanship politics scenario is to get those idiots out of office! I think that, if this latest fiscal policy comes into play, the American people will demand accountability and will vote some of these career politicians out of office, most especially Mr. Boehner and his cronies. The public may even demand Congressional term limits finally, which is the only sane thing to do and one of the few ways to keep partisan politics from being a constant and ever-growing threat.
Here are my solutions to this problem:
- No more than two terms. For the first 125 years or so of Congress, it was exceptionally rare for a Congressman to serve longer than two terms. They went home and had to live under the laws they had written. In the early/mid-1900s, Congress started passing laws that gave themselves higher salaries, fewer limits, lifetime healthcare, lifetime salaries, the ability to do insider trading legally, etc. Now that the money was rolling in, America started seeing career politicians and the divisiveness began.
- Perks only while in office. As I mentioned above, Congress passed laws that allowed them to increase their own salaries, provide for those salaries for life, gave themselves lifetime health care, and other perks (like travel, housing, food allowances, etc.). If they had to leave all those perks behind when leaving office and go back to living under the laws they have written and passed during their time in office, they would care a great deal more about those laws and what they say.
- Easier to get kicked out. Right now, the path for the public to kick a Senator or House member out is difficult and involves getting other Congressmen to perform the act. Well, gee, that seems self-serving. What Congressman wants to try to kick another Congressman out of office, knowing the bad blood he will be creating when doing so? If the Congressmen knew the public had a way (maybe by a majority vote or some sort of write-in campaign) to start this ball rolling, rather than the Congressmen policing themselves, they would sure try a lot harder to do the right thing by their constituents.
- Lower salaries. Right now, the average Congressman is paid approximately $175,000 a year, with leadership roles at or slightly above approximately $200,000 a year. The average salary in America is approximately $50,000 a year. Let's change the Congressional salaries to be 10% above the mean salary in America, with leadership roles getting mean plus 20%. In this way, people who want to serve the people will go for offices, instead of people who want to make a career of politics for the money and perks.
- All laws apply equally to all Americans, Congress included. It is completely legal for Congressmen to use their (inside) knowledge of laws and contracts while making stock purchases. It is illegal for anyone else in America to use insider information when making stock trades. Let's restrict Congress from making any stock trades at all while in office (on penalty of immediate, automatic expulsion). All current laws that give Congressmen perks and privileges that are not shared by all Americans will be repealed.
I think these five simple steps will ensure that Congress is working for the people, not for themselves. By putting term limits and reasonable limitations on Congress, you ensure that the people in office are there because they feel a need to serve the public. It is still a cushy job, just not one that you can go to and expect to stay in for dozens of years and make millions of dollars at. And, most importantly, you have to live and work under the laws you wrote and passed once you are out of office.
I doubt you will see the same sort of brinkmanship politics as has been evident for the last 15 years or so if, over that time, entirely new Congressmen had to be elected and work together. Knowing you had, at most, two terms to serve, I think most Congressmen would focus on the job and not the politics. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to pass these laws and see if I'm right. How about you?
Addendum (3/6/2013)
Isn't it interesting that Congress made sure not to include themselves in the budget cutbacks? Their salaries are completely safe from all budget cuts, even though we spend almost $100 million on those salaries each year. Seems like as good a place as any to start trimming the fat, to me.February 16, 2013
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
I was fairly excited to watch this movie; what a let-down. It is nowhere near as good as LotRs. It is bloated, uses too much CGI (even when real effects would suffice and be better), and is way, way, way too long (which sounds the same as bloated, but is different; see below).
It is bloated in that they took a simple adventure story and added a whole bunch of extra stuff from other books into it. And those parts were primarily to "add tension" where none was needed or to connect it further to the LotRs trilogy -- also not needed. Every scene with Radagast and the giant white Orc could have been cut (saving about an hour of running time) without interfering at all with the story. Actually, quite the contrary, it would have kept the story better-focused on the dwarfs tale and their adventure. Similarly, completely changing the Stone Giants scene to add action was needless, felt long, and had no real impact due to how early it comes in the film -- you know that none of the dwarfs (or Bilbo) is in danger this early.
Another issue is that the adventuring company rarely succeeds at anything on their own merit. Happenstance and outside forces just happen to/accidentally help the dwarfs out in most cases. Elrond just happens to be out hunting goblins and helps the dwarfs escape. Gandalf just happens to arrive in time to help Bilbo save the dwarfs at sunrise from the Trolls. The Stone Giant just happens to fall against the mountain such that the dwarfs can jump to safety. The bridges and wooden structures just happen to break to allow the dwarfs to escape the goblins in the mountain. It is more exciting to stay focused on the main characters and let them (like in the book) solve their own problems. The audience grows more attached to them when the heroes prove to be smart and effectual.
Many of the action scenes were needlessly full of CGI. The white Orc, if forced to leave him in, should have been someone in makeup (like the orcs and oruk-hai in LotR 1). In all but the huge group shots, the goblins should have been real people in makeup. Having so much CGI was distracting and unneeded, and caused the scenes to look more phony than they would have with live actors in makeup. When Gandalf is throwing "fire bombs," the fire did not look real and the wargs/orcs did not look real. Using makeup and real fire would have added a sense of presence and immediacy to the scene.
Both of these issues lead to the last: the movie is just too damn long by about an hour (maybe more). If you take all of the unneeded, overly long, and over-done scenes out, you are left with what could be a very good version of The Hobbit. As it is, you don't get far enough into the book to justify sitting there for nearly 3 hours.
One other issue I have with this movie is the unnecessary and overly blatant homages to scenes in the LotR trilogy. Gandalf splitting the rock to expose the sun and kill the trolls -- too similar to his "you shall not pass" scene. Gandalf talking to the butterfly to summon the eagles. The Stone Giants threatening the path on which the group travels up the mountain -- too similar to the snow scene trying to go through the pass before turning back and trying Moria. The homage shots of the group traveling in a line along the forest and the hills. This is a new movie, based on different text, and should be treated as such; you do not need to beat the audience over the head with these homage scenes.
Peter Jackson plans two more films to finish this one book. I can only assume they will be as bloated and ill-made as this one is, so I will not be seeing them in the theater. I imagine that many fewer people will be seeing the second one in the theater. The Hobbit was written and designed as a children's adventure story, and is a fairly simple, self-contained story. It does not need three movies, extra bloat, or to be tied too directly into the films that came before it. One good 3 hour movie, or, at most, two 2-hour movies would suffice to tell all that needs to be told. By having the same direction, sets, and actors, you would tie it as much as is needed to the LotR films.
If I were to give this a grade, I'd give a D+. The wonderful cast saves it from an F and the scenes that show the actual story of The Hobbit were well-done. The rest... meh.
It is bloated in that they took a simple adventure story and added a whole bunch of extra stuff from other books into it. And those parts were primarily to "add tension" where none was needed or to connect it further to the LotRs trilogy -- also not needed. Every scene with Radagast and the giant white Orc could have been cut (saving about an hour of running time) without interfering at all with the story. Actually, quite the contrary, it would have kept the story better-focused on the dwarfs tale and their adventure. Similarly, completely changing the Stone Giants scene to add action was needless, felt long, and had no real impact due to how early it comes in the film -- you know that none of the dwarfs (or Bilbo) is in danger this early.
Another issue is that the adventuring company rarely succeeds at anything on their own merit. Happenstance and outside forces just happen to/accidentally help the dwarfs out in most cases. Elrond just happens to be out hunting goblins and helps the dwarfs escape. Gandalf just happens to arrive in time to help Bilbo save the dwarfs at sunrise from the Trolls. The Stone Giant just happens to fall against the mountain such that the dwarfs can jump to safety. The bridges and wooden structures just happen to break to allow the dwarfs to escape the goblins in the mountain. It is more exciting to stay focused on the main characters and let them (like in the book) solve their own problems. The audience grows more attached to them when the heroes prove to be smart and effectual.
Many of the action scenes were needlessly full of CGI. The white Orc, if forced to leave him in, should have been someone in makeup (like the orcs and oruk-hai in LotR 1). In all but the huge group shots, the goblins should have been real people in makeup. Having so much CGI was distracting and unneeded, and caused the scenes to look more phony than they would have with live actors in makeup. When Gandalf is throwing "fire bombs," the fire did not look real and the wargs/orcs did not look real. Using makeup and real fire would have added a sense of presence and immediacy to the scene.
Both of these issues lead to the last: the movie is just too damn long by about an hour (maybe more). If you take all of the unneeded, overly long, and over-done scenes out, you are left with what could be a very good version of The Hobbit. As it is, you don't get far enough into the book to justify sitting there for nearly 3 hours.
One other issue I have with this movie is the unnecessary and overly blatant homages to scenes in the LotR trilogy. Gandalf splitting the rock to expose the sun and kill the trolls -- too similar to his "you shall not pass" scene. Gandalf talking to the butterfly to summon the eagles. The Stone Giants threatening the path on which the group travels up the mountain -- too similar to the snow scene trying to go through the pass before turning back and trying Moria. The homage shots of the group traveling in a line along the forest and the hills. This is a new movie, based on different text, and should be treated as such; you do not need to beat the audience over the head with these homage scenes.
Peter Jackson plans two more films to finish this one book. I can only assume they will be as bloated and ill-made as this one is, so I will not be seeing them in the theater. I imagine that many fewer people will be seeing the second one in the theater. The Hobbit was written and designed as a children's adventure story, and is a fairly simple, self-contained story. It does not need three movies, extra bloat, or to be tied too directly into the films that came before it. One good 3 hour movie, or, at most, two 2-hour movies would suffice to tell all that needs to be told. By having the same direction, sets, and actors, you would tie it as much as is needed to the LotR films.
If I were to give this a grade, I'd give a D+. The wonderful cast saves it from an F and the scenes that show the actual story of The Hobbit were well-done. The rest... meh.
February 13, 2013
Talking Out of Both Sides
The Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths, and they think the American public is too dumb to notice or too stupid to look up the facts. From one side of their mouths they say that they long for the days of Reagan's Republicans and conservative agenda. They point to history and say how Reagan led America out of an economic downturn and back to prosperity. They cite his great works and his Reagan-onomics.
From the other side of their mouths, they decry what Mr. Obama is doing as President and they dismiss his objectives. They call him a socialist (they should look up the term before wrongly using it). They claim that spending money and bigger government never solved any problems for the middle class. They claim that prosperity will somehow just magically appear if we take all the restriction and government away.
But the truth is, and I have mentioned this in multiple posts in the past, that Mr. Obama is following the Reagan playbook almost step-by-step. Reagan spent more to help the middle class, and it worked. He spent more to get people working on the infrastructure, and it worked. He made government bigger and put in place regulations in various areas that helped reign in a runaway economy and inflation, and then eased those restrictions in his second term. He taxed the richest among us to help the poorest and the middle. Does any of this sound familiar??
In Mr. Obama's speech last night, he mentioned that he wants to do some things that the Republicans, over the last 18 months or so, have strongly espoused, like closing the tax loopholes. Not every idea he presented was original to him, yet those that were first brought up by Republicans and strongly espoused by them during the debates and the election cycle, they refused to clap for, to stand for, and said would not work in their rebuttal. Er, what? The plans you pushed for for almost two years you now think is flawed? You can't have it both ways -- you can't simply say this is the way America will solve its debt crisis and help get middle-class Americans more money and then claim, when a Democrat uses the exact same idea and even gives you credit for it, that it is now flawed and without merit. Which is it? There are a number of areas where similar ideas were cherry-picked from the Republicans agenda that they are now claiming are flawed or bad.
If Ronald Reagan were alive today and espousing the exact same policies and procedures that today's Republicans keep pointing to as their guiding light, he would be considered a Democrat, and a fairly liberal one at that. Today's Republicans have moved so far to the conservative right that they do not even recognize one of their great leader's more moderate, bipartisan stances, nor do they see how he built bridges to the Democrats of the time to solve problems, something that these Republicans seem unwilling to do.
There are issues with some of what Mr. Obama has proposed. Much of it requires the Republicans to buy-in (not going to happen) and work with Democrats (equally unappealing to them) in order to get the balanced approach he discussed. Also, he doesn't actually write the policy. He sets the framework and the vision, and it is up to the Nancy Pelosi's of Congress to write the laws and try to get them passed. However, Ms. Pelosi has proven utterly incompetent at doing that, ignoring her President's directives to work with Republicans, not to raise taxes or spending (at least without offsetting it with cuts elsewhere), and pushing for bigger government and pork when her President expressly said not to. It is no wonder the Republican leadership doesn't want to help or work in a bipartisan fashion.
However, I have listened to every one of Mr. Obama's State of the Union speeches. In every single one of them he has asked for bipartisanship, he has asked for the Republicans to weigh-in on plans and make sure they have support. He has a weekly meeting with John Boehner and other Republican leaders. And, for most of his career as President, they have said one thing and then turned around and done either nothing or the opposite of what they have said. The President asks for their help and their buy-in, and then they poo-poo all over the idea and claim that the President doesn't want bipartisan help or Republican input.
I think Mr. Obama's win in the last election was a sign that the American people are tired of the lies. The Republicans can only get away with outright lying for so long before it all catches up to them. At some point, they will be left holding the bag and will be voted out of office. The last election was the start of that and, unless they wise up and start working for the good of the American people, more and more of them will find themselves looking for work in the next election cycle, too.
From the other side of their mouths, they decry what Mr. Obama is doing as President and they dismiss his objectives. They call him a socialist (they should look up the term before wrongly using it). They claim that spending money and bigger government never solved any problems for the middle class. They claim that prosperity will somehow just magically appear if we take all the restriction and government away.
But the truth is, and I have mentioned this in multiple posts in the past, that Mr. Obama is following the Reagan playbook almost step-by-step. Reagan spent more to help the middle class, and it worked. He spent more to get people working on the infrastructure, and it worked. He made government bigger and put in place regulations in various areas that helped reign in a runaway economy and inflation, and then eased those restrictions in his second term. He taxed the richest among us to help the poorest and the middle. Does any of this sound familiar??
In Mr. Obama's speech last night, he mentioned that he wants to do some things that the Republicans, over the last 18 months or so, have strongly espoused, like closing the tax loopholes. Not every idea he presented was original to him, yet those that were first brought up by Republicans and strongly espoused by them during the debates and the election cycle, they refused to clap for, to stand for, and said would not work in their rebuttal. Er, what? The plans you pushed for for almost two years you now think is flawed? You can't have it both ways -- you can't simply say this is the way America will solve its debt crisis and help get middle-class Americans more money and then claim, when a Democrat uses the exact same idea and even gives you credit for it, that it is now flawed and without merit. Which is it? There are a number of areas where similar ideas were cherry-picked from the Republicans agenda that they are now claiming are flawed or bad.
If Ronald Reagan were alive today and espousing the exact same policies and procedures that today's Republicans keep pointing to as their guiding light, he would be considered a Democrat, and a fairly liberal one at that. Today's Republicans have moved so far to the conservative right that they do not even recognize one of their great leader's more moderate, bipartisan stances, nor do they see how he built bridges to the Democrats of the time to solve problems, something that these Republicans seem unwilling to do.
There are issues with some of what Mr. Obama has proposed. Much of it requires the Republicans to buy-in (not going to happen) and work with Democrats (equally unappealing to them) in order to get the balanced approach he discussed. Also, he doesn't actually write the policy. He sets the framework and the vision, and it is up to the Nancy Pelosi's of Congress to write the laws and try to get them passed. However, Ms. Pelosi has proven utterly incompetent at doing that, ignoring her President's directives to work with Republicans, not to raise taxes or spending (at least without offsetting it with cuts elsewhere), and pushing for bigger government and pork when her President expressly said not to. It is no wonder the Republican leadership doesn't want to help or work in a bipartisan fashion.
However, I have listened to every one of Mr. Obama's State of the Union speeches. In every single one of them he has asked for bipartisanship, he has asked for the Republicans to weigh-in on plans and make sure they have support. He has a weekly meeting with John Boehner and other Republican leaders. And, for most of his career as President, they have said one thing and then turned around and done either nothing or the opposite of what they have said. The President asks for their help and their buy-in, and then they poo-poo all over the idea and claim that the President doesn't want bipartisan help or Republican input.
I think Mr. Obama's win in the last election was a sign that the American people are tired of the lies. The Republicans can only get away with outright lying for so long before it all catches up to them. At some point, they will be left holding the bag and will be voted out of office. The last election was the start of that and, unless they wise up and start working for the good of the American people, more and more of them will find themselves looking for work in the next election cycle, too.
February 4, 2013
Scammin' Sam
Just had a call from "Sam," claiming to be from MasterCard and, due to my excellent credit rating and years as a customer, he can offer me a "low, low" interest rate on my MasterCard.
Conversation, as close as I can remember it (or understood it; his Indian accent was very thick and we didn't have the best of connections):
Me: Well, shoot, Sam, that is awesome news!
Him: Now, to be safe, I want to verify I'm talking to the right person. Are you John ****?
Me: Yes.
Him: Are you at postal code ****?
Me: Yes, I am.
Him: Great, great. Now I just need you to verify with me a few points about your account.
Me: Well, hold on a minute, Sam. You know, there are a lot of scammers out there. I don't want to get taken for a ride, if you know what I mean. Do you have my account information up?
Him: Yes, of course I do. But I can only do so much. My job is only to verify you are who you say you are. I need to transfer you to a secure account representative.
Me: I hear you, Sam. But if you have my account info up, we can quickly verify a couple of things and then I'm all yours. I can't wait to have that new low, low interest rate, Sam.
Him: Great, great... let me...
Me: So, Sam, can you just give me the last four digits of my CC number?
Him: I cannot do that, Mr. (butchers my last name). I could lose my job for giving out that information.
Me: Oh, I'd hate for that to happen, Sam. But there are scammers, you know, and the CC company and the police are very insistent that we verify who we are talking with, Sam. Can you tell me the interest rate on that account?
Him: You have a very high 19.99 percent interest rate Mr. (butchered again). We can offer you a low, low rate of between 3.6 and 12.99 percent interest rate...
Me. Hunh. You know, Sam, not that I don't believe you, but it is odd that you have my information right in front of you and yet you have the wrong interest rate. It's kind of odd, Sam, don't you think?
Him: I'm looking right at the screen -- it says 19.99 percent!
Me: I want to make sure I'm looking at the right CC and we're on the same page, here, Sam, so why don't you verify the last two digits on the account. What can two digits hurt, Sam?
Him: I could be fired. The secure account representative can help you with that; my job is only to verify that I'm talking to the right person.
Me: I hear you, Sam. I understand. But there are scammers, you know? Maybe you could give me just the last digit, there, Sam? You've got a one in ten chance of being right, even if you guess.
Him: How can I be a scammer, Mr. (butchered again)? I know your name, I know your postal code, I know your phone number.
Me: Well, you see, Sam, all of that you could have gotten from a phone book or online. It's not that I don't trust you, but I just have to make sure, Sam. Scammers, you know?
Him: But I know your name, your postal code...
Me: And it is really strange that you say my postal code is ****, since my MasterCard isn't associated with my current address. It would have a different postal code. So, you see, Sam, I'm just having trouble believing you're looking at my data, Sam.
Him: But how could I know...
Me: I tell you what, Sam. I'm going to hang up with you and I'm going to call my bank and verify this deal of yours. If they released my data to you and agree I'm such a great customer, they should be able to tell me all about it and give me that sweet, sweet deal you've been telling me about.
Him: This deal is through Mastercard, not your bank. Your bank cannot match this offer, only we can provide it...
Me: Buh-bye, Sam.
The best part is that I kept him on the phone for quite a bit of time, so that's a few more people he couldn't call today. I hope he doesn't make his quota on phone calls and
Conversation, as close as I can remember it (or understood it; his Indian accent was very thick and we didn't have the best of connections):
Me: Well, shoot, Sam, that is awesome news!
Him: Now, to be safe, I want to verify I'm talking to the right person. Are you John ****?
Me: Yes.
Him: Are you at postal code ****?
Me: Yes, I am.
Him: Great, great. Now I just need you to verify with me a few points about your account.
Me: Well, hold on a minute, Sam. You know, there are a lot of scammers out there. I don't want to get taken for a ride, if you know what I mean. Do you have my account information up?
Him: Yes, of course I do. But I can only do so much. My job is only to verify you are who you say you are. I need to transfer you to a secure account representative.
Me: I hear you, Sam. But if you have my account info up, we can quickly verify a couple of things and then I'm all yours. I can't wait to have that new low, low interest rate, Sam.
Him: Great, great... let me...
Me: So, Sam, can you just give me the last four digits of my CC number?
Him: I cannot do that, Mr. (butchers my last name). I could lose my job for giving out that information.
Me: Oh, I'd hate for that to happen, Sam. But there are scammers, you know, and the CC company and the police are very insistent that we verify who we are talking with, Sam. Can you tell me the interest rate on that account?
Him: You have a very high 19.99 percent interest rate Mr. (butchered again). We can offer you a low, low rate of between 3.6 and 12.99 percent interest rate...
Me. Hunh. You know, Sam, not that I don't believe you, but it is odd that you have my information right in front of you and yet you have the wrong interest rate. It's kind of odd, Sam, don't you think?
Him: I'm looking right at the screen -- it says 19.99 percent!
Me: I want to make sure I'm looking at the right CC and we're on the same page, here, Sam, so why don't you verify the last two digits on the account. What can two digits hurt, Sam?
Him: I could be fired. The secure account representative can help you with that; my job is only to verify that I'm talking to the right person.
Me: I hear you, Sam. I understand. But there are scammers, you know? Maybe you could give me just the last digit, there, Sam? You've got a one in ten chance of being right, even if you guess.
Him: How can I be a scammer, Mr. (butchered again)? I know your name, I know your postal code, I know your phone number.
Me: Well, you see, Sam, all of that you could have gotten from a phone book or online. It's not that I don't trust you, but I just have to make sure, Sam. Scammers, you know?
Him: But I know your name, your postal code...
Me: And it is really strange that you say my postal code is ****, since my MasterCard isn't associated with my current address. It would have a different postal code. So, you see, Sam, I'm just having trouble believing you're looking at my data, Sam.
Him: But how could I know...
Me: I tell you what, Sam. I'm going to hang up with you and I'm going to call my bank and verify this deal of yours. If they released my data to you and agree I'm such a great customer, they should be able to tell me all about it and give me that sweet, sweet deal you've been telling me about.
Him: This deal is through Mastercard, not your bank. Your bank cannot match this offer, only we can provide it...
Me: Buh-bye, Sam.
The best part is that I kept him on the phone for quite a bit of time, so that's a few more people he couldn't call today. I hope he doesn't make his quota on phone calls and
February 3, 2013
900*
Another athlete used the word "gay" to refer to something recently. Another actor referred to something as "retarded" recently. Both of them had to publicly apologize for doing so. There is talk of rehab. At some point, I'd like someone in the 35+ age range who is "caught" saying one of these words to respond with something like:
"Yes, I used the term 'gay'/'retarded' in reference to something I didn't care for. When I was growing up, these terms were used as mild pejoratives and it has been ingrained in me for many years. While I apologize for those who are now offended by those words, it is tough for this old dog to learn this new trick. Language has changed a lot since the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, when political correctness was non-existent or in its infancy and people were free to use more language more colorfully. Because of this, I may slip up and use them, or other words that have since become passe or offensive, again. It is hard to overcome what you learn as a child and what you have said for most of a lifetime."
I would have so much more respect for someone who said this than I do for all the celebu-tards who "go to rehab" for how they speak. I have asked a couple of my gay friends who are in the same general age-range of 35+ if they are offended by the word gay used pejoratively. Those who had an opinion at all were mostly okay with it, as they were raised in the same social environment. Of course, they had a preference for it not being used, but they understand that it was common then and is only now being phased out.
Retarded is much the same. The PC word police have deemed this word as socially unacceptable now, but refuse to allow that many of us were raised in a time when it was okay, and that it may be ingrained. It takes more than them saying it is a bad word for us to stop using it -- that's what ingrained means, after all.
Language grows, changes, and mutates every year. Rules for grammar I learned in grade school have changed today. Words I learned and used as a child are now considered unacceptable. Things I was taught were unacceptable are now commonplace (like taking a phone call during any meal, speaking about private things in public, etc.). Things change and it is difficult, after a lifetime of doing it one way, to change with it. It is time we stop vilifying people for what they say and instead put things in context and judge them on their whole person. We might just find we don't mind certain words any more if we do.
* = This is my 900th post on this blog. It is somewhat hard to believe both how long I've been doing this and how many posts I've made. Now for 1,000! Note: I just looked up the date on my 800th post, and it was -- today, February 3, 2011. Interesting.
January 28, 2013
A Matter of Degree
The President was asked about the violence and head trauma in the NFL. His response was that, if he had boys, he would think twice before letting them play football. He then furthered his comments by saying he felt the NCAA (the governing body of college sports) should look at football because, and I paraphrase here, "if a college athlete is seriously injured, they have nothing to fall back on."
Er, what? Aren't these people playing football at college? Some of them at quite prestigious and expensive colleges? Shouldn't these men's first goal be getting an education rather than playing football?
The President inadvertently pointed out the issue with college sports in America: that a majority of sports players are NOT there to actually get an education, that many of them are not smart enough to get a degree from a higher-learning institution, and that they are devaluing any education provided at that institution by being there and being obligingly passed through so they can play football (or any number of other sports) and bring in loads of money to the school. The problem is they are also devaluing the education for every other legitimate student who actually is going to college for an education, many of whom have to borrow up to their, or their family's, eyeballs in order to afford to go there (the sports figure gets scholarships, many of them full-ride), has to attend classes and show ability and learning in their subjects (it is rumored and often shown that college athletes are allowed to skip tests and are put in special courses made just for them), and have to compete educationally or be drummed out of the school (whereas the student athlete can attend as long as he/she is a significant contributor to his/her sports team).
I read stories of NFL and NBA players being let go from their teams, dropped off at the airport, and not knowing what to do next-- they have always been given tickets and flown as a team, and some have never flown on their own and simply do not know what to do. I read stories of athletes who work at grocery stores and used car lots after fairly successful careers because they do not have an education that allows them to do wise things with the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars they earned while playing. I read stories about how the NFL and NBA (and, I assume, many other sports, too) provide rookie symposiums where they tell the athlete about W-2s, taxes, and other life issues and events that they will now have to attend to, because so many of these athletes have never dealt with them before. I read so many articles about thug-like behavior on and off the court. I read and see so many interviews where the athlete cannot string more than a couple of platitudes together, because they don't have the education to speak more intelligently about, well, anything, including their own sport.
Mr. President, how about we change the qualifications for student athletes at the college (and high school) level so that they can only play their sports if they have a good GPA? How about we have auditors monitoring the classes taken by the athletes to ensure they are getting a real education, and not getting As in "underwater basket-weaving?" How about we go back to having student athletes being the best and the brightest, rather than there simply to play a sport? If we do these things, these poor athletes would have plenty to fall back on if they are injured playing their sport. The problem solves itself, Mr. President.
Er, what? Aren't these people playing football at college? Some of them at quite prestigious and expensive colleges? Shouldn't these men's first goal be getting an education rather than playing football?
The President inadvertently pointed out the issue with college sports in America: that a majority of sports players are NOT there to actually get an education, that many of them are not smart enough to get a degree from a higher-learning institution, and that they are devaluing any education provided at that institution by being there and being obligingly passed through so they can play football (or any number of other sports) and bring in loads of money to the school. The problem is they are also devaluing the education for every other legitimate student who actually is going to college for an education, many of whom have to borrow up to their, or their family's, eyeballs in order to afford to go there (the sports figure gets scholarships, many of them full-ride), has to attend classes and show ability and learning in their subjects (it is rumored and often shown that college athletes are allowed to skip tests and are put in special courses made just for them), and have to compete educationally or be drummed out of the school (whereas the student athlete can attend as long as he/she is a significant contributor to his/her sports team).
I read stories of NFL and NBA players being let go from their teams, dropped off at the airport, and not knowing what to do next-- they have always been given tickets and flown as a team, and some have never flown on their own and simply do not know what to do. I read stories of athletes who work at grocery stores and used car lots after fairly successful careers because they do not have an education that allows them to do wise things with the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars they earned while playing. I read stories about how the NFL and NBA (and, I assume, many other sports, too) provide rookie symposiums where they tell the athlete about W-2s, taxes, and other life issues and events that they will now have to attend to, because so many of these athletes have never dealt with them before. I read so many articles about thug-like behavior on and off the court. I read and see so many interviews where the athlete cannot string more than a couple of platitudes together, because they don't have the education to speak more intelligently about, well, anything, including their own sport.
Mr. President, how about we change the qualifications for student athletes at the college (and high school) level so that they can only play their sports if they have a good GPA? How about we have auditors monitoring the classes taken by the athletes to ensure they are getting a real education, and not getting As in "underwater basket-weaving?" How about we go back to having student athletes being the best and the brightest, rather than there simply to play a sport? If we do these things, these poor athletes would have plenty to fall back on if they are injured playing their sport. The problem solves itself, Mr. President.
January 22, 2013
Firearm Fiasco
I realize I'm in a unique circumstance. However, I have tried to provide clear, direct, accurate information each step of the way while trying to legally get my firearms, which I left with my father when I moved here, to somewhere close by in the United States where I can go, pick them up, and legally cross into Canada with them.
First I had to go through the process of getting the proper licenses in Canada. That took some time and effort, but I am now licensed for both types of weapons (nonrestricted and restricted) that I own. I can now take possession of my firearms.
Next, I contacted the ATF -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and FIREARMS -- thinking they could help me by providing information. They did not know their ass from a hole in the ground. Matter of fact, the person I was in contact with did not know you could send firearms via the US Postal Service from person to person! So that wound up being a dead end, but took months of back and forth emails and phone conversations to resolve.
I contacted the USPS to find out what the restrictions and rules are for shipping firearms. They sent me to my local USPS shipping regulations line, who sent me a link that had the data. Basically, my rifles and shotguns are fine to ship, with some very specific regulations. But my handguns cannot be shipped person-to-person via the post office. The PO worker I spoke with said that federal authorities are allowed to ship weapons between offices and that many police departments will provide that service for individuals.
So, I tried the local police department. I explained my situation, explained the post office's suggestion, and asked the officer I was speaking with if they would help me with this. He laughed. He actually laughed. Then he said, "No, that's not something we would do." However, he suggested that a local shipping destination, True Value Hardware, has an FFL (Federal Firearms License) which can be used to ship/receive firearms.
I called them. My initial questions were rebuffed with, "You have to import your firearms, you can't just ship them here and pick them up." Now, when I originally crossed the border with nearly all of my worldly goods in a U-Haul, I had to declare and import everything. The last page of my import documentation included "goods to follow" -- items that I would be crossing the border with later, but for which I paid import taxes at that time. Since I knew I had to get properly licensed in Canada first, I listed my firearms as goods to follow. At this point, all I need is some place that I can have my firearms shipped to where I can pick them up, take my import documentation and the firearms to the border crossing, have the other proper documentation required by Canada to legally transport the firearms, cross the border, and I'm done.
I never expected this process to be such a hassle. And it says something about the US government that no one knows the right answer to these questions -- most especially the ATF, which should be the end-all, be-all of information about firearms. It shouldn't take me over a year to get this information, and half the time it has been accidental that I have found something out and been able to move forward.
First I had to go through the process of getting the proper licenses in Canada. That took some time and effort, but I am now licensed for both types of weapons (nonrestricted and restricted) that I own. I can now take possession of my firearms.
Next, I contacted the ATF -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and FIREARMS -- thinking they could help me by providing information. They did not know their ass from a hole in the ground. Matter of fact, the person I was in contact with did not know you could send firearms via the US Postal Service from person to person! So that wound up being a dead end, but took months of back and forth emails and phone conversations to resolve.
I contacted the USPS to find out what the restrictions and rules are for shipping firearms. They sent me to my local USPS shipping regulations line, who sent me a link that had the data. Basically, my rifles and shotguns are fine to ship, with some very specific regulations. But my handguns cannot be shipped person-to-person via the post office. The PO worker I spoke with said that federal authorities are allowed to ship weapons between offices and that many police departments will provide that service for individuals.
So, I tried the local police department. I explained my situation, explained the post office's suggestion, and asked the officer I was speaking with if they would help me with this. He laughed. He actually laughed. Then he said, "No, that's not something we would do." However, he suggested that a local shipping destination, True Value Hardware, has an FFL (Federal Firearms License) which can be used to ship/receive firearms.
I called them. My initial questions were rebuffed with, "You have to import your firearms, you can't just ship them here and pick them up." Now, when I originally crossed the border with nearly all of my worldly goods in a U-Haul, I had to declare and import everything. The last page of my import documentation included "goods to follow" -- items that I would be crossing the border with later, but for which I paid import taxes at that time. Since I knew I had to get properly licensed in Canada first, I listed my firearms as goods to follow. At this point, all I need is some place that I can have my firearms shipped to where I can pick them up, take my import documentation and the firearms to the border crossing, have the other proper documentation required by Canada to legally transport the firearms, cross the border, and I'm done.
I never expected this process to be such a hassle. And it says something about the US government that no one knows the right answer to these questions -- most especially the ATF, which should be the end-all, be-all of information about firearms. It shouldn't take me over a year to get this information, and half the time it has been accidental that I have found something out and been able to move forward.
January 9, 2013
Once... Again
I'm sitting at my desk listening to the music from the movie Once... and I'm wondering if the Guy made it as an artist, with his ex-girlfriend, or in life, in general. I wonder because the Girl was the exact inspiration and drive that he needed at the right time in his life. While he was obviously a good songwriter on his own, she was the muse that made him put it all together, gave him the drive to finish, and the impetus to move to London and make a go of it. Leaving without her, how can he possibly fare?
In my mind, the Guy probably moves back in with the ex-girlfriend, starts up a new relationship. But she hasn't really changed, and he's a different person now, one with different needs. He's still egotistical as all hell, so the relationship will probably fail. This is great for him, because the Guy now has both his leaving his muse (the Girl) and the breakup about which to write. As Bono sang, "Every artist kills their inspiration and sings about the grief." But the Guy will not have that drive; he'll probably sell the album he made with the Girl and get a contract. He'll do small shows, but with a rotating band of musicians, because he won't be able to keep them too long. He'll slowly devolve until he is nearly the same place as when we meet him... a guy with good songs who needs something outside to spur him to act. He needs the Girl.
The problem is the Girl doesn't really need him. While, in Czech, she does say that she loves the Guy, she has her mother, her daughter, her returned husband. She doesn't have the same drives or needs as the Guy, and is more willing to sacrifice for her own, private greater good. She will write and compose and play on the piano the Guy gets for her (unless her husband turns into the same jerk he was, and breaks it or sells it). She will remember the brief, intense love she had for that moment in time, but it will not rule her. She will continue her life, quietly.
The creator of the movie said he called it "Once..." because of how many times he heard his artistic friends saying, "Once such and such happens...," "Once so and so come around...," and "Once I win the lottery...," and so on. It was always something outside their control that needed to happen in order for their dreams to come around. He always felt you made your own luck and had to keep pressing (and, look, he wrote and directed a film about it!). The Guy is an amalgam stereotype of this sort of thinking, and I simply don't think he can 'do it' without the Girl.
In most cases I read, hear, or learn about, the self-made man isn't. The great politicians, artist, stars are all great because of someone pushing the right buttons. We constantly hear about people like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant finding new motivations, and it is usually of a negative sort; someone says they can't, they shouldn't, they aren't able to, and it sends them off to prove the opposite. Sometimes it is the right person with the kind word, the words of encouragement, at the right time when they are ready to listen who propels someone to stardom and success. In every story of a great person, there is always someone who provides the kind word, the motivation, the constructive criticism at the right time(s) that propels the successful person forward one more time. The Girl is that voice for the Guy, and I just don't see him succeeding without her in his life.
I do not know why this move resonates with me so much. I watch it probably twice a year and I listen to the soundtrack often. Something about the story, the characters, the music just hits me in the right spot and puts me in a contemplative mood. Well, my Once soundtrack is done and dinner is almost ready. Maybe it is time for a DVD this evening afterward?
In my mind, the Guy probably moves back in with the ex-girlfriend, starts up a new relationship. But she hasn't really changed, and he's a different person now, one with different needs. He's still egotistical as all hell, so the relationship will probably fail. This is great for him, because the Guy now has both his leaving his muse (the Girl) and the breakup about which to write. As Bono sang, "Every artist kills their inspiration and sings about the grief." But the Guy will not have that drive; he'll probably sell the album he made with the Girl and get a contract. He'll do small shows, but with a rotating band of musicians, because he won't be able to keep them too long. He'll slowly devolve until he is nearly the same place as when we meet him... a guy with good songs who needs something outside to spur him to act. He needs the Girl.
The problem is the Girl doesn't really need him. While, in Czech, she does say that she loves the Guy, she has her mother, her daughter, her returned husband. She doesn't have the same drives or needs as the Guy, and is more willing to sacrifice for her own, private greater good. She will write and compose and play on the piano the Guy gets for her (unless her husband turns into the same jerk he was, and breaks it or sells it). She will remember the brief, intense love she had for that moment in time, but it will not rule her. She will continue her life, quietly.
The creator of the movie said he called it "Once..." because of how many times he heard his artistic friends saying, "Once such and such happens...," "Once so and so come around...," and "Once I win the lottery...," and so on. It was always something outside their control that needed to happen in order for their dreams to come around. He always felt you made your own luck and had to keep pressing (and, look, he wrote and directed a film about it!). The Guy is an amalgam stereotype of this sort of thinking, and I simply don't think he can 'do it' without the Girl.
In most cases I read, hear, or learn about, the self-made man isn't. The great politicians, artist, stars are all great because of someone pushing the right buttons. We constantly hear about people like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant finding new motivations, and it is usually of a negative sort; someone says they can't, they shouldn't, they aren't able to, and it sends them off to prove the opposite. Sometimes it is the right person with the kind word, the words of encouragement, at the right time when they are ready to listen who propels someone to stardom and success. In every story of a great person, there is always someone who provides the kind word, the motivation, the constructive criticism at the right time(s) that propels the successful person forward one more time. The Girl is that voice for the Guy, and I just don't see him succeeding without her in his life.
I do not know why this move resonates with me so much. I watch it probably twice a year and I listen to the soundtrack often. Something about the story, the characters, the music just hits me in the right spot and puts me in a contemplative mood. Well, my Once soundtrack is done and dinner is almost ready. Maybe it is time for a DVD this evening afterward?
December 31, 2012
PC Woes
When I rebuilt our computers last year, I did not re-install the OS on my machine as I usually do with a newly built machine. Instead, I re-installed the old hard drive and simply updated the OS as needed so it worked with the new parts. Then, when I decided to get an SSD (solid state drive), I used the OS copying software that came with it to move everything from my then current boot drive to the new drive, rather than installing the OS from scratch and re-installing the additional programs.
Over the last couple of months, the machine has had some quirks. I'd suddenly drop all Ethernet/internet connections for no reason. Some of my games would suddenly eject me and I'd be unceremoniously dumped back to the desktop. Occasionally, my file transfer speeds would dip to incredible lows. Sometimes I would plug USB devices and nothing would happen; the OS wouldn't recognize them, the system wouldn't read them. I'd lose some or all of my headset's abilities. On some rare occasions, my machine would simply freeze and only turning off the power would resolve anything.
I finally had enough two weeks ago, when my system kept shutting off, freezing, and refusing to recognize my Ethernet connection. When I would reboot or restart, it wouldn't even POST. I thought, 'Uh oh, I've somehow ruined yet another BIOS on my motherboard.' However, after some time, the BIOS POSTed and I was able to run again, in fits and starts. I decided it was time to format the SSD, wipe it clean, and re-install the OS from scratch. Before doing so, I decided to use my TrendMicro virus scanner "recovery disk" (via USB drive) to do a full, deep scan of the BIOS and everything on the OS. Sure enough, the virus scan found a couple of deep-seeded programs it marked as viruses and deleted. A couple were masquerading as Steam files, a couple were pretending to be game files, and a couple of others that the virus catcher apparently didn't catch (or I had not correctly set the program to scan) "live." I eliminated those and tested my system for a while before continuing with the re-install sure enough, my system was running faster and smoother. I still had some of the issues, though, so I proceeded with my plan.
Since re-installing Windows 7 to the SSD and rearranging some of my cabling on the motherboard, I have had none of the previous issues resurface. I am very slowly re-installing my old applications, so that I can keep an eye on how the system works for at least a day or two before moving on to another application. Currently, all of my game apps and Steam are working better, faster, and more consistently than before.
This just goes to show you that you should do what you know is right and not rely on new methods that haven't been tried and tested; I have decades of experience knowing that, when you do a major rebuild, you should install "fresh" and slowly, but I ignored it in favor of the SSD's software. On top of the apparent viruses (or virus-like programs) that were found, my system was doing things it shouldn't and it was systemically worsening. Next time, if there is a next time, you can be assured I'll go back to my roots and do what I know is the right way.
Over the last couple of months, the machine has had some quirks. I'd suddenly drop all Ethernet/internet connections for no reason. Some of my games would suddenly eject me and I'd be unceremoniously dumped back to the desktop. Occasionally, my file transfer speeds would dip to incredible lows. Sometimes I would plug USB devices and nothing would happen; the OS wouldn't recognize them, the system wouldn't read them. I'd lose some or all of my headset's abilities. On some rare occasions, my machine would simply freeze and only turning off the power would resolve anything.
I finally had enough two weeks ago, when my system kept shutting off, freezing, and refusing to recognize my Ethernet connection. When I would reboot or restart, it wouldn't even POST. I thought, 'Uh oh, I've somehow ruined yet another BIOS on my motherboard.' However, after some time, the BIOS POSTed and I was able to run again, in fits and starts. I decided it was time to format the SSD, wipe it clean, and re-install the OS from scratch. Before doing so, I decided to use my TrendMicro virus scanner "recovery disk" (via USB drive) to do a full, deep scan of the BIOS and everything on the OS. Sure enough, the virus scan found a couple of deep-seeded programs it marked as viruses and deleted. A couple were masquerading as Steam files, a couple were pretending to be game files, and a couple of others that the virus catcher apparently didn't catch (or I had not correctly set the program to scan) "live." I eliminated those and tested my system for a while before continuing with the re-install sure enough, my system was running faster and smoother. I still had some of the issues, though, so I proceeded with my plan.
Since re-installing Windows 7 to the SSD and rearranging some of my cabling on the motherboard, I have had none of the previous issues resurface. I am very slowly re-installing my old applications, so that I can keep an eye on how the system works for at least a day or two before moving on to another application. Currently, all of my game apps and Steam are working better, faster, and more consistently than before.
This just goes to show you that you should do what you know is right and not rely on new methods that haven't been tried and tested; I have decades of experience knowing that, when you do a major rebuild, you should install "fresh" and slowly, but I ignored it in favor of the SSD's software. On top of the apparent viruses (or virus-like programs) that were found, my system was doing things it shouldn't and it was systemically worsening. Next time, if there is a next time, you can be assured I'll go back to my roots and do what I know is the right way.
December 21, 2012
Running Out of Excuses
The House Republicans are running out of options and excuses. Their Plan B, which, contrary to what Mr. Boehner and his cronies were saying, would have lowered taxes on those making between $200k and $1 million, raised them for everyone else (with those making less than $30k hit the hardest), and moved a bunch of cuts even deeper into social programs, was soundly defeated last night.
Apparently, when the American people spoke and elected Mr. Obama to a second term, the House Republicans figured that was just a ruse of some sort. They didn't really want to follow the President's plan to get the economy on track and to avoid the so-called Fiscal Cliff. Of course, the defections in the Republican party seem to indicate that even some of the Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall and realize they have to actually debate in good faith and that nothing can be marked as off the table. I think Mr. Boehner's time in office is nearing an end, unless he becomes a lot more cooperative.
I've shown in previous posts that raising taxes is a necessity. I've spoken about cutting where cuts should be made. I'm all in favor of military spending cuts, one of the largest areas of waste, duplication of effort, unused buildings and land, and unneeded expenses -- and I'm a military brat who is gung-ho behind our troops and their efforts.
I am not saying that the President is 100% right or that the Republicans should just capitulate. However, saying that no cuts in military and raising taxes on the richest 20% is off the table is not going to get it done and just gets you in deeper. These two things need and have to happen. Matter of fact, raising taxes on the richest 20% and cutting spending on the military are the two places where we can make up the deficit in the easiest, least painful, and most expedient way. Oh, and cutting into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Not smart when the largest voting segment is senior citizens, many of whom rely on those three plans. Not smart at all.
My guess is that a silent majority of 80% of the people, regardless of political standing, can see that the Republicans are doing nothing, and trying to keep things at the same status quo that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Most of their positions on these financial items are unsupportable, both historically and logically.
It is frustrating to see them continue to try everything but bowing to the will of the American people and doing what is best for them and America in general. Just look at the New Deal, look at what Reagan did in the 1980s, and look at what Mr. Obama is trying to do now; it worked the last two times that Republicans initiated these types of plans, there is no reason to believe that it will not work this time, even though a... *shudder*... Democrat is espousing the idea. Get on board, vote for it, and let's get this DONE. NOW.
Oh, and while we're at it, let's put in term limits in both the House and Senate. It is obvious that we need more turn-over and to get rid of career politicians who simply become more and more ingrained in ideology and less and less in tune with America and its people.
Apparently, when the American people spoke and elected Mr. Obama to a second term, the House Republicans figured that was just a ruse of some sort. They didn't really want to follow the President's plan to get the economy on track and to avoid the so-called Fiscal Cliff. Of course, the defections in the Republican party seem to indicate that even some of the Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall and realize they have to actually debate in good faith and that nothing can be marked as off the table. I think Mr. Boehner's time in office is nearing an end, unless he becomes a lot more cooperative.
I've shown in previous posts that raising taxes is a necessity. I've spoken about cutting where cuts should be made. I'm all in favor of military spending cuts, one of the largest areas of waste, duplication of effort, unused buildings and land, and unneeded expenses -- and I'm a military brat who is gung-ho behind our troops and their efforts.
I am not saying that the President is 100% right or that the Republicans should just capitulate. However, saying that no cuts in military and raising taxes on the richest 20% is off the table is not going to get it done and just gets you in deeper. These two things need and have to happen. Matter of fact, raising taxes on the richest 20% and cutting spending on the military are the two places where we can make up the deficit in the easiest, least painful, and most expedient way. Oh, and cutting into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Not smart when the largest voting segment is senior citizens, many of whom rely on those three plans. Not smart at all.
My guess is that a silent majority of 80% of the people, regardless of political standing, can see that the Republicans are doing nothing, and trying to keep things at the same status quo that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Most of their positions on these financial items are unsupportable, both historically and logically.
It is frustrating to see them continue to try everything but bowing to the will of the American people and doing what is best for them and America in general. Just look at the New Deal, look at what Reagan did in the 1980s, and look at what Mr. Obama is trying to do now; it worked the last two times that Republicans initiated these types of plans, there is no reason to believe that it will not work this time, even though a... *shudder*... Democrat is espousing the idea. Get on board, vote for it, and let's get this DONE. NOW.
Oh, and while we're at it, let's put in term limits in both the House and Senate. It is obvious that we need more turn-over and to get rid of career politicians who simply become more and more ingrained in ideology and less and less in tune with America and its people.
December 17, 2012
Lincoln
Lincoln reminded me a lot of There Will Be Blood -- a phenomenal performance in an otherwise average film. Actually, the acting all-around (Sally Field, David Straithairn, James Spader, et al) was all very well-done.
The movie, like, it seems, every movie I see these days, is too long. Every scene with Mary Lincoln involving their dead eldest son or their still living oldest son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), could have been cut without sacrificing anything. Pretty much every scene with JGL's Robert/"Bob" Lincoln could have been cut without sacrificing the story. There were so many characters who just popped up for brief cameos and were barely seen again (as it involves many one-off conversations with a multitude of congressmen), that I thought many of them could have been cut, as well. I would also cut everything that happens after Lincoln gets dressed for the Ford Theater and walks away down the hallway. We KNOW what happens there, and the scenes of grief that are shown afterward, plus Lincoln's earlier speech, just feel maudlin in comparison with leaving us on the melancholy "high" note of him winning the war, getting his amendment, and heading out to be with his wife, knowing what is to happen there.
Another thing that bothered me, besides too many characters and a lengthy running time, is the glossing over of how important free blacks were to keeping Lincoln on task for this project, as well as for helping him to get the word out and changing congressmen's minds. This movie makes it seem like Lincoln was the entire spearhead and reason for the amendment, and that only the white men in the story were critical to its success, which we know from history simply isn't true. It comes off a bit like a "white man solves the black man's problems" movie -- again. Actually, when will Hollywood stop rewriting history so overtly to make it seem like every other race is absolutely useless and reliant on white men to save them?
Now, none of these quibbles is to say this is not one of the best movies of the year with some of the best performances of the year. I will be shocked if DDL doesn't win another Oscar for this performance (I certainly haven't seen anything that stands up as a contender to it this year). Sally Field will likely be nominated. Tommy Lee Jones may get a support nod. The cinematography and score are both top-notch, and Spielberg will probably get a nod for director (although I don't think the direction is really anything special). But the movie has its flaws, and is not as powerful or as purpose-built as it could be or should be.
In the end, this is a very good film, and one of the best of this year. See it for the performances. But the movie is too long, has too many characters to keep track of, and takes a few too many detours while telling this compelling story. I rate this a B- (it is a C- movie with A performances, so I "averaged" it to a B-).
The movie, like, it seems, every movie I see these days, is too long. Every scene with Mary Lincoln involving their dead eldest son or their still living oldest son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), could have been cut without sacrificing anything. Pretty much every scene with JGL's Robert/"Bob" Lincoln could have been cut without sacrificing the story. There were so many characters who just popped up for brief cameos and were barely seen again (as it involves many one-off conversations with a multitude of congressmen), that I thought many of them could have been cut, as well. I would also cut everything that happens after Lincoln gets dressed for the Ford Theater and walks away down the hallway. We KNOW what happens there, and the scenes of grief that are shown afterward, plus Lincoln's earlier speech, just feel maudlin in comparison with leaving us on the melancholy "high" note of him winning the war, getting his amendment, and heading out to be with his wife, knowing what is to happen there.
Another thing that bothered me, besides too many characters and a lengthy running time, is the glossing over of how important free blacks were to keeping Lincoln on task for this project, as well as for helping him to get the word out and changing congressmen's minds. This movie makes it seem like Lincoln was the entire spearhead and reason for the amendment, and that only the white men in the story were critical to its success, which we know from history simply isn't true. It comes off a bit like a "white man solves the black man's problems" movie -- again. Actually, when will Hollywood stop rewriting history so overtly to make it seem like every other race is absolutely useless and reliant on white men to save them?
Now, none of these quibbles is to say this is not one of the best movies of the year with some of the best performances of the year. I will be shocked if DDL doesn't win another Oscar for this performance (I certainly haven't seen anything that stands up as a contender to it this year). Sally Field will likely be nominated. Tommy Lee Jones may get a support nod. The cinematography and score are both top-notch, and Spielberg will probably get a nod for director (although I don't think the direction is really anything special). But the movie has its flaws, and is not as powerful or as purpose-built as it could be or should be.
In the end, this is a very good film, and one of the best of this year. See it for the performances. But the movie is too long, has too many characters to keep track of, and takes a few too many detours while telling this compelling story. I rate this a B- (it is a C- movie with A performances, so I "averaged" it to a B-).
December 10, 2012
City of Heroes Gone
NCSoft, the owner of Paragon Studios and City of Heroes (and Villains), suddenly decided to close up the studio and the game, with November 30, 2012 being the go-dark date. This came as a great surprise to both Paragon Studios and the fans, as the game was still profitable, although niche, and the studio had a lot of plans, including a full update about to launch. Instead, they started to shutter the business and prepare for the death of the game.
The big problem with playing an MMORPG is that it is online; in other words, the user, once they have "purchased" the game, is at the mercy of the game's owners and developers. When they decide the game is finished, the user cannot keep playing on their own. Once the servers are turned off, that is it. It is over. Kaput.
It has happened to a number of games, although most manage to eek out an existence on small servers with minimal staff (or even with programming-minded non-professionals taking over). What is frustrating about this decision is that the game was only 8 years old (there are many older MMORPGs still going), it was still profitable and had a decent fan-base, and it had developers who truly cared about the project and were actively trying to keep it successful and make it even more successful.
NCSoft bought the IP from Cryptic Studios, who first made City of Heroes. NCSoft is based in South Korea and has made a name for itself in the Asian market for MMORPGs. However, they had little to no footprint in America or Europe, as their games did not resonate with western audiences. City of Heroes allowed them to have a successful franchise in those areas. For the most part, they left Paragon Studios alone to continue developing the game as they saw fit. The game's audience had dwindled down to a fairly robust (for the genre) core of die-hard fans. They got a bit of a boost when they went Free to Play, but that was temporary. Again, though, all signs (including Paragon Studio personnel who should know) pointed to the game continuing to be profitable in its market.
What is disconcerting is that many of the "big names" who enjoyed the game came out of the woodwork and offered to help the company, the studio, and the game when NCSoft made the sudden and unexpected decision to shutter the game. Mercedes Lackey, Neil Gaiman, and John C. Wright, among others, protested and offered their support. Companies were interested in purchasing the IP from NCSoft, but were rebuffed (or NCSoft asked for 4-6 times what the IP was actually worth, which is the same as a complete rebuff).
In the end, NCSoft could not be swayed and the game did, in fact, go dark on the designated day.
I'm sad and a bit angry at this. I can tell you that I will think twice before purchasing or signing on to play any NCSoft property in the future. Not only are most of their efforts not amenable to western game playing, but the way they handled this game closure tells me they are not to good business people.
But mostly I'm sad for the game, the many dozens (oh, who am I kidding, hundreds) of hours I spent in the game for most of the last 8 years, and the many friendships I nurtured within the world. I went from an MMO newbie to one a grizzled veteran who helped the newbies in the game. I played for the better part of two years with three of my close friends, we created a large super team together (Pax Equitas), and they helped get me most of the way to my first level 50. I continued playing even after each found other life concerns that took them away from the game. I found new people to play with, new heroes to help, and new challenges. I told many stories, helped many people, and was helped and touched by many more.
Red Thorn, Seraphim Angel, Shield Sentinel, Qu'en, All-American Girl, Gilgamesh, Water Wraith, and all the (many, many, many) other heroes, may you Rest in Peace. Your fight is over, but not forgotten.
ADDENDUM:
A year later, and it still doesn't make much sense.
http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/2013/11/no-more-heroes-the-fall-of-the-first-superhero-mmo/
The big problem with playing an MMORPG is that it is online; in other words, the user, once they have "purchased" the game, is at the mercy of the game's owners and developers. When they decide the game is finished, the user cannot keep playing on their own. Once the servers are turned off, that is it. It is over. Kaput.
It has happened to a number of games, although most manage to eek out an existence on small servers with minimal staff (or even with programming-minded non-professionals taking over). What is frustrating about this decision is that the game was only 8 years old (there are many older MMORPGs still going), it was still profitable and had a decent fan-base, and it had developers who truly cared about the project and were actively trying to keep it successful and make it even more successful.
NCSoft bought the IP from Cryptic Studios, who first made City of Heroes. NCSoft is based in South Korea and has made a name for itself in the Asian market for MMORPGs. However, they had little to no footprint in America or Europe, as their games did not resonate with western audiences. City of Heroes allowed them to have a successful franchise in those areas. For the most part, they left Paragon Studios alone to continue developing the game as they saw fit. The game's audience had dwindled down to a fairly robust (for the genre) core of die-hard fans. They got a bit of a boost when they went Free to Play, but that was temporary. Again, though, all signs (including Paragon Studio personnel who should know) pointed to the game continuing to be profitable in its market.
What is disconcerting is that many of the "big names" who enjoyed the game came out of the woodwork and offered to help the company, the studio, and the game when NCSoft made the sudden and unexpected decision to shutter the game. Mercedes Lackey, Neil Gaiman, and John C. Wright, among others, protested and offered their support. Companies were interested in purchasing the IP from NCSoft, but were rebuffed (or NCSoft asked for 4-6 times what the IP was actually worth, which is the same as a complete rebuff).
In the end, NCSoft could not be swayed and the game did, in fact, go dark on the designated day.
I'm sad and a bit angry at this. I can tell you that I will think twice before purchasing or signing on to play any NCSoft property in the future. Not only are most of their efforts not amenable to western game playing, but the way they handled this game closure tells me they are not to good business people.
But mostly I'm sad for the game, the many dozens (oh, who am I kidding, hundreds) of hours I spent in the game for most of the last 8 years, and the many friendships I nurtured within the world. I went from an MMO newbie to one a grizzled veteran who helped the newbies in the game. I played for the better part of two years with three of my close friends, we created a large super team together (Pax Equitas), and they helped get me most of the way to my first level 50. I continued playing even after each found other life concerns that took them away from the game. I found new people to play with, new heroes to help, and new challenges. I told many stories, helped many people, and was helped and touched by many more.
Red Thorn, Seraphim Angel, Shield Sentinel, Qu'en, All-American Girl, Gilgamesh, Water Wraith, and all the (many, many, many) other heroes, may you Rest in Peace. Your fight is over, but not forgotten.
 |
| Red Thorn in the center of one protest toward the end of City of Heroes. Various other heroes stand with him. |
A year later, and it still doesn't make much sense.
http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/2013/11/no-more-heroes-the-fall-of-the-first-superhero-mmo/
December 6, 2012
Fiscal Cliffs
Maybe we should fall off the upcoming Fiscal Cliff, as they are calling it. This would dramatically cut many services (including the military) and would raise taxes on everyone. It would, in many ways, solve many of America's current financial issues. It would also, maybe, finally convince people to demand reform from their career politicians.
From the Great Depression until the 1980s, taxes were much, much higher than they are now, both income and capital gains taxes. The rich, especially, had high taxes. And, during this time of really high taxes, America's economy grew like never before, the middle class grew, and we became the biggest economy in the world. During this time, job growth was phenomenal, the social contract between businesses, the government, and the people was strong. Prosperity ensued.
In the last thirty years of constant tax breaks, career politicians, and a steadily widening gap between the Republicans and Democrats, we have seen our economy falter, we've seen the social contract break down and disappear, and we've seen businesses take their business overseas. We've seen two really bad recessions and multiple depressions in the economy. We have seen an increase in our debt to astronomic proportions.
President Obama is following the Republican playbook for fixing the economy. He has taken a whole lot of the New Deal (yes, my history-minded friends, this was introduced by FDR, a Democrat. However, history shows us that it is made up of almost entirely ideas and plans first espoused by Herbert Hoover, a Republican) and quite a bit from Reagan-omics from the early 1980s. There is very little new in Mr. Obama's plan, actually. Yet today's Republicans say it is "too Democratic," "too Liberal," and "too Socialist." Yes, the Republican plan Mr. Obama is following is too "not-Republican."
In addition, the Republicans have finally put forth a plan -- which is identical in all ways to the plan they put into the Fiscal Cliff only they have removed the "take it from the military" part and moved those cuts entirely to entitlement areas. The numbers and figures stay the same. Or, in other words, the current Republicans have done NOTHING NEW and still think the government can somehow save itself by not bringing in any more money and by cutting more and more, especially in areas outside of the military (the singles biggest spending area of the US Government, by the way, and larger than the next 10 countries spend on military combined). Well, their plan saves about $1.4 trillion a year out of a debt at $14 trillion. Mr. Obama's plan, which includes both cuts and tax increases on the richest folks, would equal a difference of about $4.4 trillion a year.
There are approximately 315 million people in American. Of that, approximately half are workers who pay taxes of some sort. From the Great Depression through to the mid-1990s or so, the greatest amount of wealth in America was in the hands of the middle class. They made up the biggest majority of people, too. So, you had 100 million or so people paying a small percentage of taxes, but it was spread out over so many people that it allowed the US government to bring in a huge sum of money to fund everything. Basically, approximately 80 percent of the wealth was in the hands of 80 percent of people. This had the strange effect of making the rich richer. It also had the strange effect of making the poor less poor, as they had more and more opportunities to rise into the middle class. Win-win-win.
While it is very hard to compare decades, most economists seem to agree that from the late 1970s through to today, the richest percentage of people grew their incomes by close to 300% while the middle class grew theirs by approximately 40%. By all accounts, now approximately 85% of all the wealth in America is in the hands of approximately 20% of the population. Approximately 35% of that wealth is in the hands of only 1% of the population. From what I'm gathering, it looks to be about 4 million people in America make $200,000 or more.
For perspective, the population of America was about 225 million in 1980. That means approximately 110 million people paying taxes (generally speaking, you take approximately 50% of the total population as active workers, with 50% being retired, too young, or out of work). So, the majority of wealth (about 80%) was in 88 million people's hands. Today, there are approximately 315 million people in America. About 158 million people paying taxes. Of those, 85% of the wealth is consolidated in approximately 31.6 million people. That means 15% of the wealth is spread out over 126 million people.
Taxation works by a simple premise: you go where the money is. The middle class, while having more people, now has only 15% of the money. So the bulk of the money is with a smaller percentage of people, who have a much, much higher percentage of the wealth.
Let's put it in perspective with some static examples.
(Note: Population number based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, 80% of the wealth was in middle class, approximately 10% in upper class, and approximately 10% (total) in lower class. Wealthiest taxed more, middle class taxed a reasonable amount, and lower class taxed less, or not all. Used as an example only.)
From the Great Depression until the 1980s, taxes were much, much higher than they are now, both income and capital gains taxes. The rich, especially, had high taxes. And, during this time of really high taxes, America's economy grew like never before, the middle class grew, and we became the biggest economy in the world. During this time, job growth was phenomenal, the social contract between businesses, the government, and the people was strong. Prosperity ensued.
In the last thirty years of constant tax breaks, career politicians, and a steadily widening gap between the Republicans and Democrats, we have seen our economy falter, we've seen the social contract break down and disappear, and we've seen businesses take their business overseas. We've seen two really bad recessions and multiple depressions in the economy. We have seen an increase in our debt to astronomic proportions.
President Obama is following the Republican playbook for fixing the economy. He has taken a whole lot of the New Deal (yes, my history-minded friends, this was introduced by FDR, a Democrat. However, history shows us that it is made up of almost entirely ideas and plans first espoused by Herbert Hoover, a Republican) and quite a bit from Reagan-omics from the early 1980s. There is very little new in Mr. Obama's plan, actually. Yet today's Republicans say it is "too Democratic," "too Liberal," and "too Socialist." Yes, the Republican plan Mr. Obama is following is too "not-Republican."
In addition, the Republicans have finally put forth a plan -- which is identical in all ways to the plan they put into the Fiscal Cliff only they have removed the "take it from the military" part and moved those cuts entirely to entitlement areas. The numbers and figures stay the same. Or, in other words, the current Republicans have done NOTHING NEW and still think the government can somehow save itself by not bringing in any more money and by cutting more and more, especially in areas outside of the military (the singles biggest spending area of the US Government, by the way, and larger than the next 10 countries spend on military combined). Well, their plan saves about $1.4 trillion a year out of a debt at $14 trillion. Mr. Obama's plan, which includes both cuts and tax increases on the richest folks, would equal a difference of about $4.4 trillion a year.
There are approximately 315 million people in American. Of that, approximately half are workers who pay taxes of some sort. From the Great Depression through to the mid-1990s or so, the greatest amount of wealth in America was in the hands of the middle class. They made up the biggest majority of people, too. So, you had 100 million or so people paying a small percentage of taxes, but it was spread out over so many people that it allowed the US government to bring in a huge sum of money to fund everything. Basically, approximately 80 percent of the wealth was in the hands of 80 percent of people. This had the strange effect of making the rich richer. It also had the strange effect of making the poor less poor, as they had more and more opportunities to rise into the middle class. Win-win-win.
While it is very hard to compare decades, most economists seem to agree that from the late 1970s through to today, the richest percentage of people grew their incomes by close to 300% while the middle class grew theirs by approximately 40%. By all accounts, now approximately 85% of all the wealth in America is in the hands of approximately 20% of the population. Approximately 35% of that wealth is in the hands of only 1% of the population. From what I'm gathering, it looks to be about 4 million people in America make $200,000 or more.
For perspective, the population of America was about 225 million in 1980. That means approximately 110 million people paying taxes (generally speaking, you take approximately 50% of the total population as active workers, with 50% being retired, too young, or out of work). So, the majority of wealth (about 80%) was in 88 million people's hands. Today, there are approximately 315 million people in America. About 158 million people paying taxes. Of those, 85% of the wealth is consolidated in approximately 31.6 million people. That means 15% of the wealth is spread out over 126 million people.
Taxation works by a simple premise: you go where the money is. The middle class, while having more people, now has only 15% of the money. So the bulk of the money is with a smaller percentage of people, who have a much, much higher percentage of the wealth.
Let's put it in perspective with some static examples.
Pre-1990s taxation scheme
1000 people have jobs, make money. The Government needs $10,000 to fund everything.(Note: Population number based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, 80% of the wealth was in middle class, approximately 10% in upper class, and approximately 10% (total) in lower class. Wealthiest taxed more, middle class taxed a reasonable amount, and lower class taxed less, or not all. Used as an example only.)
- 100 (Upper class): Taxed $17.50/each ($1,750)
- 800 (Middle class): Taxed $10/each ($8,000)
- 50 (Lower class, but still taxable people): Taxed $5/each ($250)
- 50 (Lower class, but under the taxable minimum): Taxed $0/each
So, the sum total is that the government needs $10,000 and they easily make it, with no one side being taxed "too much." Everyone is happy and the economy grows/prospers.
Post-1990 taxation scheme
1000 people have jobs, make money. The Government needs $10,000 to fund everything.
(Note: Population based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, approximately 85% of wealth is in upper class, approximately 15% is in the middle and lower classes. Wealthiest taxed less than middle class, middle class taxed at same "reasonable" rate even though their wealth has stayed the same or declined, lower classes taxed about the the same. Used as an example only.)
- 850 (Upper class): Taxed $7.50/each ($6,375)
- 100 (Middle class): Taxed $10/each ($1,000)
- 25 (Lower class): Taxed $5/each ($125)
- 25 (Lower class, below minimums): Taxed $0/each ($0)
The government needs $10,000 and is bringing in a total of $7,500. It is no wonder the government is in debt. Every year, the government is short $2,500 for all services rendered. Cutting what you fund may work, but there are certain minimums that the population won't let the government go below and there are certain requirements, like military, where cuts can be hazardous.
One obvious way to get that number up is to find where the money is and make those with the majority of the money pay more. Let's run those number again, only this time we'll break out the Upper Class and give them higher tax rates.
Suggested taxation scheme
1000 people have jobs, make money. The Government needs $10,000 to fund everything.
(Note: Population based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, approximately 85% of wealth is in upper class, approximately 15% is in the middle and lower classes. Wealthiest taxed more than middle class, middle class taxed at a lower "reasonable" rate because their wealth has stayed the same or declined, lower classes taxed about the the same. Used as an example only.)
- 350 (Highest Upper class ($1 million or more)): Taxed $17.50/each ($6,125)
- 500 (Lower Upper class $200,000 to $1 million)): Taxed $15.00/each ($7,500)
- 100 (Middle class): Taxed 7.50/each ($750)
- 25 (Lower class): Taxed $5/each ($125)
- 25 (Lower class, below minimums): Taxed $0/each ($0)
The government needs $10,000 and is bringing in a total of $14,500. They went where the money was. Since there were fewer physical people, they had to raise the tax rates per-person, but not an unreasonable amount compared to the income they have. And the government suddenly has a surplus of money, and all current project, programs, and other spending (like military) need not be cut at all. And, the government could start paying back the loans to other countries it has made, bringing the deficit down quickly.
(Note: I grant that I used static population numbers and static government spending/need numbers, and that is unrealistic for the eras in question. The point is made, however, that taxation needs to go where the money is, and pay a percentage based on the population who has that money. Also, note that I put the taxation amounts for the richest people to at or below the amount they were being taxed in the first example.)
I AM NOT ADVOCATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY RAISE TAXES WITHOUT ALSO CUTTING PROGRAMS. There is a lot of waste in the American government and we should cut military spending by at least 25%, we should cut all duplicated programs and jobs, we should eliminate all excess buildings, we should put in place requirements that the government not pay on any contracts that are overdue or over-budget. There are a lot of places left where cuts can go.
Now, is taxation this simple? Of course not. But simple logic can be used to figure out that the Republican's plan by itself simply cannot work. As long as the wealth is in the hands of a few, those few have to pay more in taxes or we will always run at a deficit. Look to your own house: you have a finite amount of money coming in and you have certain things you must pay for (rent/mortgage, car, gas, utilities) in order to keep that job and stay alive. You can cut everything else but it will not change the amount coming in or the amount you need to spend on the bare minimums. At some point, if you want to get out of debt, you have to get a second job, a pay raise, or a bonus of some sort. In other words, you have to bring more money in. When people are making the choices between medications or food, or food and rent, there are serious issues. You've cut all you can cut.
If you want the economy to turn around, you need to give the majority of people money to spend, you need to tax where the money is, and you need to cut out all frivolous and unnecessary spending. I think I have shown that the middle class has the majority of people but they simply do not have the wealth to spend any more. I think I have shown that the minority who has the wealth are where taxes should be increased. The only thing left, really, is deciding what should be cut and what cannot be cut. And there are plenty of places for the Republicans and Democrats to fight over in this area.
But, to make this long story only slightly longer, we can and should vote out of office those politicians, like Mr. Boehner and his cronies, who are adamantly obfuscating and obstructing this process. We need to hear from the silent majority of people who can see the simple logic of the facts as I've presented them, and insist our politicians do what we want them to do. Now.
(End Note: All of the percentages and figures I used, except for my simple examples, were taking from a variety of places both right- and left-wing on the internet. The data is easy to find and corroborate/correlate. Because of this, I did not link to the specific sites or locations.)
December 3, 2012
Blue October
I recently came across a band that has turned around my thinking, at least for today, called Blue October. I am not sure what genre most people would classify Blue October, as they have a lot of pop, many rock or even light metal, a couple of near rap, a couple of dance, and more than one slower songs. I guess a generic "pop/rock" will suffice for my needs.
Blue October first came to my notice with the songs released off of Foiled, their 2006 album, but I didn't learn about them until 2007. Somehow I was completely oblivious to this release or the videos from it (probably due in large part to the fact that music video channels never play music videos any more, but that is a different blog). I was listening to some videos via YouTube.com and Blue October came up on the side panel. It was the video for Into The Ocean. I watched it and was just blown away. I then watched the video for Hate Me and was similarly blown away. Knowing there were two songs I enjoyed so much, my wife purchased that album for my birthday that year.
In general, I think most people like music that they identify with. You connect with the pain, joy, honesty, or some other expression that the person or band emotes. Blue October performs songs that I pretty much have no connection to. The lead singer, Justin Furstenfeld, sings about his drug use/abuse, his toxic relationships with both family and lovers, his child, and his mental issues, none of which I have experienced. He sings with raw passion and great emotion, and I am more of a closed-off, introverted person.
What I connect to, I think, is twofold: First, the emotional and raw way Mr. Furstenfeld sings about anything in his life, and puts it out there for all to hear and see. I have a hard time with that, constantly thinking that it is always better to keep your pain and disappointments to yourself or those closest to you. Secondly, I am impressed with how he can write such bitter, angry, depressed, emotional songs and make them sound so upbeat and positive. It is sort of like the "Every Breath You Take" syndrome in that a lot of people just hear the music and the sound of Justin's voice and think many of the songs are positive when the lyrics are talking about him watching his wife have graphic infidelities, his hatred of himself and his drug problems, his murderous intent toward those who have wronged him, and other situations.
I have written poetry off and on since I was in High School. My poetry, while it has been praised on more than one occasion, tends to sound cold and clinic, because that is who I am. My strong inability to pour my emotions out on my sleeve for all to see makes my poems come across a bit technical. Mr. Furstenfeld's lyrics, however, are the opposite; they don't always work as "poetry," the rhyme and meter may be slightly off or forced in a song or in a chorus, but the raw, powerful, emotion with which he sings overcomes that. The honesty and feeling overwhelm me and I am entranced. In my Windows Media Player, there are two songs on Foiled that get 3 stars, Overweight and Everlasting Friend. Every other song gets either four or five stars, with three five-stars (Hate Me, Into the Ocean, and Congratulations).
Since Foiled I lost track of the band, content to bask in the admiration for that album. I was once again listening to some new music on YouTube.com when I noticed a Blue October song I didn't recognize in the right pane. I clicked and was blown away yet again. I soon discovered that they have released a couple more studio albums since Foiled, so I went to Amazon and listened to snippets of each album. Confident that I liked enough, I bought Approaching Normal and Any Man In America. After two listens each, I have two albums with no song receiving less than three stars and most of the songs getting four. As of right now, I only have two songs (one from each album) listed at five stars, but that may change as I listen some more. Frankly, it is unheard of for me to find three albums with no songs rated below a three and a total of five songs rated at five stars.
Blue October is not a band for everyone. I can completely understand why someone may not like them or not connect with their style of music. I am quite happy that I have found a band that I can enjoy so much, as the music industry has not produced much I've enjoyed the last ten years. Even tried and true favorites have been disappointments. The fact that I have purchased (or had purchased for me) three albums by one band is pretty significant.
Now to see if I like the songs on their other albums. Who knows, maybe a few more purchases are in my future?
November 25, 2012
More Cat Trauma
In addition to my previous post on this issue, I want to add that giving the owner a pain pill to give to their pet for three days in a row is also a trauma, both to the cat and to the owner.
Most owners do not have a "tried and true" method of giving their pet a pill. Some pets will eat anything their owner gives them, including medication. Some pets are so adept they can eat a pill pocket (makeshift or formal) without touching or consuming the pill. Many animals fall somewhere in between, and the owners have to try multiple methods with a limited supply of medication to find what works or discover everything that doesn't work.
We have learned that Sapphire is one of those pets who can manage to eat everything around the pill and not touch the pill. We got her to take about 1/3 of the pill the first two days, but once she tasted the medication (that first 1/3), she ate around it, spit it out, or otherwise refused to consume the other 2/3. We tried putting it in cheese, completely wrapped up... she ate the cheese and managed to spit out the untouched pill. We tried dissolving the pill in her water dish (being careful that the other cat didn't drink from it too), but she stopped drinking the water the moment we added the pill to it.
I know how and I am capable of opening my pet's mouth and putting a pill in such that they have to swallow it. However, that is additional trauma on top of the surgery, being away from home, being surrounded by people she didn't know, etc. I didn't want to make her upset with me, feel betrayed by me, on top of all of that. Especially when she was spending the majority of her time in the downstairs bedroom, which is her "safe zone."
As I said previously, there has to be some way to minimize the trauma to the pet and to the owner. I think it involves having the pet taken to the vet for spaying/neutering and then either staying there or returning to the shelter for the follow up (possibly with a new collar that shows by color that the pet has been taken and with the new owner's last name on it, or something similar, to denote the pet is no longer available). Only once the pet is fully ready to come home are the new owners called and asked to come get their pet. At that point, the pet only has to survive the trauma of riding in a car to their new "furever" home. Once there, they have nothing to do but integrate, be loved, and learn the rules of the new household.
Most owners do not have a "tried and true" method of giving their pet a pill. Some pets will eat anything their owner gives them, including medication. Some pets are so adept they can eat a pill pocket (makeshift or formal) without touching or consuming the pill. Many animals fall somewhere in between, and the owners have to try multiple methods with a limited supply of medication to find what works or discover everything that doesn't work.
We have learned that Sapphire is one of those pets who can manage to eat everything around the pill and not touch the pill. We got her to take about 1/3 of the pill the first two days, but once she tasted the medication (that first 1/3), she ate around it, spit it out, or otherwise refused to consume the other 2/3. We tried putting it in cheese, completely wrapped up... she ate the cheese and managed to spit out the untouched pill. We tried dissolving the pill in her water dish (being careful that the other cat didn't drink from it too), but she stopped drinking the water the moment we added the pill to it.
I know how and I am capable of opening my pet's mouth and putting a pill in such that they have to swallow it. However, that is additional trauma on top of the surgery, being away from home, being surrounded by people she didn't know, etc. I didn't want to make her upset with me, feel betrayed by me, on top of all of that. Especially when she was spending the majority of her time in the downstairs bedroom, which is her "safe zone."
As I said previously, there has to be some way to minimize the trauma to the pet and to the owner. I think it involves having the pet taken to the vet for spaying/neutering and then either staying there or returning to the shelter for the follow up (possibly with a new collar that shows by color that the pet has been taken and with the new owner's last name on it, or something similar, to denote the pet is no longer available). Only once the pet is fully ready to come home are the new owners called and asked to come get their pet. At that point, the pet only has to survive the trauma of riding in a car to their new "furever" home. Once there, they have nothing to do but integrate, be loved, and learn the rules of the new household.
November 21, 2012
Spayed and Neutered
NOTE: This post is about the process involved in getting an adopted pet spayed or neutered in our town. It is not about the effect of the surgery on an animal.
We dropped our new handful off at the vet today to get spayed. Getting her into her carrier was traumatic, getting her out of the carrier at the vet office was traumatic, and being left to have a major surgery all alone is traumatic.
Here's my issue: in this town, the SPCA does not have a mandatory spay/neuter rule. So, when you pick up a pet from their facilities, or a satellite facility (like we did), you do not know if the pet is spayed or neutered. Basically, the pet has the trauma of living in a shelter's small cages, rooms, or whatever for days, weeks, months, then gets the trauma of being taken to a brand new home with new people it needs to learn about and get along with (and possibly children), and then it has to have the trauma of shots, surgery, and recovery shortly thereafter.
In the end, I think this is too much trauma for the animal to bear repeatedly over a short period of time. If, however, the SPCA had a rule that any pet brought into its facility was spayed/neutered and given its first round of shots (and they recuperated the costs when the pet was adopted), then the major traumas would all be out of the way all at once. Yes, it means that the SPCA would be constantly running a deficit in this area, as not every pet will get adopted or will be adopted quickly, but you KNOW that EVERY cat that has been to the SPCA is a) relatively healthy (due to shots being given) and b) spayed or neutered.
Alternately, when you want to adopt a pet, the adoption location arranges the pet to be sent to a vet for its shots and spay/neuter via the SPCA. This is performed by one of the in-network vets, they keep the animal overnight to make sure everything is okay, and then the facility (whether SPCA or satellite) keeps the pet for a couple of days to ensure it is eating and drinking. When you come to pick the pet up and take it to its "furever" home, you are seen only as the white knight and your and its only job from that point forward for the next year (until booster shots are needed) is to bond and love one another.
As it is, our little Sapphire is now associating us with going to the vet, getting shots, and now major, traumatic surgery. She is scared of her carrier case and, when we try to put her in it, she freaks out and becomes violent. All of this coming just one month after entering our home and the trauma of learning the rules here, leaving its previous environment, and learning to get along with our existing pet.
I think I've proposed at least two better, less traumatic ways to deal with this.
We dropped our new handful off at the vet today to get spayed. Getting her into her carrier was traumatic, getting her out of the carrier at the vet office was traumatic, and being left to have a major surgery all alone is traumatic.
Here's my issue: in this town, the SPCA does not have a mandatory spay/neuter rule. So, when you pick up a pet from their facilities, or a satellite facility (like we did), you do not know if the pet is spayed or neutered. Basically, the pet has the trauma of living in a shelter's small cages, rooms, or whatever for days, weeks, months, then gets the trauma of being taken to a brand new home with new people it needs to learn about and get along with (and possibly children), and then it has to have the trauma of shots, surgery, and recovery shortly thereafter.
In the end, I think this is too much trauma for the animal to bear repeatedly over a short period of time. If, however, the SPCA had a rule that any pet brought into its facility was spayed/neutered and given its first round of shots (and they recuperated the costs when the pet was adopted), then the major traumas would all be out of the way all at once. Yes, it means that the SPCA would be constantly running a deficit in this area, as not every pet will get adopted or will be adopted quickly, but you KNOW that EVERY cat that has been to the SPCA is a) relatively healthy (due to shots being given) and b) spayed or neutered.
Alternately, when you want to adopt a pet, the adoption location arranges the pet to be sent to a vet for its shots and spay/neuter via the SPCA. This is performed by one of the in-network vets, they keep the animal overnight to make sure everything is okay, and then the facility (whether SPCA or satellite) keeps the pet for a couple of days to ensure it is eating and drinking. When you come to pick the pet up and take it to its "furever" home, you are seen only as the white knight and your and its only job from that point forward for the next year (until booster shots are needed) is to bond and love one another.
As it is, our little Sapphire is now associating us with going to the vet, getting shots, and now major, traumatic surgery. She is scared of her carrier case and, when we try to put her in it, she freaks out and becomes violent. All of this coming just one month after entering our home and the trauma of learning the rules here, leaving its previous environment, and learning to get along with our existing pet.
I think I've proposed at least two better, less traumatic ways to deal with this.
November 12, 2012
Skyfall Review
Skyfall is a very good film, and likely one of the best in the Bond franchise overall. Yet I still found myself feeling the nearly 2.5 hour run-time. In discussing with my wife afterward, we couldn't think of any scenes or areas that should be cut out, yet we still wanted a shorter run-time.
The actors all do a great job and the action scenes are very well done. The opening sequence obviously uses CGI of the actor's faces on the stunt-people's bodies during the motorcycle scene and fight on the train. I expect a better editing job than that on a Bond film. I had the feeling that each sequence was a bit too long, however, and could have been cut down a bit and could have moved on to the plot faster. For example, they could have cut some time out of the motorcycle chase on the rooftops and some of the fight on the train... just a few snips and a minute or two here and there would have made it tighter and more concise (and the action more breathtaking and immediate).
The story is pretty good, overall, and Javier Bardem is great as the villain (being a quirky villain is becoming something he may get type-cast as). One scene I guess that could be cut entirely is the one introducing and providing exposition by Severine. Berenice Marlohe, while beautiful, is there really only to convey what a monster Silva is. Any time you are TELLING an audience something, you are missing an opportunity to SHOW them the same thing. Bardem is convincing enough to make the audience realize just how crazy he is without the need for Severine telling them. Just to be specific: there is nothing wrong with those scenes or the actors in them. They do a very good job. But the entire point of the scene is for Severine to tell Bond that her employer is crazy/evil and to include another fight scene. Cut it and get someone, preferably Bond or Q, to realize where Silva is hiding (since Silva wants to be caught, maybe have Q find the information in Silva's program or something), and then head to the island. This is much more action-oriented and involving than being told, even by a beautiful woman.
SPOILER ALERT (Highlight to read text)
My one complaint is that M could have been killed in a much more dramatic way when Silva storms the ministry building. After giving her impassioned speech about security and feeling safe, it would have been nice if Silva had actually shot her there and then, making Bond angry and heading after the bad guy. Having her survive and having Bond take her into hiding to use as bait for Silva didn't feel as "right" for the characters or the scene. Having her shot dead right there, and Bond being too late to save his adopted mother figure, would explain Bond's cold demeanor even better than how the movie ended.
END SPOILER
All in all, this is a very good action film and a very good entry in the Bond series. I enjoy Craig as Bond and like the cast around him. I look forward to the next movie. On my usual grading scale, I'd give it a B+, the main negative being running time and over-done action sequences (which aren't very negative, so only drop it half a grade).
Casino Royale
Quantum of Solace
The actors all do a great job and the action scenes are very well done. The opening sequence obviously uses CGI of the actor's faces on the stunt-people's bodies during the motorcycle scene and fight on the train. I expect a better editing job than that on a Bond film. I had the feeling that each sequence was a bit too long, however, and could have been cut down a bit and could have moved on to the plot faster. For example, they could have cut some time out of the motorcycle chase on the rooftops and some of the fight on the train... just a few snips and a minute or two here and there would have made it tighter and more concise (and the action more breathtaking and immediate).
The story is pretty good, overall, and Javier Bardem is great as the villain (being a quirky villain is becoming something he may get type-cast as). One scene I guess that could be cut entirely is the one introducing and providing exposition by Severine. Berenice Marlohe, while beautiful, is there really only to convey what a monster Silva is. Any time you are TELLING an audience something, you are missing an opportunity to SHOW them the same thing. Bardem is convincing enough to make the audience realize just how crazy he is without the need for Severine telling them. Just to be specific: there is nothing wrong with those scenes or the actors in them. They do a very good job. But the entire point of the scene is for Severine to tell Bond that her employer is crazy/evil and to include another fight scene. Cut it and get someone, preferably Bond or Q, to realize where Silva is hiding (since Silva wants to be caught, maybe have Q find the information in Silva's program or something), and then head to the island. This is much more action-oriented and involving than being told, even by a beautiful woman.
Matter of fact, the entire scene, plus fight scene and sex scene, could have been axed in favor of this: Bond enters bar, has witty repartee with Eve. Goes to cashier and cashes in chip. She is seen telling someone about it (maybe Severine), and Bond walks out of bar. As he exits, he is surrounded by five armed men, one of whom says, "Our boss wants to speak with you." He is taken to Silva's island. Much shorter, to the point, and it gets you to the action of SEEING how crazy Silva is that much sooner.The movie has many homages to the older Bond films, mostly Connery's, but they are worked in in such a way as to be pretty funny but soas not to take you out of the story. My wife didn't care for the many references to age versus youth and the potential for obsolescence as you get older. I didn't mind it so much, but they did make three very obvious references... they could have been more subtle in the writing in these instances.
SPOILER ALERT (Highlight to read text)
My one complaint is that M could have been killed in a much more dramatic way when Silva storms the ministry building. After giving her impassioned speech about security and feeling safe, it would have been nice if Silva had actually shot her there and then, making Bond angry and heading after the bad guy. Having her survive and having Bond take her into hiding to use as bait for Silva didn't feel as "right" for the characters or the scene. Having her shot dead right there, and Bond being too late to save his adopted mother figure, would explain Bond's cold demeanor even better than how the movie ended.
END SPOILER
All in all, this is a very good action film and a very good entry in the Bond series. I enjoy Craig as Bond and like the cast around him. I look forward to the next movie. On my usual grading scale, I'd give it a B+, the main negative being running time and over-done action sequences (which aren't very negative, so only drop it half a grade).
Casino Royale
Quantum of Solace
November 7, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)