Recently in Politics Category

This week, John McCain has sunk himself into a pretty deep hole. The biggest hole though comes from an interview he had with Katie Couric on CBS News. Well...just watch for yourself and you'll see what I mean:

What's most troubling about this is the fact that CBS deliberately edited the interview. As to the motivations for doing so, I don't know. This is a level of journalism though that is, frankly, complete and total bullshit. You either report the news as it is or you don't. If you can't bother to show me an unaltered, unbiased interview then don't bother even reporting it.

Once the unedited version broke out though, many members of the media and press pointed out that McCain didn't have his facts right regarding the Anbar Awakening and the surge in Iraq. It didn't take long for McCain to respond to this bit of criticism. However, the response he gave was even more troubling:

Umm...what? I mean, what the f#$k is he even talking about? I have no idea!

And what is that behind him? Cheese! McCain be spoutin' some cheese, man! Can I get some string cheese on my cracka, John!

Ok, ok. Maybe I took it a little too far in that last bit. But I digress.

The point is that McCain had no idea what he was talking about. But rather than simply admitting that he was wrong, he rambled on in an attempt to try and sound like he knew what he was talking about. That's the absolute worst thing McCain could have done in this situation...and he did it anyways! That, my friends, is simply poor judgment. Regardless of how anyone can attempt to fix McCain's mistake, no matter how many ways you can try and spin it, McCain simply exercised poor judgment and failed to use three words that would have been a hell of a lot more respectful for him to say in this case: "I don't know". Instead, McCain chose to bullshit the American people rather than admitting his mistakes, which is not a good sign of proper leadership.

As much media coverage as Obama has received, you'd think that we would have heard Obama try and bullshit us just once. Ironically, I have not heard him talk about things for which he knew nothing about. He's very good at articulating his thoughts and, in fact, I've heard Obama say "I don't know" on a number of occasions. I respect that. I respect the fact that Obama has no problems admitting when he doesn't know enough about a topic. I also respect him for admitting when he is wrong or when he mispoke and poorly phrased his statements, which doesn't happen nearly as often as one would think. If anything, Obama has proven that he is human, that he's going to make mistakes, but that he will learn through them and try not to repeat them. That, my friends, is a great sign of good leadership. Regardless of whether I agree with all his policies or not, he'll have my vote.

Out of any office in the land, the one position where I feel that it's critical that one be a good public speaker is the United States Presidency. Being a good speaker, though, is more than just being able to deliver a good speech. It's also about being able to articulate your thoughts in an eloquent manner in the moment, whether that be in an interview, in front of a foreign dignitary, or another situation of equal importance. The President is, for all intents and purposes, the speaker for the American people both domestically and abroad. As such, he/she best be able to speak well in an effort to articulate properly the message of our government and, more importantly, the people.

John McCain simply isn't a good candidate to represent our country. I'm amazed that so many Americans think of him as the safe choice. Why? How safe can he be when he can't even say "I don't know" and can't admit that he doesn't know enough to answer a specific question? If McCain were to become President, he would have to exercise good judgment each and every day. When he addresses the American people, he would have to use straight talk and tell the American people the truth each and every time.

As it is though, the only straight talk McCain is giving us is a straight talk about Jack and shit. Unfortunately for McCain though, Jack just left town.

Last week, the illustrious Ann Coulter did a blog post called THIS IS NOT A DRILL where she yet again takes people's quotes out of context and doesn't get the facts in an effort to make her enemy (which pretty much includes any Democrats and people who have even a slight liberal stance) look bad. When she gets it right she gets it mostly right. However, when she gets it wrong she gets it really wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? Let's see:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, "the worst speaker in the history of Congress," explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: "We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect."

You're only partially right, Ann. First, calling Nancy Pelosi the "worst" is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't have much of an opinion of her really. But her quote was back in 2006. Things were much different two years ago. This quote in particular was in direct response to a plan that Bush outlined in an effort to cut gas prices. Bush's plan seemed to assume that the pumps at the gast stations were the problem and had less to do with the big oil companies and the situation in the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Explain this, Ann: Why are big oil companies getting no-bid oil contracts in Iraq? Even the New York Times said that no-bid contracts like this were unusual. And being that the current administration is all over Iraq, do you think maybe they had something to do with this? Even a little bit? Did Bush's energy plan in 2006 have anything to do with this? Probably not...but it wouldn't hurt to investigate it. Who the hell knows!

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: "President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay's oil-company interests." The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I'm not even "an oilman."

Ah-ha! First misquote and misrepresentation of facts.

First of all, the 2003 blackout wasn't just a "failure of humans". An investigation found that a failure to trim some trees in parts of Ohio may have been the main cause. However, there was a software bug in the computer systems as well that caused all sorts of problems. The end result was a cascading failure of systems that caused a massive blackout.

This particular event caused rise of many questions regarding the need to upgrade and modernize power grids to avoid catastrophic failures such as these. Many members of congress urged Congress for legislation of a new energy bill. Pelosi herself was among these members. But the efforts were muddled with fights about oil drilling and subsidies for nuclear power and environmental issues. The Bush administration was concentrating its efforts on oil drilling with the energy bill, of which Pelosi replied:

President Bush and Tom DeLay put the interests of the energy companies before the interests of the American people by insisting we drill in A.N.W.R. and other environmentally sensitive areas rather than modernize our energy system.

So, as usual, Ann, you took someone out of context and didn't read the facts. Don't assume you know enough.

This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of "American Idol."

Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than you. You may have graduated from Cornell University with a law degree but it doesn't look like you did much as a lawyer. Obama on the other hand graduated from Harvard, was a practicing attorney in Chicago, taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, and became the Senator of Illinois in 1996. You can't do all that if you're a moron. This guy is smart! Smarter than me! Smarter than you! He has more enough experience. He knows a hell of a lot more about what the Constitution says and what it implies than you do. Do you? Hell, when is the last time you've even read the Constitution?

Announcing the Democrats' bold new "plan" on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "is one alternative." That's not an energy plan. It's using what we already have -- much like "conservation," which is also part of the Democrats' plan.

No, that's only one part an energy plan. More drilling is not a solution that has immediate effects. Even it we were to allow oil companies to start drilling in ANWR and other areas we won't see that oil for at least another 5 years. Pelosi was calling on Bush to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves now so that we can see some immediate effects on gas prices at least within the United States.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day." Great! We'll die a little more slowly. That's not what we call a "plan." We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

Right, because a Hummer that gets 12 MPG isn't really a problem. And, um, an analogy about eating less? In a country that has a high rate of obesity that might not be a good analogy.

Conservation and efficiency is only a part of the plan but not an end to a means. No one can deny that using our energy more efficiently is a good thing. Hell, I use fluorescent light bulbs that have the output of a 60 watt light bulb and they only take up 16 watts. That's the sort efficiency we're talking about here.

But there's more! Pelosi announced that the Democrats also plan to push for "an historic investment in biofuels, efficiency, conservation and the rest." The "rest" is apparently what she called our "important and essential" investment in alternative energy.

That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.

Sitting around and saying "Well, we can't do that! That's a waste of time!" isn't a solution either, Ann. More oil and more drilling isn't a solution. At the very least, investing in the research and development of alternative energy solutions is a start. Again, it's not the end to a means. It's just a start. That's a whole lot better than nothing at all to me.

The proposal to use energy sources that don't yet produce any energy is like the old New Yorker cartoon with Obama in Muslim garb -- no wait, that was a different cartoon. The cartoon is: A scientist has written out his extremely complicated theory on a blackboard and is showing it to another scientist. The theory consists of numbers and characters and takes up the entire blackboard. About two-thirds of the way across, reading left to right, appear the words, "then a miracle happens," followed by more numbers and characters.

No comment. You dissed both Obama and scientists in the same sentence. Next sentence.

That's the Democrats' plan to run cars on biofuels, solar and wind power: Then a miracle happens. The current Democratic mantra on energy is: "We can't drill our way out of this problem." Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.

You make it sound like that's the only part of the plan. Yes, eventually we'll be able to rely more on alternative energy sources...but we're talking years down the line. Biofuels, solar, and wind power are only part of that. Democrats are right, we can't just drill our way out of this problem because drilling would require five years till we see the results of that drilling. That's five years we don't have. Yeah, we could start it..but we would still need to think about what to do that would have immediate effects.

Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill -- presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don't want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.

Because there is much about the oil companies that has many suspicious. Again, I already mentioned something about the no-bid contracts in Iraq. Oil companies are already profitable. And, yes, I do believe that they have reserves that they don't want to tap into. Think about it. If you were an oil company and you remained profitable, would you want to tap into your reserves if you didn't have to? No, you would not. You would hold onto your reserves until such a time as you are unable to get any oil from the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. Think of them as reserved profits.

If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they'd allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.

But they don't. They don't want drilling. They don't want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.

Sigh. Now you're just being melodramatic. Next.

It's good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we're fantasizing about "alternative" energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats' lies.

Again, no comment. This is about as hypocritical as it gets. Ann, your total neo-conservative views are blinding you to the fact that not all Democrats are liars any more than all Republicans are liars. And yet time and time again you yourself have lied in the form of misquotes, the misrepresentation of the facts, and a point of view that all Democrats are liars. It's not healthy for the Republican party or for the conservative movement, Ann.

The problem is this: our energy policy sucks! And, quite frankly, I don't care which side solves the problem. All I care about is that someone is actually attempting to get it done. If that means more drilling then do more drilling, but do it in a way that is still environmentally conscience. We do have the technology to drill in a way that is environmentally conscience; why isn't anyone talking about that? If part of the solution requires tapping into the reserves to provide immediate economic relief then, dammit, just do it!

However, I'm still all for alternative energy sources and I think it would be highly foolish to not invest in the further research and development of these sources, proven or not. The solution to our energy problems is not just one solution; it's an animal that is multi-layered. Till you understand that you're never going to get it.

Next time, do your homework, Ann! You really need to get a grip.

P.S.: Read up on the Pickens Plan. Interesting stuff.

When the primaries began for the Presidential election, I tried to go into it with an open mind and look at each of the possible Presidential candidates without any political bias. However, I quickly discovered that there has been something about the Republican party that I simply didn't like. Granted, I already had a disdain for the likes of President Bush and most of his administration, but there was something else. Something I couldn't quite put my finger on until now.

Recently, I watched an episode of Bill Moyers Journal where Bill interviewed former Republican congressman Mickey Edwards and Ross Douthat, senior editor at The Atlantic. During the interview, it was Mickey Edwards that said a few things that really illustrated how I felt:

Republicans used to believe in a certain set of basic principles about divided powers, limited government. What happened is with the Bush presidency, we have become the exact opposite of what we used to stand for. So we may win elections but we are now standing for...an all-powerful presidency..limits on public civil liberties...So we've changed everything we believed in order to win elections.

Over the last seven years or so, little by little, it seemed that many of the civil liberties we take for granted were being taken away from us. For all intents and purposes our Constitution was stomped on and wasn't treated with the respect and purpose that it deserved. History tells us that when once something like this happens that it's difficult to reverse the damage.

Justice Kennedy said...in the Guantanamo case...the Constitution is not something to be set aside when it's convenient.

And we have this tendency to do it. Every year as we do things like this, we lose a little more of our system of separated powers and checks and balances. And I'm not as sanguine as you are about the fact that we can go back to what the constitutional system was, which is how we protect our liberties.

It is this very thing that I was looking for out of the Republican candidates. Did they believe in the Constitution? Did they believe in protecting our liberties? Or was the false notion of protecting the security of our nation more important?

In essence, the very things I thought the Republican party stood for was being stripped away. I thought, "Surely these new Republican candidates would strive to regenerate it." Unfortunately, that didn't appear to be the case. About the only candidate that seemed to reflect true Republican values was Ron Paul, but even he wasn't a perfect reflection of the party. The primaries came and went and the choice was narrowed down to a candidate that seemed to be closer to President Bush rather than a candidate who truly represented the party. How did that happen?

The problem is that the American people are being fed a different message about what the Republican party is really all about. They are being told that the Republican party is about true conservative values, traditional family values, preserving those values, and making the right choices to protect our freedom from enemies abroad. But is this really the Republican party? Is it a requirement that you be a member of the conservative movement to be considered a Republican? And is the definition of conservatism even accurate?

Many people when they think of conservative government, they automatically assume small government or simply less government. They also assume that being a conservative means that you are a part of the moral Right. However, Edwards said something that really puts it all in perspective:

Well, first of all, you know, I don't think the rationale of the conservatism is small government. It's limited government, but that doesn't necessarily mean small. It means that there are areas that you cannot take government into. There are there are areas where the rights of the people are paramount. So...in the old system..before America, you had rulers and their subjects, right?

And the rulers told their subjects what to do. And our idea was...we're going to be citizens, not subjects. And we're going to tell the government what to do. And there are areas where the government's not permitted to go. But within those areas the government can act. It - nothing that says it has to be a tiny government if the people themselves are willing to pay the taxes and to support certain activities for the government and it's within the Constitution, that's fine.

This is, to me, what the true definition of conservatisim really is in politics. It simply means a way of government that doesn't go in places where it shouldn't. It's about protecting the individual and stepping in when individual rights are being effected. I feel that conservatism has more to do with the government seeking proper regulation and oversight rather than telling the people what to do.

The problem is that true conservatism has been taken over by neo-conservatives within the Republican party ranks in thanks to what Arianna Huffington calls the lunatic fringe:

The Right has been taken over... by the Neo-conservatives who have been wanting to invade Iraq for years. And as the result the Right of the Ronald Reagan era is no longer the Right. It's now the Right of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly...They've hijacked America by hijacking public policy.

Folks like Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity of Fox News have done little for the Republican party and conservative movement other than showing its shortcomings. They have a tendency to twist, stretch, and distort the truth and outright lie in an effort to make themselves seem more right. And the sad thing is that doing so creates the form of hypocrisy that they are critiquing. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Is the lunatic fringe the new face of the Republican party? If so, why aren't there any true Republican denouncing the attitudes of these so-called members of the media. It's a radical departure at best from what the Republican party used to be. I just don't understand why so many people who claim themselves to be Republican and/or conservative find this to be perfectly acceptable.

Unlike the lunatic fringe, I firmly believe that having a particular political belief (conservative, liberal, or somewhere in-between) does not automatically mean you are part of a specific political party. I believe that regardless of whether you have liberal or conservative beliefs you can be a part of any political party. Liberals can be Republicans and conservatives can be Democrats and vice versa. In short, labels should mean nothing.

It boils down to this: Regardless of one's political beliefs, anyone can have family values, have faith in one's religion, and/or be patriotic. Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative, it simply doesn't matter. Being one or the other doesn't automatically mean that a person thinks any more or any less of their country. It simply means that they have a slightly different way of looking at it that you do from a purely political perspective.

Last I checked we're all Americans here. Everyone is entitled to one's beliefs and opinions. It's given to us by the Constitution. To take it for granted and allow any political system to tell you otherwise would be the very disaster our forefathers fought to keep from happening. Don't forget that when deciding how you will vote in this election.

It's been a while since I've done any political posts on McCain. To be honest, I'm getting to a point where I'm so burned out on even trying to get any reasonable research to post. The kind of research I was aiming to do takes a lot of time to collate and put together in a form that's presentable on the web. We're talking tons of material from The Library of Congress on both candidate's Senate records and each candidates positions based on the material freely available on their websites. Frankly, I think anyone who wishes to have an educated opinion on each of these candidates really needs to get on these sites and take some time to really read up on them. For now though, I'll keep my posts centered on very specific areas.

Last week, my wife forwarded me a post made on The Carpetbagger Report entitled
"Jukebox John changes his tune every few minutes". Author Steven Benen talks about how McCain has not been very consistent with his position on different policies and lists 60 different issues McCain has flip-flopped on. It's quite an extensive list but, to name a few, here's some of the ones (and perhaps the most dangerous ones) that really stick out for me:

1. McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
3. McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."
4. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
5. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
6. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.
7. McCain's first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn't be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
8. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
9. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated," and "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a "very strong" understanding of economics.
10. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were "too tilted to the wealthy." By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
11. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn't.
12. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
13. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
14. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn't.

Be sure and visit the site and read the others. Links are provided to legitimate sources that cite each of these positions.

Sure, people change their minds everyday, but for one man to constantly go back and forth on so many issues, that's more than just simply changing your mind. It would seem that McCain's position changes if it suits him politically. But, unlike McCain, Obama has always seemed very consistent in his positions. And when he has changed his mind he's always been pretty good at explaining why. Not so with McCain.

Keith Olbermann some weeks back on Countdown mentioned many of the same points:

This weekend, I plan on posting another blog entry as sort of a followup to this post. I think my main criticism of McCain is that McCain is not a good representative of the Republican Party. Hell, I don't think even the Republican Party is a good body of representation for true Republicans and conservatives alike, much less McCain. This is what I'll be targeting with my next post. I think once you read it you'll clearly understand where my criticism of McCain is coming from and why I think it's unwise for so many Republican's to embrace him simply because he is a Republican.

More on that later...

Today, my wife sent me a link to a bumper sticker that said "All Your Fears Are Lies". This made me think about a recent e-mail I received regarding a man in Canada who had problems receiving proper health care:

A Short Course On Brain Surgery Worth Watching...

A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems. Everyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 NEEDS to see this. Regardless of the person for whom they would vote. Please forward this to everyone you can think of as soon as you can.

The problem with e-mails like this is that it makes the bumper sticker seem a whole lot more true. People do indeed fear what is essentially a lie. There's no doubt in my mind that the system of healthcare in Canada can cause many problems for many Canadians. I don't think anyone can deny that. The part of this video I disagree with is the last part where the narrator says this:

"Isn't it ironic that while the Canadian government's monopoly on health care is slowly crumbling in the face of widespread suffering, liberal Democrats in the U.S. are pushing to adopt a system much like the one that has failed so miserably in Canada."

Which Democrats want to create a true socialized heath care system like Canada? Obama? Nope. He doesn't want to create a total socialized heath care system. He just wants to insure that everyone in America has access to affordable health insurance. Read the attached documents and tell me exactly what parts of it are not true and what parts make it a socialized system. Seriously, read each of these thoroughly and completely. These are taken straight off of Obama's web site:

Barack Obama's Plan for a Healthy America

Background Question and Answers on Health Care Plan

Now compare the very well thought out, highly detailed verbiage in these documents to McCain's web site. Notice a difference? Not to knock on McCain but personally it looks like McCain is really good at identifying all the problems but not providing any real solutions...just band-aids.

The problem with health insurance in this country is that it's not accessible and unaffordable to many Americans that are without health care insurance. Unless you work at a job that either provides full coverage or really cheap health insurance then you're pretty much screwed if you can't afford it on your own. I know this because I've personally been shopping for health insurance and, yes, it's expensive!

Wal-Mart is a good example of a company that, although provides a health insurance plan, doesn't follow through to insure that every employee can afford it. Here's what it says straight off their own web site:

Every associate who works in the United States can become eligible for individual health coverage costing as little as $5 per month in some areas and as little as $8 per month nationwide. As soon as an associate becomes eligible for benefits, their children become eligible too.

Today, more than 92 percent of associates have health insurance--either through us or through other coverage. For our associates who choose coverage with Wal-Mart, we also offer more than 2,400 generic prescription drugs for $4. This includes prescription drugs to treat everything from diabetes to heart disease.

Wal-Mart associates will find more than 50 ways to customize their health coverage. They can select from a menu of deductibles, health care coverage options, and health credits and premiums.

We want associates and their families to have the peace of mind that their healthcare needs will be met, especially when they need it most. To ensure that peace of mind, Wal-Mart's health coverage includes no lifetime maximums on most health care expenses.

92% insured? Really? So, by that measure, Wal-Mart went from only 50% insured to 92% insured in just 6 months. Check out this article on the New York Times website dated January 23, 2008:

Wal-Mart Says More Than Half Its Workers Have Its Health Insurance

This is a company that makes billions of dollars a year and 50% of their employees can't even afford to buy the insurance provided to them. Granted, some of them probably have spouses that get insurance from their employer. But what about the ones that don't? Where do they get health insurance? Right. Social services which consequently come right out of the taxes we pay. If even two-thirds of the estimated 1.4 million Wal-Mart employees have insurance that would still leave over 900,000 employees who are forced to used government provided programs for health care and other needs. Yeah, Wal-Mart sure is taking care of their employees alright.

This isn't an Obama vs McCain, Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, Socialism vs Capitalism issue. This is an issue that affects peoples lives. And, like the video about Canada, it can be a matter of life and death for some people. It's one thing to claim that providing affordable healthcare is socialism. It's another when doing virtually nothing to address the problem is the alternative solution. Millions of people in America can't afford health care. What do we say to them?

I personally believe that regardless of whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Independant, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever that you can still look upon others who are on the opposite side of the fence and see eye to eye on the issues that effect our country. But its not till we can seriously talk about the issues and discuss the solutions till we can get to that point. It's one thing to talk about the problems. It's another to really address them and come up with worthwhile solutions. Not every solution is perfect...but if the politicians we are voting for can at least propose good, solid, well thought out solutions based on the facts then that is a step in the right direction. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm voting for who I believe to be the person who is trying to address the problems and come up with worthwhile solutions. Again, they may not be 100% perfect...but they're solutions nonetheless.

My job as a web developer is much harder when ideas aren't flowing. Each and every project has to start somewhere. Even if the ideas aren't perfect you have to start somewhere. A good start on coming up with ideas, even flawed ones, is much better than no start at all. Wouldn't you agree?

Steve Tobak posted an article on his CNet blog today called How much does corporate fraud cost you? His comments raise some good questions and I think point out one of the primary reasons why our economy is what it is today.

Corporate greed has run amok for many, many years in this country. Now, you may say "That's just capitalism!" and pretend that corporate greed doesn't cause problems in this country. Unfortunately, corporations do have a greater hold on things than most people realize. One of the contributing factors of how bills are written and passed in Congress has to do with the influence of lobbyists...lobbyists who are employed full-time to lobby for a specific industry or company. To me, the sheet existence of these lobbyists means that they will have a greater influence than you and I on what bills are passed and how they are written. You can't tell me that that doesn't have a serious impact on how our government mandates things. It would seem that corporate greed is what drives political corruption in many circumstances.

What's worse, our taxes are what pay for situations when corporate greed creates a collapse in a specific industry. Consider the recent events with Bear Stearns, an investment firm that was recently acquired by JP Morgan Chase and had ties to the current subprime mortgage crisis. This is a company that, had JP Morgan Chase not buy them out, would likely have cost taxpayers at least $3.2 billion in bail-outs due to lost investments. Bear Stearns was also accused of elevating the values of certain assets and investments even though they were worth much less. As to the validity of these accusations, I'm not certain, but the existence of lawsuits dealing with this does raise questions as to the integrity of the company.

The subprime mortgage crisis is a primary example of corporate greed. I have no doubt that some people made a ton of money off of this situation. Not every bank, borrower, and/or financial institution participated in the practice of predatory lending but I'm sure quite a few did. Regardless, I think the situation was caused by poor decisions by the companies granting the mortgages. To bail them out would be rewarding bad decisions. Personally I think these companies should allow home owners to refinance their home, get into a mortgage with a fixed interest rate, and increase the number of years on the mortgage so their payments are lower. A Congress without the influence of the mortgage industry could pass legislation for this. But given the current situation, I'm not sure if this will happen. A bail-out for subprime mortgages could still happen, a bail-out that would be payed for by taxpayers.

Then there's Enron, an ex-poster child for corporate greed in this country. Here's a company that due to shady accounting practices and greedy executives allowed the company skipped out on paying millions (possibly billions) in taxes, led to one of the largest bankruptcies in history, caused thousands of employees to lose their pensions, and ended with the indictment of two Enron executives, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Lay obviously couldn't handle it and shortly died later of a heart attack prior to sentencing. Skilling is currently serving a 24-year sentence in a Minnesota prison.

The current poster child for greed in this country is Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart makes billions of dollars in profit and yet their stores cost taxpayers money. Yes, there is a cost for low prices. Many employees earn wages that are below the poverty line. Approximately 50% of all Wal-Mart employees can't afford the health insurance that the company offers. As such, many Wal-Mart employees are among the working poor and are forced to use social services to get health care, food stamps, and other needs. I've even heard reports of Wal-Mart employees using food stamps to purchase items in the same store they work at. What does this mean for you? It means that part of your tax dollars are helping to pay for the social services used by Wal-Mart employees in your area. For a company that earns billions a year you'd think they would make sure their employees are taken care of and don't have to resort to using social services.

Not every company is bad, but a lot of corporations don't care about you. They only care about the shareholder and their bottom-line. And greed is so powerful that shareholders and corporate executives would never considered reducing their own salaries and earnings just to ensure that their employees are happy.

So what can you do about it?

First, you can vote for politicians who won't be corrupted or heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. Educate yourself on the issues. Put your political differences asside and learn something about the politicians you're voting for.

Second, you can support and buy from companies that treat their employees fairly and promote a better economy. You don't have to buy from Wal-Mart or any other company that cares more about profit than their own employees. Remember that it's ok to spend a little more if it means buying from a company that cares about you and their employees.

Corporate greed is one of the main problems that exists in our country. It doesn't have to be that way though. It can change and it doesn't even require a so-called socialist attitude either. It just requires a little common sense on the voting public.

From now on, I will go by the name Jeffrey Hussein Whitfield:

Obama Supporters Take His Name as Their Own

It's ridiculous that some Republicans and other pundits use Barack Obama's middle name in such a way as to associate him with Muslims and/or terrorists. Even members of my own family had stated their belief that he has Middle Easter ties. Complete and total bullshit. So, yeah, I love what these guys are doing. Great way to show just how ridiculous it is.

About a week or so ago, Ann Coulter published yet another doozie of a blog post entitled "Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001". Now, you'd think I'd be wise and simply ignore her antics, but to be honest I find it very difficult to ignore this level of ignorance and stupidity. The problem is that there are others who actually believe that what Ann writes about is dead-on correct, that is that her opinion is indeed fact, and that she is telling it like it is. Being that Ann is part of what Arianna Huffington calls the lunatic fringe, I find it only fair that I deconstruct what Ann has written and essentially show just how ridiculous her presumptions are. So, let's start at the beginning of her post:

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

You're surprised, Ann? Bush has an approval rating that is less that 30%. Why wouldn't anyone be surprised by that comment? You're the minority, Ann. And this sounds made up.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Congratulations! All that propaganda and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that Bush, Cheney, and others have spread actually worked. You actually believe that just because we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11 that we're actually safer? And that we have Bush to thank for that? And that makes him a "great President"? What planet are you living on? Do you realize that some of our civil liberties have been taken from us because of the Bush administration? And you think that's ok because, after all, we're safer and we having had another terrorist attack? Ann, our forefathers would roll over in their grave if they knew that we sacrificed our civil liberties just to protect our borders.

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

Pop quiz, Ann! What's worse? Getting caught getting a blowjob from an intern? Or getting caught lying about the reasons for sending hundreds of thousands of troops to either get killed or seriously injured? And, yes, Bush lied. He said so himself that the intelligence was faulty and went to war with Iraq anyways. Yes, Hussein was a bad guy and eventually had to be dealt with...but there was little or no intelligence linking him directly to al-Qaeda. But the Bush administration continued on, lied to the American public, failed to listen to the United Nations, and went to war anyways even though it had little or nothing to do with the Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. Thus the Iraq was was predicated on a lie. Show me the facts that say otherwise. Clinton got away with lying about a blowjob. Bush got away with lying about a war and getting thousands of Americans killed as a result of it and having some of our civil liberties taken away from us. Yeah, real humanitarian accomplishment, Ann!

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

We didn't invade Iraq to protect America. We invaded Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, a man who had not once invaded or attacked the United States.Yes, he was a bad guy...but he wasn't much of a threat to the U.S...just a threat to the region and to the oil business.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

al-Qaida wasn't a threat in Iraq till after we invaded Iraq. al-Qaida is linked mostly to Sunni's, not the Shia Muslims that have been part of the insurgency the past few years.

And 20,000? Where are you getting these numbers from? What are your sources?

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

Please, say it as often as possible so that others will learn how ignorant you are. It has not and has never been clear as to whether al-Qaida has ever been linked to Saddam Hussein or Iraq. And, like I said above, we invaded Iraq, a country who has not once attacked our country directly. So how is it that we're fighting them over there so what we don't have to fight them here? Who? Being that al-Qaida is all but non existent in Iraq, who in Iraq has even remotely thought about attacking the United States directly? Give me the facts.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

Muqtada al-Sadr is a Shiite. Shia's hate al-Qaida. He may be radical...but he definitely has no sympathy for al-Qaida supporters.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

"a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world"? So you're saying that democracy in Iraq is just one step up from a load of shit? That is about as elitist of a statement as it gets. What makes you so much better than the people in Iraq?

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Every single Presidential candidate has used "change" as a part of the message of their campaign for just about every election of the past 20+ years. And that includes Republican candidates as well.

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

But how many were injured? Do you even know? According to GlobalSecurity.org, the number of U.S. casualties have gone down a bit. But the number of U.S. wounded is still fairly high even though the number has gone down in the last few months. The numbers to date though are still staggaring: 4,070 dead with 30,182 wounded. It's the wounded I'm mostly concerned about. Do you have any idea of the issues surrounding the treatment of wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq? Do you really believe that they are being treated with the proper level of physical and mental treatment they deserve?

Here's some real numbers that will help put it all in perspective:

3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]

60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]

2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

So if Al-Qaida is all but non-existent in Iraq and the surge is working, then why don't we have an exit strategy? Why, if we are supposedly successful in Iraq, can we not have a plan to start pulling troops out of Iraq instead of allowing more and more troops to continue third and fourth tours?

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

This isn't fantasy land, Ann. People who attempt terrorism in our country rarely get interviews unless they happen to be born American citizens. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols got interviews. But did the guy who help bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, Ramzi Yousef, get an interview? Umm, doesn't look like it.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

Yeah, yeah...and we'd all be sitting around wondering when Paris Hilton will land her ass in jail for the umpteenth time. People love good tabloids. Who cares.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

If Liberals have a "blind" hatred for Bush, then Conservatives have a "blind" hatred for Liberals. Am I correct?

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Yes, people have lied about Bush. But for every lie there is a fact behind it that proves he has made decisions that resulted in poor judgement, decisions that cost people their jobs, their freedom, and their lives. Not only are there liberals who wish to avoid kissing Bush's ass but there are also conservatives as well who wish to avoid it as well.

You're exaggerating on how well Bush has done. I think his approval rating speaks for itself. You can't get an approval rating like that without even Republicans not approving of him. People aren't in denial over Bush doing a bad job. It's not just their imagination, Ann. And a moral giant? Wow. You must have really low expectations.

Once again, Ann, you fail to back any of your opinions up with the facts. If what you say is true, where are the facts, ma'am? Blind criticism based on unproven facts isn't the best way to "tell it like it is". I can find highly reputable sources that will backup each of my claims. Can you? Best get your facts straight instead of trying to pass off your opinions as fact.

This whole Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, left-wing vs right-wing crap is getting really old, Ann. The fact of the matter is you can't blame everything on Liberals and Democrats. Not every Liberal and/or Democrat is bad anymore than I can say that every Conservative and/or Republican is bad. What you don't realize is that this sort of bi-partisan way of thinking is what is damaging the politics in this nation. All it does is turn people against one another and makes them lose sight of what the real issues are.

Seems that every blog post I've read by you, you're always constantly attacking someone. You've compared Obama's book about his father to Hitler's Mein Kampf, which I feel is by far one of the most outrageous statements from you to date. You constantly try to pass off your opinions as fact and have a highly slated view of the fact. Plus, you tend to take things completely out of context. It's as if you pick apart everything and only leave in the parts that illustrate and justify your point of view.

I'm all about the freedom of expression and sharing one's opinion with others. You have every right to blog about whatever you wish to blog about. But even I get things wrong and I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong when I don't get the facts straight. Why can't you, Ann?

Last I checked we're all Americans. Maybe if you spent more time treating all Americans with a little decency and respect, rather than attacking any opposing viewpoints at the first chance you get, you might get more out of it. Spreading lies and hate is no way to improve the political situation in our country.

OMG! This is so damn hilarious! I don't care which side you're on, Republican or Democrat, you have to admit this is pretty damn funny:

Still have a lot of research to do in regards of the two Presidential candidates. So, for this post, I'm gonna let Keith Olbermann do all the talking. This one really hits home for me:

SPECIAL COMMENT: "NOT TOO IMPORTANT"