The Next Wave

Most people know me as being a fairly level headed conservative; not the right wing zealot type or the religious fanatic that prows the hallways of Republican conventions. Just an old fashion traditional "American Values" kind of guy. Someone who would have been proud to don his "I like Ike" button or who would have supported TR during the turn of the century (no--the other turn of the century). So, what would a traditional middle-class Southern intellectual type to think of gay marriage? Boy, is that ever a loaded question!

Gay marriage seems to be coming out all over the media and throughout elections across the country. Rhode Island just became the 10th state to recognize gay marriage. Kentucky ,known for its conservatism, voted gay marriage/ civil unions down...overwhelmingly as I recall... in 2004. 33 other states have either voted it down or it's banned by their constitution. However, the issues keeps growing and expanding. Among youth, especially the next large voting bloc that replace us aging Babyboomers, gay marriage, let along being gay, is essentially a non-issue. According to a May 2012 Gallup polls, 76% of the young adults (18 to 34) have no problem with gay relationships and 66% support gay marriage. In general, 54% of all Americans now support some sort of same sex union.

Nationally there are approximately 9 million gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered individuals in America. That's roughly 1 in 10. In the big scheme of things, that's not a lot. Among Democrats, gays have long been accepted. As a group, gays support about 70% of that party's candidates. However, it's interesting to note that one of the largest gay oriented groups is the Log Cabin Republicans, who are otherwise, a relatively conservative bunch. But around other Republicans, they're usually treated as if they have kooties or something. While 2/3 of Democrats support some form of gay union, it's interesting to that among the largest political bloc---Independents---the number is 51%. Among Republicans, it about 24%.; surprisingly only in that the number is that high. In terms of population, the number is about 3.8%, and in terms of buying power, that tranlates to $790 billion dollars with projections to break the $1 trillion mark within the next few years. What's more, as a group, they seem to be LGBT conscious and tend to spend their money where there is "friendly" LGBT company policy. And those kind of numbers over ride any political party consideration. So, what a down and out conservative political party like the GOP to do?

In the last election, conservatives started early and threw everything they had at Obama and Company, and they still came up short. Actually, it was a lot worse than that. In terms of voting blocs, they got their pachyderm tuchies paddled. Granted, Romney was not the best candidate for the job (or even second or third best). He was just the one with enough money to buy the Primary.

The traditional core base of the GOP---white males---is fast declining in numbers. Among women, the GOP even did bad there. They were terrible with minorities, especially among Hispanics, who are the second largest group behind whites. While most Hispanics, and indeed black voters, tend to be conservative, they were simply written off. Why? Even the one minority the GOP has been able to count on, Cuban-Americans, are shifting away. Looking at the numbers, most of these groups support a more positive attitude toward gays (66% are either moderate or liberal compared to 34% who are conservative). Rather than making use of the Log Cabin's 43 state chapters, they did nothing.

The Republican Party needs more than a makeover. At this rate, it's a good candidate for an autopsy. The GOP needs to decide what it wants to be and who it wants to represent. Right now, it's totally out of touch with most Americans. It can't even get its act straight on the one issues most Americans, regardless of party agree on, which is ending illegal immigration. You would think they'd get that one right wouldn't you?

Of course the Democrats have nothing to crow about. They haven't got the American People dialed in either. They continue to slid further to the Left, which is not where most Americans are. We got a horrible economy; a non-existent foreign policy; cover-ups, questionable government spending; stonewalling; government by executive decree; refusal to stop illegal immigration; failing schools; raising healthcare costs thanks to "Obamacare", and the list could go on. However, they seem slightly closer to the public opinion than the Republicans. Most of us are in the "one-size-doesn't-fit-all" Middle.

My personal opinion is this: we need to focus on what matters. Things like the economy, gangs and crime, terrorism, taxes, the environment, failing schools, illegal immigration, and rebuilding the infrastructure. I may or may not agree with what you do in your personal life and visa versa. I certainly have no business saying who you can or should love. Frankly, it's none of my business and I really don't need to know. Demographics, however, may have the final say with its 76% approval the next generation. Individual freedom was what the GOP once all about. And that's something I think Ike would like.

Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154634/acceptance-gay-lesbian-relations-new-normal.aspx

How Many Americans Are Gay or Lesbian
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_are_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html

Americans In Debt
http://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/

2/3 of Democrats now support Gay Marriage
http://www.pewforum.org/politics-and-elections/two-thirds-of-democrats-now-support-gay-marriage.aspx

LGBT $790 Billion Buying Power
http://www.bizreport.com/2012/06/lgbt-790-billion-buying-power-but-what-are-their-favorite-br.html


How Groups Voted in 2012
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

Divided America

America is more divided than at any time in its history. More than during the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during the era of Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, or the Great Depression. Even more so than the turbulent 1960's. In fact, the division may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it never will be bridged. We have become a nation of two ideals. The recent presidential and national elections has served only as dark mirrors of our division. What are the two ideals that we've become?

One ideal is the belief in a limited federal government. Low taxes and a level economic playing field. The other ideal is one where government is the sole source of our social and economic salvation. The first believes in opportunities where one succeeds, or fails by one's own merits. Government doesn't owe you anything. The latter in entitlements, where all aren't just are all equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal and should be given special consideration for one reason or another. What became of the idea of ability or quality or even best price? They've become passé. The former believes success comes from a solid education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to teach the skills one needs to survive in society, not to babysit. They believe everyone needs a helping hand from time to time. The later believes in reducing the quality of education so they everyone "succeeds"; a society of mediocrity was superior to a society of meritocracy; that successful people "owe" those who aren't as successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off, or playing sports rather than studying basic English and writing skills; that they are owed a living just for showing up, if that, and poor attitude "entitles" them to high paying jobs. The former believes government has no business in our personal lives, while the latter believes government knows what's best for all of us. Different values. Different destinies.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that, but the concept of small businesses, who are our biggest employers, being allowed to do what they do without a burdensome government red noose tape tied around their necks. They envisioned a nation free to believe what they wanted without being told what or who to pray to...or to pray at all. They believed that the right to petition their representatives meant the right to question them and if necessary recall them...not make secret deals behind closed doors. They believed America should look after America first. Indeed, they were ardent nationalists. They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting, but because they didn't trust government. History and recent events had re-enforced that fact. An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one. Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax just as surely as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Forty percent of registered voters now indentify as Independent. That means independent of Republicans and independent of Democrats and all they stand for...if anything. Americans as a whole are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering. The fact is that once they raise their right hand and take the oath of office, they cease being Republican or Democrat or Left wing or Right wing. They become representatives of the American People, nothing more and nothing less.
We elect individuals to go to Washington and our state capitols to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making and we left with the mess. We hear how it's always the other side who won't cooperate. It's more how the other side won't simply roll over and let them have their way. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of statecraftmanship. They play chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve, but we all know that the voters are merely the inconvenient "evil" needed in order to serve their real masters...big business. Gerrymandering has, however, done much to eliminate the nuisance of the fickled voter.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you are never allowed to see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws to allow them to make more money, but not more money to pay their fair share of taxes, but to avoid them or pass them own. They are the ones who walk through the revolving door of corporate executive to government bureaucrat and back again; the corporate lobbyist and Beltway insider. They're the new and improved global military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources while showing us images of how we imagine our lives could be in ten second TV spots or 8 x 10 retouched glossy magazine photos. They know no national loyalties. They have turned us from self sufficient producers and citizens to mere global consumers; indentured economic serfs and captives to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolesce. They are the ultimate corruptors.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Our republican government is beyond mere reform. Perhaps we need a new system reflective of a global society as it is now rather than a 200 year old colonial mercantile society. Many already recognize this. A few are just now waking up. Some may never. They will remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as the they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab. Uncle Sam is on life support while his hopeful murders have their hands on the plug as his two doctors argue over the treatment, and you and I are soon to become orphans. The real question my dear readers, is what will you do?




11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/money/personal-finance/bankruptcy/11-reasons-why-american-middle-class-doomed

11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/the-11-graphs-that-allegedly-prove-that-the-west-is-doomed/260750/

Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?
http://www.econtrader.com/featured/us-economy-bubble-doomed-to-fail.htm

What Went Wrong for the GOP

A lot of space has been devoted to trying to explain what went wrong for the Republican's attempt to win the White House. They seemed to have almost everything going their way. They had an economy, that after almost four years, was still tanking; the Wallstreet bailouts/Maintstreet cop outs; they had a president whose foreign policy was proving disastrous; they had a massive national debt and sustained high unemployment. Then there was the, what I call "peripheral " issues, such as images of Obama "bowing" to a Saudi king amid undying allegations of being a "secret" Moslem working hand-in-glove to promote Anti-Jewish and Pro-Islamic causes. Claims that Obama was born in Kenya and, therefore, not eligible to be president. Then there was the claims of being a racist and all those years of attending a so-called "black liberation theology" church led by the disgraced Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The GOP had the much loathed "Obamacare" health program., also referred to as the Affordable Health Care Act. Of course, there were the usual scandals every administration seems to have these days. This election, the pundits kept telling us, was a slam dunk. So, what went wrong?

Actually, despite all that, the baggage train left the rails almost as soon as it pulled out of station. Obama's team was able to create a brand, which is rule number one in politics. Obama had to be seen as a big tent kind of guy. He had to be seen as a leader, even if he was in reality a poor one. He had to be seen a "relatable". Someone who could emphasis with the average working man or woman. This brings me to rule number 2: don't let your opponent brand you. Mitt Romney was tagged as a "super rich white dude"; not someone you'd invite over for pizza and beer or watch football with. There was an arrogance about him, intended or not. Comments about the "47%", regardless of how true or not the statement might be, did not endear him to the poor and new working poor. He was seen as a corporate pirate who dismantled companies and destroyed jobs.

On economic issues, Romney was probably more accurate, yet in politics image is everything. Romney called for severe cutbacks and tax cuts. Obama called for more government spending financed through higher taxes. People are not likely to give up perceived "entitlements" once they had them for any length of time. After all, these "entitlements" come from the coffers of the mysterious entity called "the government" and it is unlimited. Of course, these "entitlements" are not financed by money created out of thin air, nor does the government actually generate income in the general understanding of the phrase. The money comes from ordinary taxpayers and is redistributed (seized) as the government sees fit. Therefore, Obama was seen as more sympathetic while Romney was portrayed as uncaring. Even in their vocabulary, Obama came across as "working class", with occasional (and deliberate) "ghetto" references. In some cases, he even sounded at times like a stereotypical black preacher giving a sermon from a pulpit. Mitt, on the other hand, failed at sounding "ordinary". His attempt to turn a phrase sounded contrived; it lacked sincerity. Again, it made him appear unrelatable. Then there are the other issues, influenced by changing demographics, which would indicate the GOP is simply on the wrong side of. Let's take a look at some of them.

Hispanics, the fastest growing and potentially most important new demographic in the political map, came out in favor of Obama by a whopping 70%. Why? First, Obama has shown himself to a "friend" of Hispanics by refusing to enforce laws relating to illegal immigration. He ordered ceasing deportation of all but the most serious criminals. He attacked Arizona's attempt to enforce federal laws in protecting its border with Mexico. He tied the hands of Border and ICE agents. He has also circumvented the defeated "Dream Act" by executive fiat and allowed children brought here illegally to remain. In fact, most of what Obama has done regarding gutting illegal immigration has been by executive order, and thus bypassing Congress. Romney, on the other hand, sought to find ways to both protect our borders and to seek long term solutions to change the status of the estimated 12 million, mostly Hispanic, illegals in this country (his primary solution required them to return home and apply to return. A non-starter).

That blacks came out in support of Obama is a no brainer. Approximately 90% of blacks voted for Obama, not because of his economic policies (which have tended to hurt black communities) or his stance on social issues since most blacks lean conservative, but because of race, although Obama is half white. Race has emerged as that subtle factor that no one likes to talk about out of fear of being called a "racist" or some other pejorative term. The fact is, race is a factor and could continue to be a factor, especially if they next contender for president is Hispanic.

Women again proved to be a political force to be reckoned with. Women fought hard for suffrage, and have always made it a point to vote. However, they tend to vote on "family" issues, and one key issue is abortion. Americans overwhelming approve of choice regardless of their personal position on abortion (most, however, disapprove of late term abortions or abortions on demand), which most Democrats support. The Pro-Life movement dominates the Republican Party. This is another issue where the Grand Ole Party is out of touch with a majority of Americans. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, toes the GOP line while Obama backs the Democratic Party's position. Unless the Republicans expand their "tent" to allow diversity of opinion without fear retribution, they are going to continue to lose this demographic which went for Obama by 11%.

Other "family issues" that hurt Romney was his insistence on cutting social programs like school lunch programs, WIC and child welfare programs, and other taxpayer provided programs that single mother depend on as part of the bigger picture to get the budget under control. Romney's logic may be sound, but not the perception. Obama, on the other hand, reiterated his support for a broad social net, which extended to the children of illegals as well.

Finally, those under 35 came out heavily in favor of Obama. No "Alex P. Keatons" here. Most of the under 35 crowd, aka "Millennials" are non-conformist, issues oriented and high tech. Political party dogma means little. Millennials are 40% non-white, with Hispanics make up their largest segment. 75% does not adhere to organized religion. and yes, the majority believes pot should be legal. Oh, and by the way, in 2020, there will be 90 million of them compared to 64 million now. This generation has no concept of life without laptops, cell phones, or IPods. Texting is a natural as speaking to them. They also tend to operate in a "group think" world with broad and diverse social connections. One of these groups are gays and the issue of same sex marriage.

In the social conservative world of today's Republican Party, gays are considered an aberration; one not quite "acceptable". They deem "gay behavior" as a choice at best and an assault against God at worse. Although one of the largest gay political organizations is the Log Cabin Republicans, they are generally ignored. Gay marriage too is opposed by the right wing social conservatives. In most states, gay marriage (defined as a union between one man and one woman) has been defeated on ballot referendums. Civil unions which gives legal standing between same sex couples, however, seems to have strong support.

Here's where the Republicans with their religious right dominated social conservatives lose in the long run. The Millennials are the key group to replace aging Baby boomers. Gender related issues such homosexuality and same sex marriage doesn't matter to them. They see no difference between two same couples being in love and heterosexual couple being in love. Obama comes down in favor of removing sexual oriented barriers just as they do, got their support by 23%. On another key Millennialist issues, is student debt. Obama has shown a willingness to find ways to reduce the debt, such as reduced or forgiven interest payments. Mitt's position was, again, ill defined and haphazard; almost as if it never occurred to him to be a problem. Another score for Team Obama.

Lastly, as if the gods had a warped sense of humor, we had Uber-storm Sandy. Whereas George Bush Jr. had a opportunity to look presidential like Hurricane Katrina and blew it, Obama had his ducks in a row on this. He came across prepared. He acted bipartisan. He showed himself as "being presidential", that was simply something Romney could not do unless he was prepared to mount his own personally financed relief efforts (the fact that Republican Governor Christie was seen cozying up to Obama didn't help Mitt's cause either). Continued denial of global warming by conservatives doesn't help either.

There were other factors to be sure, such as the open and blatant support of Obama by the media. The conservatives were simply overwhelmed. In their Obama love fest, the media ----ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN, MSNBC, countless newspapers, radio and talk "news" shows and their on air personalities, lost all sense of impartial credibility with the public. This election completely exposed the raw Left leaning bias of the media as a propaganda tool to manipulate public perception. No amount of "investigative" reporting or "election analysis" can change that. As they say, it is what it is.

So what's next for the Grand Ole Party. Well, despite a rather congenial offer to discuss new opportunities for bipartisanship by the GOP, they immediately dug their heels in deeper. Both sides seem prepared to play chicken with our lives and are more than happy to drive the economy off the fiscal cliff in the name of archaic political dogma. The fact is while Obama does not have a mandate from the voters, neither does the Republicans and the American People, as tolerate as they are, have had enough from both sides.

On social issues, the Republican Party is completely out of touch with the majority of Americans. It's only hope is getting right with the key voting blocs---minorities (especially Hispanics), women, and young voters. To do that, it will have to jettison the right wing religious zealots which now dominate the party and fight to bring back moderates. On fiscal issues, they have to find a balance between austerity and compassion. Too often, in the name of fiscal responsibility, they seem to lose their humanity. Frankly, the Grand Ole Party lacks the willpower and foresight without new leadership, and that my friends may mean that all that is left is writing the date of its demise on its political tombstone.

Failure to attract Millennials is sinking the GOP
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/living/millennials-gop-vote/index.html

Millennials: Portrait of Generation Next
http://pewresearch.org/millennials/

Newspaper Endorsements---Back to the Poisoned Ink Well

In my last article, Newspaper Endorsements ---Poisoned Ink, there was a comment accusing me of the doing the same thing our local newspaper does, delete unflattering comments. The writer went to say that my comments on the public board were "garbled and confusing". Interesting that they took the time to read my blog article and post their comment there.

As I responded, I usually post comments, even (or especially) those I disagree with. I don't posted hateful or vulgar remarks, nor those which are obviously meant to harass. I don't know any blogger who does, and I'm pretty certain most newspapers or other media venues have the same restrictions. These are meant as public forums for civil discussion. So, just what was it that the newspaper finds so offensive and, apparently, my reader, found so "garbled and confusing"?

Apparently "someone" takes the time to remove my comments almost as soon as I post them. Of course, I simply repost them. So what is it that I'm writing that is so terrible? Simply this, ignore the editorial board's endorsements. Read the voter guide. Make your own decision, and go vote. Blasphemous isn't it? Why does my mystery commenter (actually, he's no mystery. I have a good idea of who he is) find this so "garbled and confusing"? Well, it's non-partisan. And I'm telling people to think for themselves instead of allowing a very partisan editorial board to tell them how to vote. Shocking isn't it? Can you imagine the fear this must engender? Someone telling voters to learn the facts about the candidates and issues and then show up at the polls and vote? It must keep them up at night.

Our local newspaper's editorial board is liberal...very liberal. It often accused by a large swath of locals on all sides as acting like the unofficial mouth piece for the Democratic Party. Conservatives really need not bother. Personally, I don't care. Every election cycle, the editorial board goes through the motions of interviewing candidates and making their pronouncements daily in the editorial section. In some cases, the conservative candidate isn't even invited to show up for the interview, or even questioned about their position on the issues. Even when they do, facts are dropped or misapplied, edited, and, well, you get the picture (it happened to me personally on two occasions when I ran and to several good friends).

The media often cites the 1st Amendment and some self appointed duty as the public's guardian (a leftover from the Gilded Age of William Randolph Hearst and "Yellow Journalism"). Ok, no problem. I believed the media, be it print or electronic, owes the people fair, balanced and honest reporting. As Dragnet's Sergeant Friday used to said, "Just the facts please". When it comes to editorials, I believe the editorial boards owe the people the facts. Tell us where each candidate stands on the issues. Don't tell us part of the story. Don't feed us journalistic pabulum. The average person is quite capable of understanding the truth. Don't give us edited versions either. That's why I'm such a big fan of voter guides. It give voters an opportunity to compare each candidate's position (in their own words) side by side. So, is that so terrible?

The system is broke beyond repair. No amount of band-aid tinkering is going to fix it. The only way we, as Americans, are going to save our country is to save ourselves. There isn't going to be some miraculous celestial intervention on December 21, 2012, nor is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson going to return from the dead and ride to our rescue. We're in this mess because we've allowed (yes, "allowed") our government to be sold out from under us. Democrat or Republican makes no difference. The transnational corporations own both parties, which are run by extremists on both sides. It really makes no difference to them who wins. They control the levers of power because they control the money, and money makes the rules. You and I merely get the illusion of choice. They're only concern is how to keep the People divided and at each other's throats and not focused on them. This can only change when we take the time to do our own research and show up to vote. It's the one weapon we have left. If we don't use it, I assure you, we will lose it.

Newspaper Endorsements: Poisoned Ink

I've often been asked why I'm so vocal in my opposition to endorsements by our local newspaper. After all, newspapers have been making endorsements since the founding of the nation, and they are the, albeit self-appointed, public's watchdogs. Then too, there is the 1st Amendment issue. So, why do I make it a point of advising candidates of both parties to stay away from the editorial board's interview and encouraging the general public to do their own research and make up their own minds?

First, as most people who know me will attest, I've never been a "party" person. I'm really not much of a joiner, especially if that means blind obedience or goose stepping in lockstep. Group think has never been my cup of hemlock. And I'm not alone in my thinking. Many great political philosophers down through history believed in a knowledgeable electorate. In fact, a well informed electorate is all that keeps us from tyranny in its many forms. Anytime, someone or some group comes along and offers blanket solutions, we should get very nervous.

In the beginnings of democracy, especially in America's nation of shopkeepers and farmers, the only way to find out what was happening was through the newspaper or local scandal sheet. There was simply no other way to keep informed. It didn't take long for editors to hoist upon their shoulders the mantle of "protector". They proclaimed they would do whatever it took to uncover corruption and scandal wherever it was (and if there wasn't any, create it, and thus, "Yellow Journalism" was born). Along with "protecting" the public's virtues, the papers began endorsed candidates which agreed with their thinking. So, by their definition, only those whose agenda's matched their were deemed worthy of being elected. A rather arrogant and narrow minded perspective to say the least. Of course, you typically had newspapers on both sides so the public could at least decided what "virtues" it wanted protected.

Today, we have a vast array of news sources, and while newspapers rank near the bottom of the list, they persist in their parental prerogative to manipulate public opinion, be it through slanted articles to outright bias against a particular party, candidate, or cause. Not that I am picking on newspapers mind you; television networks, talk radio and "news" oriented shows give the same or worse spin. However, only newspapers endorse. Can you imagine CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or for that matter, Hannity or Rachael Maddow coming out and endorsing candidates? And why not? They have every right to. But they won't. They give their spin and leave it at that, so why don't newspapers? Could it be that the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers know their influence is on the wane and this is their last attempt to hold on to something akin to the power over public opinion they once enjoyed?

The other issue I have with these endorsements is the blatant bias they show. Only a tiny handful of newspapers actually give candidates or specific issues a fair shake. Most do slipshod research and/or misreport the facts. Take for example my own run in 2001. Our editorial board reported my opponent's had community service (he was a part time high school football coach) while failing to mention that was 15 - 20 years past while not mentioning that I was serving in senior leadership position on five non-profit and quasi-government boards. They didn't mention my opponent recently switched parties while I was serving as an officer on several party related clubs. When it came to the questions, they again failed to mention that my opponent struggled with the issues. They made similar mistakes when I ran again in 2004. In doing my own researching, I found this was actually commonplace and had been going on for years, if not decades. When I began questioning it, I was "blackballed". None of my articles were any longer published. I continued to question more loudly. I demanded they publish the names and party affiliations of the interviewers and the unedited questions and responses. I also insisted the interviewers be comprised of one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent (they were always all liberal Democrats. Can you imagine a conservative having a fair shot at an endorsement?). What I wanted was for the public to have an unbiased opportunity to evaluate each candidate and make up their own mind. While I don't pretend to take any credit, at least many of the interviews are now videotaped and posted on the newspaper's webpage.

I believe in fair play and honesty in politics (rare concepts these days I know). Candidates are asked to complete questionnaires about their positions on various issues. Their responses go into a voter guide. I believe they should continue to do so. It may be the only way the public can compare the candidates fairly. The editorial board needs to be ideologically balanced. All interviews should be unedited. Like the founders of democracy, including our Founding Fathers, I believe in a well informed electorate. They need to take the time to understand the issues, and they need to make their own informed decisions based on the abundant information available, including the voter guides. But, We the People no longer have need of ink stained "big brothers". We are quite capable of making up our own minds thank you.

What can you do? Most importantly, ignore the endorsements. Read the voter guide. Do your own homework. Think for yourself. Vote! Write or email your local newspaper and demand that they stop trying to manipulate public opinion and that you will encourage people to ignore their endorsements as well. Remind them that they serve good of the public---that means everyone. Insist on impartial reporting. Finally, just do whatever it takes to get the word out. Write or comment on blogs, call into talk shows, or start a local petition. The more people are engaged, the better quality of government we will have, and that starts with the election.

Cure Your Democracy: A Contagiously Humorous Book

Book Review

Cure Your Democracy: The Infection, Spread and Treatment of Contagious Opinions by John Cooker, MRI.

Think of political discourse today as a modern disease; a social disease if you well. That's what author John Cooker has done. The diseases, which he has aptly diagnosed, are Democratitus and Democratosis, and both appear to be highly contagious. Both diseases seem to have profound effects on their hosts, such as doublespeak, confused thinking, hearing difficulty, and an inability to comprehend what the other person is saying. Symptoms seemly can range from mild amusement to mouth foaming hysteria according to Mr. Cooker's research.

While these "viruses" are near identical in their symptoms, there are some fundamental differences. For instance, Mr. Cooker cites that what drives Democratitus is the fear of government, while for Democratosis, it's the fear of the People. But what he also found, was that both viruses are equally repellent of the other, and both seem to strive to rid other hosts of the opposing malady and seems to re-infect the host with a replica of itself. And so the book goes.

Mr. Cooker has written an overtly irreverent book which takes a unique and humorous look at the current state of political discourse in America today. We all too often take ourselves to serious when it comes to politics and as a result, fail to appreciate the value of the other person's perspective. As a result, Americans are more deeply divided than at any time since the decade preceding the Civil War. This has led Mr. Cooker to take the rather novel approach of examining this behavior as if it was a contagious "virus" bent on the total subjugation of its host and elimination of its competing virus.

Cure You Democracy is a delightful humorous and timely commentary about today's political landscape. I encourage every political junkie to take a "chill pill" and set back for a healthy laugh. Be sure to check the author's webpage at www.CureYourDemocracy.com

Pages: 263

Solving the Federal Budget

Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Senator Paul Ryan to be his running mate. Ryan has been seen as many as "a" if not "the" rising star of the Republican Party, especially among those of the libertarian persuasion. Ryan is a strong proponent of small government and fiscal accountability. Many among the Conservative Right and Moderates will find Ryan acceptable, but certainly nothing to make them gush or turn giddy with excitement. I think he's enough of the threat that I can hardly wait to see how the editorial board of our "once great newspaper" conjures up stories to discredit him. Ryan has been just about the only one on Capitol Hill to propose anything resembling a budget "plan". I think he's one of the few who even have an inkling of what economics is all about. Frankly, given the position of Vice President, who is just a heartbeat away from the second highest office in the land , I would prefer Ryan over Joe Biden any day of the week (the highest office would seem to go to the Supreme Court these days).

Thinking about a Ryan Vice Presidency got me to thinking about the budget. What could we do to get the politicians in Washington working for us for a change? We're staring over a financial cliff of no return unless the Beltway Bozos get their act to together and come up a serious answer to our budgetary problems by January 1st. To paraphrase Nietzsche, "If we stare into the financial abyss long enough does Congress stare blankly back at us?" Politicians on both sides of the aisle know their daily bread is buttered by "E" Street lobbyists on behalf of their corporate masters while voters seem to be a barely needed necessary evil (if only they could get around that pesky electorate, which they've nearly succeeded in doing thanks to gerrymandering).
What if we demanded that everyone elected to federal office ---Congressmen/women, Senators, the President and Vice President, as well as some of those appointed to high office, like the Federal Reserve Bank Chairman and the Heads of the Federal Reserve Board personally guarantee the solvency of the USA? Seriously. What if they actually had their collective butts on the line like you and I do? With the economic "recovery" either stalling or more accurately, tanking, most of us are looking at companies closing, unemployment or at least reduced hours, foreclosure, loss of insurance and/or other benefits, and so on.

Let's face it. The worse that can happen to these multi-millionaire politicos is that, somehow, they lose their jobs. Perhaps rigging the district to get the most favorable electoral turnout doesn't work and voters actually showed up to vote? Farfetched I admit, but what if? What happens to that uber-rich Congressman or Senator? Well, after going on vacation (something most us can't afford anymore) to some exotic venue (paid for by some "anonymous" beneficiary), they'll likely come back and walk back through the revolving Corporate/Government door into a seven figure job that will allow them to continue hobnobbing with their Washington friends (what happens to you if you lose your job?). The same thing can be expected of those appointed to high office. Not much difference really except they don't have to face those pesky voters every so often and fake like their care. But, back to my question.

What if, upon taking the oath of office, they also had to sign a blanket personal guarantee, putting all they own on the line for the term of their office (no waivers or exemptions; no transferring everything into their wife's or favorite dog's name. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate are all put into blind trust held by the US Taxpayers). Don't you think that would give them a vested interest in passing a realistic budget?

Now I am fully cognizant that all the wealth of these Congressmen, Senators, President, Vice President and assorted appointed office holders combined wouldn't be a drop in budgetary bucket, but it would give them pause about playing financial chicken with our lives. If they knew they'd lose everything if they defaulted on the balanced budget, I think these phony baloney politicians would get busy and do something don't you?

Politics is about power. Getting it; getting more of it; and making connections and money off of it. Getting booted out of office isn't that big a deal. Potentially losing all their stuff is. Maybe we'd get more individuals running for office who understand a thing or two about economics, credit, and finance and fewer lawyers who know about writing loopholes for their buddies.
While we're at it, let's make these schmucks use the same insurance we use. No more state of the art gyms paid for by you and me. No more first class seats; no more private flights at our expense. Commercial air. Business class seats. They may be partisans but at least they can fly united.

Obama offers Immunity to Children of Illegal Immigrants

Has Obama sold the American Dream down the river as the majority of American believe, or is he actually trying to fulfill the American Dream for some? The answer to that question just became a little murkier this week when Obama ordered his pals, Eric Holder at the Justice Department and Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security to stop enforcing deportation efforts against some 800,000 children of illegal immigrants. Many of these children are now in either high school of college.

I suppose one can't fault Obama. After all, the overwhelming majority of these children were brought here a small children; many under 5 years of age. Should they be held accountable for criminal actions of their parents? Of course not. They are just as innocent of any wrong doing as a child would be if their parents were arrested for, let's say, drug possession or armed robbery. What got everyone's goat though wasn't necessarily what Obama did; it was how he did it.

Rather than run this through Congress for discussion like he should have done, Obama simply issued another one of his Executive Orders, and "voila"...instant results. With all the bickering and lack of leadership in Congress (not to mention a 84%+ disapproval rating), Obama saves taxpayers both time and money. So who needs a dysfunctional Congress?

But did Obama do this out of some altruistic reason, or was there a political motive involved? Well, currently Obama has a 61% approval rating among Hispanics, and Hispanics are the second largest minority behind whites, but they're also fasting growing minority in America. Hispanics are more likely than not to register Democrat than Republican (65% to 22%) despite their tendency toward conservatism due primarily to the failure of the GOP to actively reach out to Hispanics, as a result, Hispanics are poised to replace blacks as the Democrat core. He has previously ordered the Justice Department and ICE to back off the investigation and enforcement of deportation, except among those with known violent criminal backgrounds. In short, adding another 800,000 Hispanics in their prime voting and childbearing years to the rolls certainly helps the Obama cause in the short run and the Democrat cause in the long run.

The GOP needs to get off its silk covered duff and do something within the Hispanic, Asian, and black communities if it wants to remain relevant. Conservative whites, long the core of the Republican Party, are on the decline. And the GOP needs to get off it sanctimonious high horse (or high elephant as the case may be) when it comes to social issues and join the rest of the American Public in the middle.


Obama suspends deportation of thousands of illegals
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/15/obama-administration-to-offer-immunity-to-younger-immigrants/

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: This Is A Choice?

I don't know about you, but frankly I am not the least happy with the Republican candidates for US President. I wouldn't let any of them take my trash to the street, and yet these individuals are supposed to be the ones to save us from Obama's "Hope and Change". Seriously, are these really the best the Republican Party has to offer? For that matter, are they the best the Conservative Movement can muster?

First off, each one is so obscenely rich as to have no real concept what working class stiffs like most us really have to do to get by. Remember Mitt Romney's off-the-cuff $10,000 dollar bet to Rick Perry? Seriously, like it's walk around pocket change. Perry said he didn't gamble and politely turned the offer down (although he has no problem with allowing illegal immigrants to attend college, and at in-state tuition rates. Sounds like a gamble to me). Cain seemed to me to offer the best choice. I mean, here's this hugely successful businessman who can speak in something other than sound bites and doesn't look like a plastic doll. Then all of a sudden these women come out of the woodwork with a sudden case of "guilt" that only by telling "their story" would sooth. Really? Who asked? Since most these trysts happened years ago, why they suddenly feel the need to go to public confessional?

Let's take Michele Bachmann...please (with apologies to Henny Youngman). Lord knows she tries, and listening to her for more than five minutes is pretty trying on my nerves. She staggers over facts that most 9th graders should know. She means well, but is that what we want in a President, someone who means well? Now I admit I like Hunstman. I don't know why. Maybe I just feel sorry for him. He can't buy attention. His stance on issues aren't bad, but he just hasn't been able to get any traction with the voters (which actually means with the media). The same can be said for Rick Santorum. Here's another guy that is struggling to get any attention whatsoever, although, now that Paul and Newt's stars are fading, he's starting to get a longer look.

Ron Paul knows the Constitution like few do (and fewer still among those in Congress). I agree with Paul's belief that American is nothing like what the Founding Fathers intended (in fact, if they could see us now, they'd pay the damn tea tax and shut up). American was supposed to be economically and socially libertarian, but the cold hard reality of the matter is that were aren't, and we aren't likely to be any time soon either. Our Founding Fathers could not have conceived of the changes that have taken place since 1790. The libertarian framework is ideal for small, mostly agrarian societies, but after 1900, those days would have to an end anyway.

However, our Founding Fathers did intend to have a small federal government with the individual states playing a much stronger role, and in that, Ron Paul is right. It's not that we need necessarily a small federal government as much as we need a more efficient federal government with more power returned to the states as originally intended. Where Paul completely loses me is on his foreign policy issues (though it is completely consistent with his libertarian views). To be brief, Paul wants to disengage from the world.

While I agree that we as Americans, need to put America's interests first, we can't simply walk away and hide in some sort of nationalistic cocoon. We do need to cut back on foreign aid and stop acting as the world's policeman. It's time for Europe to take care of Europe and for Japan to start investing in its own defenses now that Godzilla and Mothra are gone. We need to cut back or close our foreign military bases. We need to accept the fact that not everyone wants to be like Americans (not a single country, despite billions of dollars spent on nation building, has modeled their governments on ours) and that means that we need to get out of the regime-changing business. We should ensure free and fair elections and let it go at that.

As for Perry, there's really nothing else I can say about him, which is a polite as I can be. Mitt Romney is the bride no body wants to marry. Every candidate is compared to him. It's as if the Republicans are running in circle and keep coming back to the homeliest girl/boy in the room. John McCain was able to beat Mitt four years ago because he had the better record. Of course, McCain became McDud and the rest, as they say, is history imperfect. For the record, I strongly suspect Mitt would have likely been able to beat Obama.

Lastly, there is ole Newt Gingrich. Newt was the Speaker of the House during the glory days of Bill Clinton (and despite everything, he's still one of my favorite presidents). Anyone remember the "Contract with America" or the so-called "Republican Revolution"? Not much came of either. The GOP failed on both accounts, and the all powerful, finger-wagging conservative Newt got caught doing what he vilified Clinton for doing. Hypocrite. Since getting booted out of Congress, he's found employment as a lobbyist for Big Business, including the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which, in case you've forgotten, helped to put us in this economic mess). As a candidate, Newt has more baggage than a wagon train heading West. He is just as out of touch now as he was then.

All of the candidates have their flaws. The question is which, if any, can beat Obama. Personally, I don't think any can. Most candidates have one or two, and occasionally, three chinks in their armor but are otherwise pretty sound. However, it appears that none of the current crop of candidates has any armor to speak of, while the King (or President in this case) after nearly four years, still has no clothes. Politics has become more than ever the game of the super rich (the current net worth of an average member of Congress is now 2 1/2 times that of the average American while salaries of CEOs are 343 times that of a typical worker).

While it looks like Americans are again going to be forced to go to the polls holding their noses, I have to ask you: where are our real leaders America? When are we going to stop accepting mediocrity from both parties and their candidates and wake up from this illusion of choice? We need working and middle class people who understand what its like to live within a budget, cut coupons, and pull double shifts to make ends meet.


2012 Republican Candidates Bios and Issues:

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

The Net Worth of the Republican Presidential Candidates:

http://247wallst.com/2011/10/04/the-net-worth-of-the-republican-presidential-candidates/

CEOs earn 343 times more than typical workers:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm


And One More Thing...

Finally dear readers, I would like to conclude this edition of Another Opinion, and year with a sincere "thank you" for reading. I know we're not going to agree on everything (frankly, that would be scary for both of us). The purpose of AO from the beginning has been to provoke you to think with honest content. We here at AO pride ourselves on tackling touchy issues form a independent and mostly moderate perspective. Extremism, be it from either the Left or the Right, only builds walls and that's the last thing we need in this world. We desperately need real leaders who focus on issues, not party dogma. We need people willing to stand up and say "enough" without worrying about political correctness. Political correctness in the end only breeds fear of the truth and ultimately silence.

We hope you've enjoyed our occasional book reviews, and that you'll check them out. A special "thank you" to all the publishers for sending us their books as well. It's always a pleasure! We would also like to thank all those who link to AO. We sincerely appreciate it.

As long as there is a need to encourage people to think for themselves, Another Opinion will hopefully be around. May you and yours have a happy and healthy 2012. Until the next issue, remember to stand up; speak out; and always to think for yourself!