The rise of the disgruntled

Just about seven years ago, shortly after President Obama took office, pockets of unrest started forming throughout the nation. Some of those groups began identifying themselves with variations of the Tea Party name, holding rallies and other events that generally focused on fiscal matters. Some of these independent groups said that their use of the Tea Party label was a throwback salute to the rebellious Boston Tea Party event of 1773. Others were more specific, saying that the TEA acronym stood for “Taxed Enough Already” and that their push was for major cuts in taxes at all levels, even if that meant eliminating some government services.

It seems strangely (and conveniently) coincidental that the movement grew to prominence at precisely the time that Democrats regained the White House with the election of the first non-white president. Defenders of the Tea Party’s honor have made claims that the roots of their cause took hold well before 2009, though one is hard pressed to realistically remember any such activity. Of course, people have been complaining about taxes since the first tax was collected.

As the assorted Tea Parties were gaining strength, the USA saw growth within another sub-culture… the sovereign citizen movement.  Essentially believing that the federal and most state governments have no authority, these individuals often refuse to pay taxes or fees imposed by government agencies. Many don’t register their vehicles, obtain driver’s licenses, or even use ZIP codes… as these are enacted by a government they don’t recognize.

Probably the most famous personality of the sovereign citizen realm is Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who for over twenty years has refused to pay fees for grazing his cattle on federally owned land. Bundy became somewhat of a cult hero when a standoff developed between the US Bureau of Land Management and a group of armed supporters. The matter ended without violence when government officials withdrew, effectively giving Bundy a victory. As this column was being written, three of Bundy’s sons are organizers of an armed occupation of federal property in Oregon, clearly emboldened by their family’s previous encounter.

There have been other notable occupations of federal property -- Alcatraz, Wounded Knee -- that ended in violence. But then, those occupiers weren’t white dudes with Twitter and Facebook accounts. But I digress.

A third faction that has gained in popularity over the past few years are militia groups. Usually heavily armed and self-trained, less than 200 of these anti-government groups were known to exist in 2008. Fueled by fears of a possible government crackdown on gun ownership helped the growth of these groups throughout the country, even though no real effort to limit the rights of Americans to own guns has materialized. Of course, just the implied threat, real or imagined,  is enough to motivate gun sales and discourage most elected officials from considering legislation that could be seen as impeding the average American from purchasing whichever weapon he so chooses.

It is right about here that someone will argue that President Obama’s plans for executive orders that, if fully enacted, could curtail gun sales. But most of what the president is offering are just suggested guidelines, and the strongest would require funding that the Republican-led Congress is not about to approve. Meanwhile, gun dealers are reporting a huge boost in sales… so let’s put aside any worries about how the government is going to empty out the Average Joe’s gun cabinet.

Nope, there’s no way the government is going to do anything to disarm the citizenry. But it is also clear that the government is no closer to solving the problem of gun violence.

So far, we’ve discussed the Tea Party, sovereign citizens, and militias. As diverse as these groups may be, they have many similarities. They all distrust government. They all have big problems with government actions like taxes and regulations. And they all saw intense growth in reaction to the 2008 election.

And… the lines between them are increasingly blurred.

I’m not saying that these three groups have exactly the same goals. But it’s really hard to tell where one stops and another starts. Log onto a random Tea Party website and you’re just as likely to see a discussion about the Second Amendment as you are efforts to trim taxes. Talk to a militia member and you’ll hear complaints about entitlement programs. And the Bundy family is proof that a large feature of the sovereign citizen movement is the combination of anti-tax sentiments and gun proliferation.

One thing is certain: you won’t find too many Democrats in those groups. And that’s a big problem for the GOP. You see, if the Republican party allows itself to be defined by those on the fringe, it has virtually no chance to field candidates who can draw votes from outside their own party.

And that’s a recipe for disaster come Election Day.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald January 7, 2016.)

Carson would seek Trump's "wisdom"

This should tell you plenty about Dr. Carson, who is a very talented neurosurgeon but far from gifted in leadership skills.
If he thinks adding Trump as an advisor would bring in wisdom to his administration... that shows us:
1. Carson is a poor judge of Trump's "wisdom".
2. Carson's potential administration would have to be the opposite of wise if the addition of Trump would be an improvement.

Born in the USA?

My great-grandfather was born in Europe. He met and married my great-grandmother there and a few years later moved to the USA. Over time, they raised a family. They were poor by most standards, but they worked hard -- my great-grandfather was a cobbler and his bride was a seamstress -- and they were good members of their community.Their children were born here… in the United States… and were each given a priceless gift at birth: citizenship. Because she was born within the borders of this nation, my grandmother instantly became a citizen, something that could never be taken away.

Or could it?

There is a growing movement in certain political circles aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship. It’s a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail, and the opinions on both sides are strong, even if the arguments are a bit weak.

The Fourteenth Amendment officially became part of the Constitution in 1868 and since then its opening sentence became the standard for recognizing who is, actually, an American. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There it is, plain and simple. If you were born here, you belong here. You’re one of us. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.) But not everyone is happy about that.

Growing out of the long-running debate over immigration reform, the question of whether to continue the practice of birthright citizenship has taken its place as one of the key discussion topics in the current race for the White House. Candidates, commentators, and coffee klatchers are arguing, sometimes fiercely, about whether a baby should have such a right.

Naturally, those in favor of changing the status quo are quick to point to undocumented immigrants -- the so-called “illegal aliens” -- and calling for rejection of automatic citizenship for their children. Those who seek to preserve the 14th Amendment as is are just as forceful in arguing that its language was carefully selected to assure that all born here are given equal treatment despite the origins of their parents. After all, some of the first to benefit from the amendment were former slaves who previously had no legal claim to citizenship.

You can be sure that those on the side calling for change would claim that they are only concerned with the undocumented, that they would have no problem with granting citizenship to the children of immigrants who are here with legal documentation. But I have to wonder if it would stop there. Given the power to strip away birthright citizenship from one group, how could we stop the government from ruling that others are also not worthy? Couldn’t such authority lead to refusal of citizenship to people of a certain race or religion?

Couldn’t we see a government that would make such a change retroactive, thus revoking citizenship… and all of its privileges including the ability to vote… from existing citizens? It sure would be an effective means of shutting down your critics, wouldn’t it?

What makes me even more suspicious of the intentions of those pushing this movement is that we aren’t hearing anyone complaining about babies born of parents from places like, say, Norway or Italy or Canada. No, the argument is firmly centered on the children of immigrants who cross our southern border.

What’s further troubling is that the argument is coming from the political right, whose party is sorely lacking in support from the Latino community. Such an unbending stance against citizenship at birth… especially one that is clearly aimed at people who come to the USA from Mexico and other nations to our south… is certainly not helping the Republican Party in its efforts to include people of color under its tent.

That is, if the GOP is still making the effort.

I just read a report projecting the 2016 election turnout broken down by race and its results aren’t enthusiastic for a party that alienates non-white voters. In fact, a party that turns its back on people of color will find that it is virtually impossible to win on the national stage.

I'm not a political consultant, but if someone came to me and asked what I thought would be a good strategy, I'd suggest that being a party of ideas and goals makes more sense than building your platform on exclusion and turning back time.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 3, 2015.)

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends

The Republican Party’s effort to regain the White House kicks into high gear with its first debate. While it’s tempting to say that these events are lessons in futility, there are some valuable takeaways that can be expected from these encounters. You can learn about a candidate’s ability to string together a few talking points into what sounds like a coherent statement. You can get a feel for whether the candidate has a personality, generally displayed by a good sense of humor. And you will probably notice a few who clearly don’t do their homework.

Most everyone following these assemblies will tell you that the Republicans allowed themselves to get bogged down with too many debates in the 2012 campaign. Really, what were they thinking when they agreed to twenty such gatherings? Halfway through that schedule it was clear that the party was opening itself up to way too much self-inflicted damage, as candidates rose and fell in the opinion polls based on how they attacked each other.

In this campaign, the party has shown some wisdom by paring down the list to twelve scheduled debates, the last couple of which are tentative and could be dropped entirely. Still, is there much of an argument to make that a dozen debates are going to be effective in choosing the best candidate?

Essentially, these are not debates in the truest sense of the word. A debate follows a few relatively strict guidelines, keeping to a formal structure, and its moderator is expected to maintain order with an iron fist. These events are better described as multiperson press conferences where the participants seem to do their best to avoid answering the questions as presented, instead repeating as much of their prepared campaign speeches, slogans, and taglines. But certainly we all know this: if you want real answers to real questions, don’t ask a politician… especially one who is actively running for office.

In the last cycle there were ten candidates participating in the Republican debates, though never more than nine at any one event… and only two of those had perfect attendance in all twenty. This time? Seventeen candidates have formally announced, but you won’t get to see them all in action at once. Thanks to the GOP turning over decision making chores to Fox News, the first debate is limited to no more than ten participants, as determined by where they rank in the latest polls. By essentially slamming the door in the other candidates’ faces, Fox News has been granted enormous power to effectively kill some campaigns while giving others a higher profile.

Fox News will argue that its methodology is simply reflective of public opinion and that the news/talk channel isn’t responsible for making the selections. Rather, it would say, the people surveyed by those polls are making it clear who they are most interested in seeing on the stage. But public opinion polls are a flawed source for facts. No two polling firms use the same criteria, ask the same questions, or even seek out the same type of respondents. Each poll is subject to interpretation, and those who read the tea leaves might not understand the message. Remember, up until late on Election Night, Mitt Romney and his team were convinced that he was going to win the presidency… based on opinion polls.

At least this time Republican voters can hope for a more serious slate of candidates. At least there’s no Herman Cain, who based his campaign on his “Nine Nine Nine” mantra which sounded more like a pitch for a pizza place than a political foundation. At least there’s no Michele Bachmann, whose glazed-over eyes looked like someone who was about to announce the departure schedule for the approaching Mothership.

Nope, this time the candidates are a group to be taken seriously.

Except… this time you have people like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 hopeful back for another crack at it… taking time away from his other job as spokesman for various quackery medications on the internet.

Except… you have Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and considered by many to be the worse leader of an American technology company in history. Notably, the company’s stock jumped when her forced resignation was announced, the news bringing in nearly three billion dollars in gains in a single day.

Except… you have Donald Trump, the current Republican frontrunner. It seems to me that the people who are excited about a Trump candidacy are the same people who think Sarah Palin is worthy of holding a national office. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about Trump.

I will be watching, and I encourage you to do the same. It’s better to be informed than clueless.

Come and see the show!

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on 8/6/15)

Republicans: prepare to hold your nose when you vote

Let's be clear: the GOP nominee for the 2016 presidential campaign will be

John Ellis Bush.

I know this because:

1. He's got the money.

2. He's got the establishment support.

3. He's got the connections.

And, most important...

4. He's (so far) not saying a lot of ridiculously crazy tin-foil hat stuff.

Sure, JEB has plenty of baggage... most of it because of the guy in the picture. BUT keep this in mind: Republicans chose his brother despite the poor performance of Poppy Bush, so why wouldn't they gloss over W's negatives and usher in yet another member of the family... along with the same group of inept advisors?

Republicans will throw their support behind JEB because the party has a habit of giving the nod to the next in line. That's why John McCain was given his chance in 2008 and Mitt Romney grabbed the Golden Ticket in 2012.

Of course, by that logic Rick Santorum should be next... since he came in second last time. But anyone with a pulse and a functioning frontal lobe knows that Santorum will come out of the general election on the losing end of a massive landslide... no matter the opponent. 

Nope, Bush is the guy... even though he wants to do things that hurt the non-rich on his own side.

Take this example from Face the Nation yesterday:

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Social Security.

You recently said you favor raising the retirement age for Social Security. To what age?

BUSH: I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time. I have seen ideas that are 68, for example.

So people that already have the supplemental retirement system, which is a contract, I don't think we violate that. For people that are about ready to be beneficiaries of their supplemental retirement, I don't think we change that.

But we need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in over an extended period of time going from 65 to 68 or 70. And that by itself will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40.

SCHIEFFER: What about means-testing?

BUSH: I think it ought to be considered, for sure.

SCHIEFFER: You do think so? 

BUSH: I do so, yes.

Got that? JEB wants to force you to postpone your Social Security benefits... the ones you paid into with every paycheck your entire life... rather than alienate his deep-pocketed friends who would feel a little pain from the obvious best solution... which is to eliminate the ceiling on earnings (currently $118.500.00) and make the tax applicable on every dollar earned.

Of course, the rich can easily get around that by not taking a paycheck and instead receiving dividend payments and stock options (see Steve Jobs).

But for the vast majority of potential JEB votes, his plan to "save" Social Security will be unwelcome news. 

Still, they'll hold their noses and fill in the oval beside his name anyway... because voting against their own best interests is what they've been trained to do.

The Birthers are back & their target is...

...Marco Rubio.

I can't decide if this is funny or sad... but it will certainly be entertaining.

And they told me Palin was the dumb one...

Hard to believe this woman once was a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Clearly the name does not indicate membership requirements.

An Inconvenient Idea

There are reports that Al Gore is considering tossing his hat into the 2016 ring. Some writers, including Ezra Klein over at Vox.com, are hoping it's true.

Let's hope it's just a joke.

'Charles' wants Walker in charge

I'm thrilled to hear that Scott Baio has given his endorsement to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker... 'cause nothing warms my heart more than knowing who Chachi wants as our president.

(h/t Politico)

News: Shaping the story

Take a close look at this comparison I stumbled upon while roaming the internet:

Notice the differences? From straightforward reporting of a fact to hyper-partisanship, these six American news sources approached the Hillary Clinton email story with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

One quick note, the one news network that seems to get the most criticism from right wing pundits -- and especially in comments on social media -- is NBC (along with its sister network MSNBC), yet its coverage of this story seems to trend toward viewing Clinton in a negative light.

Let's take this globally and look at how a few other news sources presented the story.

Reuters leads with "Embattled", suggesting that Clinton is in a precarious struggle. Note how the story is paired with a photo showing Clinton with a rather alarmed expression.

BBC News presents Clinton in a more conciliatory manner, as if she is being victimized by the State Department not releasing her emails... though the headline ends with "controversy", making sure to paint the story negatively and with the promise of future trouble. 

UK's The Guardian not only flame-throws with "scandal" in the headline, it also provides a short list of questions guaranteed to draw the reader further into the fire. Yet the editors also made sure to include a picture of Clinton with a "What, me worry?" pose.

Finally, Al Jazeera takes a mixed approach, highlighting Clinton as aggressively trying to clear the air but coupling with a much more casual photograph.

What have we learned?

It's clear that one story can be handled -- or, perhaps, manipulated -- by major news outlets. They do so to grab an audience and, sometimes (more often than not), to shape the tone of the story to match the news organization's own agenda.

It makes sense; if Fox News knows that its audience is overwhelmingly anti-Clinton, then to please the audience the network is more inclined to present stories in such a way that is not favorable to Clinton.

This is further evidence that you should never rely on a single news source. Instead, take the time to explore various outlets to be sure that you get balanced, credible information.

Money for... nothing?

Make no mistake about it: you can't run for president unless you have a lot of money. I mean... a LOT of cash.

Actually, you don't need your own money... though it helps. What you need are a lot of people who have a lot of money and are willing to give you a lot of money in exchange for favors.

So what does it say about Jeb Bush when he's asking his rich friends to not give him a lot of money... right now?

It says that Bush is just like anyone else running for president. He has connections who are fairly eager to spend whatever it takes to get him elected. He just doesn't want to scare people off right now, and receiving a bunch of big gifts... er, bribes... er, contributions right now might send the wrong message.

Later, of course, when he thinks the message would be just fine... he'll gladly take as much cash as they want to dump in his lap.

BUT... for now, Bush wants his friends to only give him up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

That's right. Jeb Bush has decided that the top threshold... the amount up to which doesn't look like people are trying to buy influence... is ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Do YOU have ONE MILLION DOLLARS just gathering dust in your checking account? Me either. But the people who do? They can -- and will -- cough up the cash without any worries or hardships.

You and me? If we give a candidate ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS we're doing so at the risk of not being able to pay the electric bill... or buy a few groceries... or fill up our gas tank. But the people Bush is courting don't have to worry about those things.

Which tells you a lot about the people Jeb plans on listening to IF America decides it wants another Bush in the White House.

I think America can do better.

A rare moment of clarity

Possibly the most commonsense thing said by a Republican member of Congress in a very long time:

"Hopefully we're gonna end the attaching of bullshit to essential items of the government" - Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Net Neutrality is NOT socialism, no matter what Fox News or Pat Robertson say

Today, the FCC -- in a 3-2 party lines vote -- decided in favor of Net Neutrality. What does this mean?
It means...
...that everyone, from the largest corporation to the smallest household, is guaranteed equal access to the internet.
...that internet providers can't limit or block access to some customers nor give special consideration to others.
...that internet providers can't give faster delivery to some websites (and charge high fees for the privilege) while slowing the ability to load from other websites.
...that internet providers CAN STILL charge consumers different fees for different speeds, just like they already do.
...that consumers can expect to be treated to a quality product.

What does it NOT mean?

It does not mean...
...that the government will be controlling what you can and cannot see on the Web.
...that internet service providers will suddenly not be able to offer delivery.
...that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Cox, etc will lose money (unless you count the massive profits they would have made by allowing some content providers to buy up bandwidth at the expense of others).

Of course, Right Wing talk radio & websites, Fox News, and a host of politicians and personalities -- I'm looking at YOU, "Rev" Pat -- are telling their collective sheeple that the notion of maintaining a fair and equitable internet is SOCIALISM! and EVIL! and JOB KILLING! and everything else including the END! OF! AMERICA! AS! WE! KNOW! IT!

Baloney.

The people who are angry at today's FCC decision are the same ones that want corporations to have no limits and no regulations... granting outrageous power to the few at the expense of the many.

Net Neutrality... in a nutshell... gives each one of us the freedom to access the internet just the same as we can access telephones, electricity, or water.
YES, we still have to pay for the service... but we're not prevented from getting our money's worth.

We Don't Need No Education... (updated)

Just a couple thoughts regarding the big stink some pundits are making about Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the fact that he never graduated college...

...a degree by itself is no measurement nor guarantee that the person is capable of good job performance...

...eleven U.S. Presidents never earned a college degree, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln...

...one of the least-capable presidents of all time holds an MBA from an Ivy League school...

...Sarah Palin has a college degree...

So let's just call a halt to all this foolishness. There are many good reasons to keep Walker from gaining the Oval Office.... but the lack of a college degree is not one of them.

UPDATE: Scott Walker is picking the wrong fight.

Not long after I wrote this column, Gov. Walker appeared in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly... and decided to take the Santorum Approach to the idea of a college education.  Prompted by Kelly's remark that Sec. Hillary Clinton has a degree from Yale, Walker chimed:

"I think there's a lot of Americans who have looked at some of the leaders we've had over the last few years who've come out of those Ivy League schools and said, 'Maybe it's time we got people who are in touch with people all across the rest of America'."

Granted, one of those recent leaders was Pres. George W. Bush (BA, Yale and MBA, Harvard). Still, Walker's need to criticize those who were successful in earning a post-secondary degree is a bad strategy. No one who aspires to be the Commander in Chief should try to get there by ridiculing the education accomplishments of others.

Then again, this is the same Gov. Walker who wants to make massive cuts to his state's education system. Perhaps his lack of a degree has caused some personal bitterness...?

Object, but Respect

Remember back in 2009 when then-unknown Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You Lie!" during President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress?

He became an instant hero to the Tea Party and other low-information 'Muricans... despite the fact that he threw the whole notion of civility and gentlemanly behavior out the window. Imagine the reaction if a Democrat had done this when President George W. Bush stood before Congress and lied about those WMDs in Iraq... or when President Ronald Reagan looked into the cameras on Nov. 13, 1986, and told this whopper: “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages — nor will we.”

Yet, Fox News and other political organizations masquerading as media outlets paraded Wilson as some sort of champion, giving him plenty of coverage (and boosting his fundraising as a result of that outburst).

By the way... what was the "lie" that inspired Wilson to interrupt the president? It was the moment when President Obama made it clear that the Affordable Care Act would not mandate coverage for undocumented immigrants. Despite Rep. Wilson's interruption caused by his ignorance... the president's statement was, indeed, truthful. But, to an audience eager to have its own disgust justified, Wilson remains idealized.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with our elected officials. From 2001-2009, I tolerated the Bush/Cheney administration. I spoke out when they led us into war in Iraq by making Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I spoke out when they abused their Homeland Security credentials in order to win re-election. I spoke out when that administration's economic policies led us to the brink of depression.

But... through it all... I maintained respect for President Bush because... whether I liked his politics or not... he was the president. Given the opportunity, I would have gladly shaken his hand... and I still would today... but I would also use that opportunity to express my feelings in a respectful manner.

Yes, you will see political writings from me that point out what I consider to be outrageous actions and comments... and, yes, most of them will probably be about people from the 'Right'… or, at least, the ‘Far Right’. But everything I publish is based in fact, and I'll gladly enter into a debate on the issues with you any day, any time.

Today... if you disagree with President Barack Obama... that's your right. But if you wish to disrespect the office of President of the United States, you’re on shaky ground. Intelligent, mature discussions have no room for conspiracy theories, 'funny' pictures that are hate-fueled, or personal attacks on members of the president's family.

And let’s dispense with the idea that American politics and religion have to be inseparable. The Constitution -- specifically, Article VI, paragraph 3 -- forbids the concept of any religious litmus test. The Founders made it clear that religious favoritism, which was a key factor in 18th Century England, would not be tolerated in the United States of America. The Framers’ intention was to prevent the government from involving itself in its citizens’ religious beliefs and practices.

Of course, a person’s character can come into play when he or she seeks office, but how they choose to worship… or if they choose not to… is not to be a means to prevent them from holding office.

Now, I do have questions for President Obama regarding Jeremiah Wright...why he remained seated in that church, not speaking out against Wright’s assorted tirades until the pressures of the 2008 campaign made it clear that such a break was necessary. But we can’t criticize one politician and one preacher while ignoring the harsh words of others.

Just this week, Pat Robertson continued his repeated attacks on President Obama’s personal faith, suggesting that the imposition of Sharia law in the United States is imminent and that because the president spent part of his childhood in Indonesia that he is in on the imagined plot. John Hagee, who infamously preached that Adolf Hitler personified the fulfillment of God's will, had the audacity just last month to declare that our president is anti-Semitic.

And Franklin Graham has gone so far as to propose that Russian President Vladimir Putin, a one-time KGB agent of known ruthlessness, is leading his nation to a higher moral standard than the USA, a country that has made Rev. Graham very rich and very famous.

Who are we to condemn Wright… yet allow Robertson, Hagee, and Graham to make such pronouncements without objection?

Yes, they have the right to express their opinions, just as the rest of us have the obligation to challenge them to be honest.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on February 5, 2015.)

Washed-up Singer Tries Political Humor

Today, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy had a gab-fest with former country music star Larry Gatlin. I say "former" because it's been a very long time (27 years, in fact) since he's had a hit song... so it's safe to say that Mr. Gatlin isn't all that entertaining to today's country music audience.

These days, Gatlin is billed as a "political and social commentator" for Fox News and Fox Business Network. Based on his performance today, Mr. Gatlin should stick to rehashing his old songs.

See for yourself: Doocy chuckles at Gatlin's "humor"

One more thing... once upon a time, Larry Gatlin looked like this:

A White Guy says Raising the Minimum Wage will hurt Minorities

I'm sure Congressman McClintock didn't mean to suggest that minorities only deserve a low wage... but unfortunately that's what he ends up saying here.

McClintock could have made a legitimate argument -- something like "a lower wage means more opportunities for more people", or a similar stance based on bad economic theories -- but instead he rambles about low wages are best for minorities because of a lack of skills.

I'm not an economist, but I could come up with a better argument -- in fact, arguments that make sense both for and against raising the minimum wage -- and I certainly wouldn't include anything that sounds bigoted.

Perhaps Congressman McClintock should think more and talk less.

Another Example of John McCain's Poor Judgment

Pictured above is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The same Sarah Palin who continues to tell anyone who will listen that she is interested in running for president... who covers her Facebook page with all sorts of religious-themed posts... who wants you to believe that she is all about "family values"...

The same Sarah Palin who is praised by supposed Christian leaders like Franklin Graham...

That same Sarah Palin is shown here enthusiastically holding a sign with both a profane phrase AND a gun-flavored threat to filmmaker Michael Moore. (See the gunsight crosshairs?) And don't let anyone tell you she didn't notice what the sign says; that's her autograph in the lower left corner.

What a role model!

Yep, John McCain made a huge mistake in putting this fool on the ticket... giving this TV personality just enough exposure to get rich by saying and doing stupid stuff.

It's sad that Sen. McCain still refuses to admit that he was wrong to pick her as his running mate.

It's even sadder that there are a lot of people who faithfully follow her.

(H/T to Andrew Kirell, Editor of Mediaite, for finding this picture.)

The Absolute Hypocrisy of Mike Huckabee

Former Arkansas governor and perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been making a lot of noise recently in his criticism of Beyoncé. Huckabee has attacked Beyoncé's music as "vulgar" and denouncing President and Mrs. Obama for allowing their daughters to listen to the pop star's songs.

Yet Huckabee counts as one of his favorite performers one Mr. Ted Nugent who is known for songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang", "Yank Me, Crank Me (But Don't Wake Up and Thank Me)", and his biggest hit, "Cat Scratch Fever", a song that Nugent recently performed on Huckabee's Fox News program... with Huckabee playing bass guitar.

The song has two clear meanings: promiscuous teenage (and pre-teen) sex and contracting a sexually-transmitted disease as a result. Though Nugent has denied the latter, the phrase "cat scratch fever" was a commonly-used slang term for syphilis in the Seventies. The lyrics suggest that Nugent's denials are not truthful:

Well, the first time that I got it I was just ten years old

I got it from some kitty next door

An' I went to see the doctor and he gave me the cure

I think I got it some more

On The Daily Show (January 19th, 2015), Huckabee told Jon Stewart: "That song is an adult song, geared for adults." Really? Tell that to the hormone-loaded teenagers -- myself included -- who bought Nugent's albums in the Seventies. Tell that to the parents of those Seventies teenagers who were shocked to hear their innocent children singing along with:

Well, I make the pussy purr with the stroke of my hand

They know they gettin' it from me

They know just where to go when they need their lovin' man

They know I'm doin' it for free

Of course, his criticism of Beyoncé's music is a small part of Huckabee's schtick... but it's part of his central theme of separating this nation into two parts: Bubble-ville and Bubba-ville. He is very condescending when talking about people from urban areas and those with advanced education while portraying the rest as more wholesome and practical. He attacks one in order to celebrate the other. It's the same tactic used by other political extremists like Sarah Palin who suggest that some parts of this nation are the "real America", as if they are the only ones worthy.

This is the type of behavior that causes rifts and makes the division between two sides grow much wider. Huckabee is exploiting domestic xenophobia, the fear and hatred some Americans have of other Americans simply because of their differences.

Huckabee condemns Beyoncé's music as "mental poison"... but he excuses the blatant pornography of Ted Nugent because:

1. Nugent's music fans are overwhelmingly rural
2. Nugent's political views are shared by many of Huckabee's followers
3. Nugent and Huckabee are in agreement on gun issues.

Huckabee may have moral standards... but his willingness to disapprove of some while glorifying others is pure hypocrisy.

Why so angry?

There’s nothing wrong with being angry. I don’t just mean upset or irritated or ill-tempered. I’m talking about pure, unadulterated, enragement. It’s okay. Clearly, we are supposed to be furious. The question is: what is irritating you today?

No, seriously… you have to get mad. Everybody says so. Name a topic and you’re on your way to an argument. We’ve reached a point in history where two people simply can’t be 100% in agreement.  

Okay, that’s not completely accurate. Two people CAN agree, but in an age of information overload it’s unlikely. That’s because those two people have so many available resources from which to form their opinions that it’s virtually impossible to expect them to reach the same conclusions on any given subject.

I’m not suggesting that anger doesn’t have a place. But what’s the point of screaming, “I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore” when you don’t know what you’re mad about?

I’ve made it clear in this column that, despite the vast resources available to the average American, we as a nation appear to be woefully disinterested in facts. We’re more likely to let some talker on radio or television tell us what to think rather than taking the time to gain the knowledge necessary to decide for ourselves. In the Google era it’s unbelievably easy to catch someone in a lie, yet too many people are willing to believe what they hear or read without bothering to do a simple fact check.

It depends on the topic. If I told you that I heard that the moon was a man-made Death Star that didn’t exist before it was placed in orbit five years ago… you’d know that I was talking nonsense. But if you read an email that said the government had a secret plan to take away your guns, or send people to internment camps based on their political registration, or was creating death panels designed to kill grandma… you might believe it without evidence.

You know those things are fantasy? Yeah, you’re right… but there’s a lot of people who believe that foolishness -- and get very angry about it -- just because someone they follow claims it’s true.

In politics, it’s no longer just about Republicans versus Democrats. Every policy, every individual, is scrutinized to determine exactly where they fall in the Left-Right spectrum. One of the most frightening things you can say to a Republican politician is a four word sentence: “You’re not conservative enough.” By whose measurement? (Can you imagine a similar approach on the Left, with politicians threatened with a primary challenge because they’re not liberal enough?)

Funny. The man trumpeted as the hero of the Right… the most-revered President of the conservative movement… was a divorced, distant father whose goal was making every young starlet his sexual conquest. Then, when elected, he moved to expand abortion rights, raised taxes multiple times AND supported terrorist organizations. And yet, HE’S the guy raised up on the pedestal as the symbol of family values, patriotism, and fiscal responsibility.

And now, the new Congress is underway. Mitch McConnell gets to be the guy in charge in the Senate. One of the chief architects of the Congressional slowdown of the past six years now has to prove that he can lead. In the House, John Boehner faced competition for the Speaker’s gavel from the far, far Right… from Louie Gohmert and Ted Yoho… as if either of those extremists has demonstrated any sense of leadership. Of course, in the past two years the true leader of the House of Representatives… the one person with the most influence… has been a member of the other chamber. Republicans in the House eagerly took direction from a Canadian-born Texas transplant who once stood in the Senate chamber and cluelessly read “Green Eggs and Ham” to demonstrate his hatred of trying something new. The concept of irony is completely lost among the willfully uninformed.

In the 2014 campaigns we heard plenty of grumblings from Americans about their elected officials. “Throw the bums out” was a common sentiment, as if removing incumbents would solve the problem. Even Rasmussen, the most conservative polling company, found that two-thirds of those asked rated Congress’s effectiveness as “poor”. If that was the basis of your performance review at work, you’d expect to be unemployed soon. Not with Congress. Nearly every incumbent in the House and Senate was reelected. Essentially, Congress has an approval rating of 95%. You say you don’t like them, that you want to replace them, but you keep putting them back in… and they reward you with the same do-nothing approach to their jobs. But we chose to give them another term in office. It’s our fault.

Now that’s something to be angry about.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on January 8, 2015.)