I think the answer to the first one is simple. No, it is not the answer Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator gave. Her reason was the agreed upon, previously released response, the evidence is overwhelming, the EPA is obligated to do something about it. My answer is that carbon is the most dangerous “pollutant” left to regulate, and public opinion has not swayed to the liking of the warming lobby, Congress has refused to pass Cap & Trade because the electorate kicks those Congressmen who threaten to do so, out of office. Just like the cleanup of the Gulf Coast beaches, lots of people are needed early on. As the worst of it is cleaned, fewer people are needed until eventually, only a few are “needed” to check out reports of places that are not cleaned. The EPA, like all government agencies, will not send the early cleaners home, and their ranks continue to grow. Their budget grew 35% since President Obama took office. There are too many people. They are obligated to clean something up. The EPA only remains relevant so long as there is an environmental pollutant not being cleaned up.

The second is simple as well, if you simply apply poli-logic, the logical assessment of a policy’s outcome. The EPA asserts it is obligated to regulate carbon, for the purpose of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, for the purpose of relieving the earth’s fever. Assume for a second that the earth has Al Gore’s fever, and that reducing carbon will accomplish this cooling. The question is reduced to the simple form: Will carbon in the atmosphere be reduced as a result of EPA limits on it? I suggest it will not. Simply, global warming suggests a global phenomenon. The air we clean (or don’t pollute) circles the globe. The EPA does not. When it costs too much to operate a factory here, because the electricity costs too much, the factory will move to China, or close and be replaced by one opened there. The Chinese electrical generation is not as clean as ours was then the EPA was formed, much less EPA obligation “clean.” The end result is more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now, and more of other pollutants like sulfur that are all but eliminated in U.S. electricity production. If the EPA, or anyone for that matter, wants to reduce air pollution, they should do everything possible to bring as much industry to the U.S. as possible. The dirtier, the better.

While we are at it, lets look at another assumption that must be true in order for the EPA assertions to hold water, ( . . . um . . . air?), specifically that the science is settled. I can remember when floppy drives came on the scene. I can remember the news talking about global cooling in the ‘70’s and the impending next ice age. One thing I have noticed, scientists talk about the current understanding, or the current theories, not settled science. If Lisa Jackson had testified that tests have produced results consistent with the current theories, raising confidence that the theories accurately describe the natural phenomenon, I could check her assertion. I could concur, or at least find people who had done so and concurred. If she had said what scientists say, that the theory is not perfect and new refinements are being discovered each time the tests are repeated, I would have more respect for her opinion. But she did not. She said what politicians say, the subject is settled, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act could allow the EPA to ignore public will and the will of Congress and act on their beliefs as apposed to mine. To paraphrase one comment made during the hearing: The Supreme Court said the Clean Air Act COULD be used to regulate airborne carbon, the EPA staff thinks it SHOULD be so used, the Congress will decide if it WILL be so used.

Scientists do not claim to know all of the consequences of a political scheme and would generally not offer what should be, one would simply state what is known, and what the predicted outcome will be. A scientist knows that she will one day be proven wrong concerning some “settled” scientific truth, and would not want to be held responsible for spending billions of dollars and sending away millions of jobs and increasing the pollution in the air. So even if Lisa Jackson is not the climate activist she seems, and is correct in her assertion about the science, how long are we going to allow the EPA to increase the carbon in the atmosphere via China et. al.?

The EPA must be stopped to save the planet!!

I was pleasantly surprised to hear his words and will take it as a sign of hope that he does not want to fundamentally change America as he led me to believe.  Also, Jon Stewart, who I also disagree with frequently, elevated my respect of him by saying in part, “I wouldn’t blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine.”  Again, look up the rest of his well spoken words if you are so inclined.  Unfortunately, his view is not shared by the bulk of his more conspicuous knee-jerk supporters in the media, if I am to take them at their word.

In case you have not been watching, the local Sheriff started blaming his political foes for encouraging violence.  There was a collective gasp in the more liberal members of the media and a clamor to be the first or loudest to cheer, “Yeah, what he said!”  I had the same reaction as most of the more conservative members of the media and blamed this piling-on as following Rham Emanuel’s advice, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before”.  But earlier today, my good friend Brian shared a discovery he made.  He was discussing the ludicrous attempt to convince people that this could have been stopped, if only we did not sell guns to the public.  Among other claims are assertions that ending the Fairness Doctrine led to this tragedy, as did the “loophole” that allows people to say unflattering things about elected officials, leading the insane to get the idea that people are unhappy with the elected official’s conduct.  We should protect ourselves from insane people learning that we are unhappy with the state of affairs in Washington?

How ludicrous does a claim need to be, before we skeptically view it critically?  Has Critical thinking died?  Let me make a ludicrous claim and seemingly back it up with facts you can check.  Please tell me if you would accept my claim if it were presented in the news media as serious analysis and commentary.  I will make an attempt to identify the facts and the gratuitous assertions as we go along and ask that you correct me when I miss one, like my English teachers used to correct my grammar.  I do not expect political correctness, but critical thinking, so the use of red ink and exclamation points is encouraged.  So, here it goes.

In Tucson a lone gunman, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat U.S. Representative of Arizona, (fact) as reprisal for her recent vote against House Minority Leader and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (gratuitous assertion).  Gifford was obviously unhappy with Pelosi (gratuitous assertion) for leading Democrats into the largest shift in party power since the 1930’s and the lowest Democrat representation in the House since the 1940’s (fact)  Former Speaker Pelosi has a reputation for holding a grudge against Democrats who publically disagree with her (common gratuitous assertion).  Recently the House of Representatives held elections for the position of Speaker.  All of the Republicans voted for current speaker Boehner, except Boehner himself who abstained from voting.  This is historically benign; nearly all such elections are without dissention, along party lines.  However, an historic 10% of Democrats did not vote for the Democrat nominee in this election.  18 Democrats, including Giffords, voted for someone other than Democrat nominee Nancy Pelosi.  One humorously voted “present”, and one dissenter had more important things to do and did not show up.  In 1923, twenty three Republicans voted against the speaker-to-be in a preliminary round, but voted the party line in the final vote.  Otherwise, there has never been a dissention numbering more than single digits in U.S. History, much less to vote for a record 7 different alternative candidates, 6 of whom were not even running as was the case in this election.  (facts)  It seems that in a calculated response to Ms. Pelosi’s hate filled desire to meet out revenge for her public humiliation, the gunman started with one of the more vocal of Pelosi dissenters, Giffords.  (Patently false fabrication)

(If replacing Pelosi with Boehner and telling you we are talking about 2006, with Bush as President makes this sound plausible when it did not before, stop reading, you are too lost to benefit from any further discussion.) If I demanded that Ms. Pelosi is a coward unless she personally denounce this gunman and deny he is an arm of her office or upholding in any way her convictions, would I be reasonable?  I think not.  I have not shown any link between Ms. Pelosi and the shooter in any stretch of my imagination.  Would this change if I inserted another political cause in place of the election of the House Speaker?  Certainly, that would not point to new connections and should not be treated with any more credibility.  What if I substituted someone for Ms. Pelosi in my assertion?  Again, no.

But this is exactly what has happened in the last few days.  The local Sheriff blames the hateful vitriol and rhetoric of the right, and, “believes the hard right is deliberately fueling the fire against public officials, elected officials, government, and the administration”, admitting when asked directly that he has no evidence of a connection between the two.  He does this with a veteran lawman’s knowledge that the gunman’s legal defense will use the Sheriff’s statements against the prosecution to establish bias in the collection of evidence or in mitigating his sentence.  A reporter characterizes Sarah Palin as a coward for not defending herself, presumably to him, for her roll in the shooting. Her website has cross hairs on a map of political opponents and she recently said after some political setback to not retreat but to reload.  The MSMBC crew seems dedicated to naming names and blacking eyes of those on the right who were warned that protesting “progressive” policies via Tea Parties et. al. would lead to such lunacy.  Our Secretary of State tries to make friends in the Mideast by painting the shooter as an extremist (not a criminal, not a lunatic) and equating him with the sane, organized extremists from their world who attack us.

Similar talk comes from all parts of the political world and practically nowhere else.  I would be guilty of the same if I did not point out that this is true, regardless of party or affiliation.  Hard core political beasts do bloodthirsty battle on a blood drenched field of combat before the ravenous gaze of vultures and sympathizers alike.  Is it irony that such violence-metaphor is the target of the current campaign?  But you and I are not political beasts, presumably.  I know hardly anyone who assigns political motivation to hardly any behavior other than perhaps the act of voting, or not.  My challenge is aimed at the pedestrians on the sidewalk outside the stadium, not into the fray inside.

How hard is it for you and I to check the facts?  Should those in the media be able to check them?  What about the Sheriff close to the investigation?  Would he not have the best information available?  Would we not be best served to believe him when he states that he does not have anything to back up his assertion that right wing rhetoric contributed in any way to the motivation of this shooter?

I find it interesting that those who are appalled at the incitement of violence by the right, are uninterested when the left demonizes President Bush.  The outrage is selective and no side is innocent in this regard, but there was no outrage in the media when a liberal director made a movie, The Death of a President, about the assassination of the President of the United States.  Would it surprise you to know that this was not a story about a generic President, but about the then current, sitting President George Bush?  There was certainly no outrage when Ms. Pelosi used metaphors about para-trouping over Republican resistance to the Democrat health care bill, no outrage when President Obama bragged about bringing a gun to a knife fight.  There was no outrage when Joe Manchin, a Democrat Governor, made a political add where he carried an actual gun, loaded it with an actual bullet, took actual aim and an actual target, and actually shot a hole in a copy of the cap and trade bill.  This was allowed since it was metaphorical, and from a Democrat.

I assert that people who think that ALL actions are politically motivated had to assume that the shooting of a Democrat in Arizona must be motivated by non-Democrat forces.  They could not conceive of a person being willing to shoot ANY, RANDOM elected official, without regard for political affiliation.  Since this was a liberal victim, and a liberal tenant is to blame the lack of government control for bad things, they immediately look to expose the gap in the law that allowed this person to snap.  Case in point, there are legislators calling for tighter gun control with the idea that the gunman would not have used an illegal gun to commit murder.  I will get back to my friend’s genius on this point in a moment.  Also, there are proposed laws to make illegal any speech or symbol that could be construed as encouraging violence against a member of Congress.  Too bad they didn’t think about such controls when people were burning effigies of  President Bush portrayed as Hitler hanging from a noose.  Rahm’s lead notwithstanding, there is no functional connection between such control of speach and the tragedy in Arizona.

I encourage you to listen critically to outrage.  When the victims of a shooting are enroute to medical treatment and a first responder blames someone, it can be excused considering the excitement of the moment.  When several days go by and they maintain this blame, consider if the one casting blame knows something to logically lead them to that determination, in other words, could it be factually based.  When people totally uninvolved with the shooting, blame everyone of a group who disagrees on unrelated issues, critically consider if the accusations could possibly be true.  Could the person making the claim have the bit of information to fill in the logical gap between them?  When someone defines a “problem” as if it were fact, without offering any facts to support the link between the “problem” and the crisis, then insists on a “solution” in the form of restrictions on people they disagree with, carefully consider that it may not be a solution at all, but a tool of political gain.  Don’t believe me, think for yourself.

So, how does my friend’s revelation fit in with this?  It has to do with the cries for gun controls.  Let’s look at the facts we know.  This young man was in trouble in school more than once for disrupting class with claims such as the school is using grammar for mind control.  He was once asked to leave and refused in such a way that a security guard was posted outside the room from then on.  His classmates were afraid he would show up one day and start shooting people.  He had a similar record in college where one professor said he was afraid to turn his back on him for fear he would be shot in the back.  We know that although he was arrested more than once, the charges were dropped each time.  His mom works for the County Board of Supervisors, and although I have no reason to believe the leniency he received is related to her employment influences, such would cast more doubt, in my mind, on the Sheriff’s objectivity.  We know that he was pulled over for running a red light, hours before the shootings, and let go with a warning.  And, we know that he legally bought a handgun that he then used in this shooting.  We know these things because of the records, not the least of which was the gun purchase.  This made me realize two things.  First, making people go through the background check and waiting period and so on do not prevent committed criminals from proceeding with their plans. What would have changed if guns were not legally available?  There would be no record of where he bought the gun.

Second, and most profoundly, is that the liberal idea of relativistic enforcement of the law, the idea that they should be enforced sometimes and not sometimes, enabled this man to pass the background check.  The fact that his unacceptable behavior did not have him kicked out of school and evaluated, at the high school and collegiate levels, in the name of political correctness, allowed him to pass the background check when he should not have.  The fact that he was arrested, more than once, and allowed to go free perhaps due to favoritism, may have kept him from being diagnosed as the paranoid schizophrenic he seems to be, kept him from being treated, and allowed him to pass the background check.  It is easier to attempt to keep law abiding people from buying guns, than to admit that the system failed this man, and the people he attacked, including the 9 year old girl he shot in the face at point blank range.  It is easier to think that only the system is broke and can be fixed by new restrictions on the speech and other behavior of the law abiding.  It is too hard to realize that this man is broke and no system can catch someone committed to acting outside of it.  Utopia cannot exist in a human world, regardless of the level of government control.  This man certainly would not have been deterred from using an illegal gun when he did not hesitate to shoot a child, in the face, close enough to see her anticipation and reaction.  Believing that controlling speech on the radio, or the guns in the stores, would bring this ill man productively back into society is simply bizarre.  Do we prefer to control the largest number of people, or to discover the largest number of mentally disturbed people?  Critically consider how to best do that, and the other rhetoric seems too ludicrous even for TV.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040204207.html

Mr. Stuever is correct in the assertion that this is not news, but he misses the point that much of what is paraded in front of us is not news. Bald children claiming to need S-CHiP expansion to get treatment is news(?) but the revelation that the family could afford health insurance but campaigned for federal aid expansion so they would not have to, is not (?), ad. nauseam on both sides.

But, there is one point of merit, veiled as he points out, that we are told daily that we cannot do inspiring things like help one another. We are told that Massachusetts cannot provide health coverage for all, only the federal government can do that. We are told that Virginia cannot regulate drilling off her shores, only the federal government can do that. We are told that the state of Utah cannot manage her lands, only the federal government can do that. We are told, although subtly, that people cannot do inspiring things, until they go to Washington.

So, he is correct that this is not news to most of us. But, that this particular show got any comment at all, indicates that the author knows that someone was trying to say something, (political perhaps, it is Palin after all?) but the fact that the author lumps it in with all the sunshine being blown at us indicates that the thinly veiled point was lost on him. Or, perhaps not, perhaps he would like to think it will be lost on his readers if he simply wills it.

The Great American Experiment followed the sacrifice of, “lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor” in defense of an idea. The idea that individuals, free from the tyranny of central command and control, protected their individual interests better than any unrelated protector, no matter how kind, caring or otherwise motivated. The Great American Experiment was funded, fought, and died for on the promise that freedom led to higher standards of living for everyone, greater innovation in business, agriculture, and every other aspect of life for everyone it touched, successful and failing alike. The government would be as limited as possible, the people as free as possible.

Carl Marx, believed the antithesis of these ideas. Marxism suggests that such freedom, and the fact that some people would be immensely more successful than others under such freedom, hurts the average person. Marx believed that for some people to succeed, others must fail, that the size of the pie is fixed, and who gets large pieces and who goes hungry is mostly random, except that dishonest people predisposed to fraud will skew things to their advantage. The typical honest person will suffer under the abuse of the dishonest. People are better served, in his theory, when each produce according to their abilities, and a central authority distributes according to one’s need. The average is better served when everyone follows the plan.

Every society in human existence has either answered to a central authority like a king, or had some system whereby the people chose their governors. In early history, a king who fought for the position was best able to fight to defend his people from invaders and pillagers, or to invade and pillage neighbors. Most were still farmers and hunters. Later, when technology progressed to the point where people could produce more than they consumed, trading came on the scene with the evolution of the middle man (middleous homosapien). This relied on fair play and people were hunted down and killed for foul play. Knowing who could be trusted and a person’s reputation became valued knowledge. Middleous man evolved to make a living off of what they knew instead of what they could grow or hunt. This only happened because there was enough excess produced to support people who did not directly hunt or gather food, make clothing, or build shelter, and there was efficiency in producing a couple of commodities where the climate was best suited to it and trading them for goods that could be more efficiently produced elsewhere. (This is why we raise beef and corn here, and they raise sugar cane in the tropics). It was almost unregulated. The middle men got together and formed colleges, or congresses, (groups of like minded people to serve a common end). Being a member of such could encourage producers and buyers to deal with you. The members of such groups would promise better and better prices to producers, and better and better quality to the buyers. Some would temporarily make a better living by such promises than from what they knew. They promised more than their competing middle men, until they could no longer produce and the group collapsed. They were replaced.

This system was ultimately replaced by the selection of fair play representatives (governors) by consensus. This made the selection based more on the perception of the candidate’s abilities than on actual performance. (Sound familiar?) Sometimes the selection was fair; sometimes it was coerced and intimidated. Indeed, control of all societies has been and is by governments chosen by a range of methods, with violent seizure of power after surrender on one end of the scale, and free and frequent elections on the other.

I am only concerned with the violent seizure method in that it is no more or less likely an end to any society, regardless of where their system currently lies along the scale, and is therefore mostly unpredictable. Such systems arise when the people are not able or willing to withstand its takeover. My concern is with the other end where America selects its government. Every society in human existence who chose their governors based on promises of representation have ultimately fallen to wasteful spending. The cliché is that they fell when the electorate voted themselves larger shares of the stores of grain than they were motivated to produce when fed with free grain. It is another of human’s natures. Until the mid 1900’s, these happenings were part of common education.

These are well known facts. In the pre-American world, kings tried to motivate their subjects with a system of taxes and entitlements. Prior to America’s founding, it was generally believed that anarchy would ensue without divinely inspired and chosen leaders. Many cultures still believe that today. Our founders believed that no one is more or less divinely created than the next, and that anarchy ensues without a divinely inspired population. They conceived a system whereby people could correct tyranny by choice. They conceived, debated, and persuaded the acceptance of a system that limited the power of the government to only that which the people authorize it to have. They demanded limits on government which could not be changed by the government serving those limits. They knew that human nature would compel elected officials to promise ever increasing rations from the public stores, and that once government control got sufficiently complicated, one size-fits-all policies would be the only way to manage the complexity thereby limiting innovation and individual motivation. They believed that nearly every government activity must be controlled locally, or fail.

So here we are. We stand at the cross roads where intellect faces human nature. On the one hand, intellect can rightly lead us to the conclusion that perfect management of a well motivated populace, provided for in accordance with the needs of each, eliminates suffering caused by bad decisions made by the individual. Human nature can lead us to accept Marx’s arguments without challenging the assumptions inherent in them. Marx’s utopic theory requires that human nature be resisted by the managers so that corruption does not foul the system, and that human nature be resisted by the managed so that defense of individual best interest no interfere with the common good even when contrary to individual good. Human nature explains why corruption is so common in countries with Marxist leaning systems. The self interest of the briber is provided for by the indulgence of the self interest of the bribed. Innovation is only relevant when conceived by or recognized by the managers and no incentive exists outside of ego for the innovator or the observant manager. Likewise, human nature leads us to vote ourselves larger shares of the public stores on the promises that “they” will be sufficiently taxed and sufficiently tolerant of the taxes to continue to produce grain undeterred. Human nature leads some to believe this despite the evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, intellect can lead us to look for examples of both systems, socialist and free market, and determine which provides better conditions for the poor, or disadvantaged. Human nature would be to choose the best performing system.

Have we chosen the system whose theory stands up to rational debate when devoid of real world examples, or the system that has proven successful in practice despite being too complicated to fully explain every action rationally?

The choices, as I understand them are these: Recognize that we have the best medical system in the world BECAUSE the rich pay more than the poor, BECAUSE the rich have access to new treatment and technology before it is cheap enough for mass consumption; Recognize this it is this arrangement which makes medical care for the poor more available than it was a decade ago; Recognize that medical treatment of the poor is more available than it is in any other system in the world; Recognize that much of the medical treatment available to the world’s poor only exists as a result of the American medical system; Recognized that more treatments are available to the poor than would be if FDR had been successful in realizing socialized medicine; Recognize that a generation from now, the poor will have less access to as yet undiscovered treatments under socialized medicine than would be available if the rich continued to fund research and development; Recognize that socialism, Marxism, communism, statism, progressivism, liberalism, or however else you chose to label it, has led to the death of more people in the world than all other calamities combined; Recognize that because these systems rely on complete adherence to the common plan and surrender of the protection of individual defense of one’s best interest, violence and oppression are always used to control the population; Recognize that the wealth created by American entrepreneurs has funded the defense of most of the free world for two generations. Simply, choose to protect the rights of the individual to succeed or fail by one’s own decisions, unencumbered by agendas of social justice and wealth redistribution.

Or, choose the path chosen by every free society ever known. Choose the path dictated by emotion and human nature. Choose to bankrupt the country by trying to plan and provide an ever increasing array of goods and services, devised by a politically motivated committee that sets it own limits, provided to increasingly less motivated and demonized producers.

Will intellect win out over emotion? Am I wrong in my belief that I am on the side of intellect and not emotion? Is it arrogance that got us here in the first place, to believe that the human nature cycle of tyranny-escape-freedom-prosperity-guilt-entitlement-dependancy-tyranny can be short circuited without the pain of tyranny fresh in our minds? Are we destined to go down as the society arrogant enough to think that it manage all things for all people, just as the Romans did?

I hope not. I hope, that the success of the Great American Experiment thus far, can inspire us to not relinquish this prosperity and freedom in return for short term illusions of social justice. I hope that we recognize the success that took us from 13 colonies, too worthless to warrant the resources to control those colonies, to the most prosperous, powerful, free, and generous people in the world in less than 100 years. I hope that we collectively believe in our hearts, that the reason people immigrate here from every country in the world is freedom and opportunity and not a random coincidence. I hope that we as a country do not give in to the human nature that leads us to believe that our neighbors make poor choices at home, but perfect ones when electing officials, that these same neighbors make poor decisions at home, but perfect ones once in Washington DC.

I hope that we recognize that it is because of human nature, not despite it, that socialism and statism have always failed wherever they existed, and that free markets have succeeded everywhere they have existed. There is only so much motivation garnered from threats of fines and imprisonment, but the motivation of the hope for a better life is only limited by one’s imagination.

My original point was that is must be horrible to be a liberal/progressive/collectivist with things going so badly. Occasionally I comment about how they tend to eat each other when in charge. Part of the reason is that they each think that their own issue is the only important one but the principles they insist further their interests actually hinder the agenda of other liberal/progressive/collectivists. How is related to President Obama not qualifying as the antichrist? They are both explained by the idea behind the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”

When a self evident truth is up for debate, only the nuts out in left field argue against it. (Sorry, not leftist field, right field is just as good.) For instance, if the bill up for debate was to outlaw the murder of children for their milk money, this self evident truth would receive little opposition. The Democrats hold a dominant majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. If the Republicans commit to vote against everything, or if they agree to stay home, makes no difference. Why then has a health care law not passed? Why has it been changed from health care reform to health insurance reform? Why, has cap and trade not passed? Why has Gitmo not closed? Why are our troops still in Iraq? Because Republicans voted against these? No, if that were the case, the big health bill buy offs like the “Louisiana Purchase” and the Nebraska bribe would have been to holdout Republicans, not Democrats. Why would Democrats need to be paid to vote for a self evident truth of their own creation?

Also, what would motivate a Republican to vote against a self evident truth proposed by Democrats, especially in an election year when they could be held to account for voting against a self evident truth? Why would an uncaring, self serving Republican not be tempted to vote for the winning side if it was in keeping with their personal views on a particular issue and helped ease their re-election?

Simply, because they all know these are not self evident truths. The other self serving, political hack, Republicans love the idea that the Democrats will be held responsible for the consequences, all bad in the short run, no benefits until after the next presidential election. Some Democrats actually believe that there are great truths that are not self evident, stealthy truths which require higher education and enlightened understanding to be seen. These believe that it is worth going against the blind common people for the common good. Some political hack Democrats believe that it is always about political party and that these issues are not important to anyone, except in the context of political battle. All Democrats, regardless of motivation, voted for one of the healthcare versions except a few in the House who were “allowed” to vote against their version in hopes of protecting their seat in the upcoming November elections. Such allowances would not be needed for a self evident truth.

Of course, you could argue that universal mandated health insurance is a self evident truth. But, then you would have to ask yourself this: How big a looser would Democrats have to be to control the House, Senate, and White House, and not be able to pass a law furthering a self evident truth? How incompetent would the President need to be, for Americans to elect him in with a self described commanding mandate to pass such, with an unhindered, compliant Congress, and not get a bill to his desk.? How incompetent would he have to be to botch the debate so badly that Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat would fall to a Republican running on the platform of voting against the current bills? Universal insurance was Kennedy’s life’s work and he helped enact universal health insurance in Massachusetts. The voters knew their vote could spell the end of the issue Kennedy martyred himself for. Yet, they voted against the truth they are personally experienced in. (Kennedy could have resigned when he found out he was dying. This would have allowed a replacement to be appointed by the Governor to serve out the remainder of Kennedy’s term. This would have likely been the Governor appointed Democrat who did immediately replaced Kennedy. Instead, it was decided that Kennedy dying in office would garner sympathy for his cause. This shortened the appointment to 3 months until a special election could be held. – Self evident falsehood, or incompetence. You decide.)

Or, could it be a combination of the two?

Consider that the problems the liberal/progressive/collectivists are having stems from the largest shortcoming of their philosophy: all big decisions should be made in one central location by a few all-powerful clairvoyants. Chicago politics enjoyed some separation between campaign rhetoric, the rhetoric of sitting officials, and the actual votes on the actual laws before them. The liberal legislature passed the liberal agenda, watched only by a liberal electorate, only on issues still the local prerogative. President Obama was ill prepared by the only job he had ever really held. He is/was incompetent to stand questioned about the liberal agenda by non-liberals on the national stage. If the state and local acts were the major controlling factors in attracting or discouraging international business in Illinois instead of federal acts, President Obama would be more practiced. Discussions of competing with the Chinese for jobs when the Chinese employers do not pay for universal health insurance would have been more commonplace and he presumably would have had less trouble selling it to fellow Democrats without paying them off. In short, if the authority still resided with the states and their citizens, a U.S. President would not need to defend such policies to people in every individual state.

Is our President incapable of selling a truth that sells itself, to people of his own party who hold the same beliefs and agenda? Even without understanding the details, wouldn’t the truth be obvious?

Specifically, he said then candidate Obama stood a good chance of winning because he was, “light skinned” and spoke with, “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” I say, cut him some slack. Why? Mostly, because I am on the right but not a Republican. I can forgive him for letting his colors show, so to speak, but don’t feel the need to attack him because he is a Democrat.

The flack he is catching from the right is over the hypocrisy of how the left, and Democrats in particular, react to such comments from their own, verses someone from the right and Republicans in particular. Why, they say were George Allen, Jimmy the Greek, Al Campanis, James Watt, and others treated so harshly for words that were more insensitive than racist? Why does Biden get a pass for characterizing convenience store clerk jobs as requiring an Indian accent et. al.?

The public’s concern is lost in all the rhetoric. This is representative of a larger issue in American politics which I suggest is at the heart of why we are tired of American politics. I have in my head the caricature of our elected officials playing a football game. Imagine the flapping neckties and soft bodied tackle attempts and whinny insults from the bench, the breathless attempts at power-walk like blitzes and the squeak squeak squeak of plastic surgery parts stretching under the exertions. Imagine the hair; imagine errant comb overs, a muddy postiche near the Gatorade cooler, that crackling sound when hairspray teased poof scrapes Astroturf, and the hair stylist/team managers clamoring on the field when the whistle blows to attempt to save a $400 hair do. I think they are all ridiculous when they shake their fists shakily at the camera, two fingers taped together, and claim to fight for us. Where are the real athletes? But the issue that screams at me has more to do with why would people who appear to be so inept at the game on TV, choose to play the game, and how do they so passionately choose to play for one team or another? And why are we so angry at both teams?

Is the answer in Harry’s words? Let’s see, is Obama light skinned? I guess you could say so, or not. Does he have any particular dialect? I don’t think so. Could he fake one? If Hillary can get away with what she contrived as a southern draw, I am certain he can pull something out of his hat. How about the words of Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond at Strom’s 100th birthday party? “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” Is that racist? Not on the surface. The answer depends on whether you believe he was referring to Strom’s strong support of state’s rights, or his support for racial segregation. Care to guess which the Republicans chose? We can’t know a man’s heart, but the way we react to such statements shows our own.

The difference is seen in who each group tolerates in their midst. In general, conservatives agree on more conservative principles than we disagree on. I like to think this is because the truths we hold are self evident, that the conclusions we reach suffer reason. We tolerate people who do not hold one or more of these beliefs, but once you do not hold several as true, it is more likely that you will side with the liberals anyway. For instance, a conservative might agree with limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and personal liberty, but believe that a woman should be allowed to abort a pregnancy for reasons entirely her own. Liberals and Conservatives alike would label such a person a Conservative. Liberals on the other hand, tolerate almost anyone who agrees to vote for their cause. Liberals tend to be ardent liberals with only one or two issues they are passionate about, and willing to feign passion for all the others. Each group saw themselves in candidate Obama and are puzzled when theirs was not his first priority once elected. I have a good friend, for instance who hates the Iraq War and wants to legalize marijuana, (both would be better served by Conservative policies, but another day for that) but he is rather conservative in every other way, but would never openly support a Republican program even if they were offering legislation he would otherwise support. There is considerable hypocrisy on the left and so they are rather tolerant of it as long as it does not hinder their pet agenda. Case in point; they want the government to “stay out of my womb” but insist that regulating every other health issue for everyone is OK. They believe that the government should not be able to limit the use of “medical marijuana” but should definitely criminalize incandescent light bulbs or trans-fats.

How does this relate to the racism label being thrown around differently for conservatives than for liberals? It has to do with political correctness and critical mass. When someone says or does something, like cheat on his wife, a conservative is willing to give that person time to redeem themselves. Shame on you, take a break, talk to me about it again in a year or so and convince me that you have come to your senses. The liberal does not care unless the infidel is playing for the other team. If a politician lies on his taxes, conservatives expect him to step down, if that politician is a conservative, liberals agree, if that person is also a Republican, the Democrats agree and some where along the way critical mass is reached and he is forced out. If a liberal Democrat cheats on his taxes, conservatives expect him to step down, the liberal points to this as a smear tactic and claims that he has a good heart and should be pardoned, so long as the tax cheat supports the agenda, and the Democrat will defend him because on April 15th, a Democrat cheat beats a Republican of any shade every time. Alas, no critical mass. If you think I am talking about Tim Geithner, do a Google search for “democrat tax evasion –democrats.com, and poke around a little in the 1.4 million hits, many not Geithner. Don’t think for a minute that this is somehow an endorsement for Republican tax virtue, replace the word Democrat with Republican and peruse the 324,000 hits you get. Again, I imagine the shaky little fists and Barney Frank’s lispy claims of fighting for me.

Harry Reid, a strict PC public figure “used an unfortunate phrasing” and just as importantly, President Obama immediately forgives him and hopes the whole thing will just go away, so it is misspeak, not a view into his character. George Allen makes up what he thinks is an Indian sounding name, and it is an obvious Freudian slip, indicates the deep seated white supremacy hatred he has for people not like him. Worse than that, he did it in public with a complete disdain for political correctness. What an amateur, using a fake word without focus grouping it first. He is obviously not first string material.

Give Harry a break, he has been elected to the level of his incompetence and cannot possibly be expected to get it right on light bulbs and supporting Obama for President and knowing what phrase to use when labeling African American dialects. We are, after all, just human.

The real call for his removal should come from his Nevada constituents and the non-Black community.

Oops, I heard the screeching tires and the resounding crash. Did I change gears too fast? What can I possibly be talking about? Well, in Harry Reid’s private comments he revealed that he didn’t necessarily respect Obama for his charisma or his intellect or for his commitment to principle, or ability to perform the duties, but for his electability, his packaging. He viewed Obama as a well presented candidate who would bring the Black vote along, without offending too many white people as would one with darker skin and a Black dialect. Obama voted the right way, and was minority enough, but not too minority so as to scare the White people. In one careless and revealing phrase, Harry Reid insulted Blacks by predicting they would vote for race, insulted whites by predicting that they wanted to, and insulted most moderate voters as being gullible enough to be so manipulated. President Obama was looked at as a ringer brought in from out of town to play in the Church league, and the opposition would never see it coming. Harry Reid doesn’t think Whites are better than Blacks, he is just a political hack. No shock, one has to be to become majority leader. I agree with the liberals we should give him a break on the racism front.

The truth is much more sinister than a racial bias. Harry Reid, thinks that his political allies are better than EVERYONE else. His People automatically know that everyone supporting Strom Thurmond is racist, and they KNOW that they make better decisions about YOUR personal life than you could ever make if left to your own devices. This is why we are tired of American politics. Not because Harry recognized a racial political fact, or was careless enough to let the world see that Democrats can actually see race. Not because Trent Lott should have carefully prepared a PC preface to every compliment he made to an old man at his birthday party. We have tired of hearing how hard the last game was or how hard they are training now. Both parties are campaigning for first string, which we select like we choose homecoming queen. We end up with professional campaigners but the football games look like an exhibition game with Congress and the White House officials on one side and paid, private sector lobbyist professional ball teams on the other. Guess which side has skin in the game. From the bleachers it looks ridiculous, even entertaining, you can see small groups of drunks humming the Harlem Globe Trotters theme, except that we are getting our butts handed to us by the pro’s. Any given day, the first string blames the second string and visa versa, and the opposing team takes home the spoils. The home team is getting our butts kicked and the post game talk is full of complaints about towel fights and locker room welts and who refuses to shower.

It has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with different standards for first and second string. It has everything to do with professionalism. We are running out of money for tickets and we are tired of loosing every season.