Sunday, July 25, 2010
Austin Lee: Shirley Sherrod and Imus
In this speech she talked about how she was confronted with having to help a white farmer that (by her description) was acting a little snooty toward her because she was black. She recounted "I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough…” (This was met by at least one person's whole hearted agreement with that action toward a white farmer.)
Now, the part of her speech where she said this was wrapped on either side by a very good description of how she used to act this way, but realized that it isn't about black and white: It's about poor people. (I agree with her 100% on this point.) In the end she returned to that white farmer and helped to save his farm.
The part of the whole deal that I find crazy is that Andrew Breitbart pulled only the damaging clips to portray her as a racist and the NAACP (after condemning her) only touted her revelation that her actions were wrong.
The truth of the matter is that she did act in a racially motivated way toward this white farmer and his family. Regardless of her subsequent actions she did violate the non-discrimination policy of the State of Georgia and the United States of America.
Here is my question: Why can she be let off the hook and Don Imus can't? Imus made a racially charged statement on his radio program and later apologized. He has walked the straight and narrow ever since. On more than one occasion he has reiterated his remorse for those statements.
I haven't heard the NAACP or other organizations demanding he be reinstated to his position since he has changed his ways. Yet, Shirley Sherrod, who admitted that she acted in a racially motivated way is being offered a new job.
I just don't get it. I don't think she should have been fired, I think Andrew Breitbart acted very unethically, and I think the NAACP, USDA, The Obama Administration and FoxNews did a HORRIBLE job reviewing all of the evidence before giving her the boot.
BUT - The fact remains: Shirley Sherrod and Don Imus are both guilty of the same offense. Only one of them is now a martyr. That is sad.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Washington Post: Top Secret America - Austin Lee
Today the Washington Post (obviously still trying to duplicate its "Watergate" success) released an investigative report entitled "Top Secret America". It should come as no surprise that the liberals in charge over at the Washington Post are not a fan of the CIA or any other agency that requires secrets to do its job. Liberals are not a fan of secrets (unless you serve a liberal a subpoena. Then their Civil Rights are being violated.)
There are problems with their so called journalism from the very first sub heading: "A hidden world, growing beyond control". This sub heading insinuates that it is wrong for our country to have people willing to hide their lives from everyone to protect our country and that its growth should be controlled. The reality is that we need to be able to grow these organizations when and how they need to be grown: Away from the political dealings of congress.
To paraphrase Mitch Rapp from Vince Flynn's novels: I don't want someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Washington, D.C. telling me how to do my job when I am the one in the desert trying to keep our country free.
The "journalists" make broad sweeping statements that are simply ludicrous when paired with any type of common sense. Take this quote for example: "After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that they system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine."
What about the fact that no one has died in the United States due to a terrorist attack since all of these organizations were started? Doesn't that speak directly to the effectiveness of the organizations whose purpose was to prevent more attacks like 9/11?
Or: "An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret clearances." Well, I certainly hope so! I hope we have people all over the world entrusted with out secrets that are using them for good. (Special note: Not even all congressmen and senators are given Top-Secret clearance.) If it takes 854,000 people to keep us safe...so be it.
The requirements for top-secret clearance include background checks; personal interviews with relatives, friends, co-workers, etc.; fingerprints; polygraph test; credit check; education; affiliations; local agencies; where an individual has worked and lived; and spouse and any immediate family members who are US citizens other than by birth or who are not US citizens.
So, I am okay with that many people having security clearance.
(Special note: This is all from just the first page of their report...now let's continue)
Another gem: "Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste."
Okay, let's stop right there. Why can't they go into the Social Security Administration or Medicare/Medicaid to highlight redundancy and waste? What about welfare or the Department of Energy? (By the way, the Department of Energy was created to reduce our dependency on foreign oil back in the 1970's. Last time I checked our dependence on foreign oil was still increasing. Talk about an organization that isn't effective.)
The reason they aren't investigating these organizations is because these are Liberal creations. These organizations are full of waste and redundancy, but the Washington Post chooses to go after the organizations that don't fit with their political leanings.
Okay, back to the article...where were we? Oh yeah: "Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks."
So? How does that prove redundancy? Plain and simple it doesn't. All it says is that we have "51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities" that "track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks." They didn't tell us that 2 of them do the same thing or that any of them duplicated anything! They just told us how many organizations there are and how many cities they operate in.
What if we have 3 offices concentrating on Indonesian groups, 10 on Middle Eastern Groups, 5 on South American Groups, and on and on. What a bunch of hacks.
I'll spare you the rest. Suffice it to say that the rest of the article is full of anti-military and anti-CIA rhetoric disguised as journalism. When the Washington Post decides that it will use its influence to investigate waste and abuse at government agencies that aren't trying to save our lives...I might start paying attention.
Just last week the Ombudsman at the Washington Post spoke out about the Post's non-reporting on the Black Panther Voter Intimidation scandal in the Obama Justice Department. (I just choked as I tried to say Obama and Justice in the same sentence.)
I am proud that the United States of America has spies, military men and women, the FBI, CIA, and counter-terrorism agencies. I sleep better at night knowing that congress doesn't know what many of the agencies are doing to protect our country, and knowing that they are free to operate without political interference.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I Am Here - Nikki Lorenzini

- According to a study of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness.
- According to a 2008 US Department of Housing and Urban Development report, about 671,888 were homeless one night in January 2007.
- The areas that had the highest rates of homelessness in 2007 were: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Washington, D.C.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Goodbye
Jeff Weiss
Last fall I decided to write a blog. Then I realized that I don't live a particularly exciting life and therefore I probably wouldn't write a particularly exciting blog. Because I keep up with current events and usually have an opinion just about everything, I thought perhaps a current events blog might be interesting. Then I thought, “Why would anyone care about my opinion on current events?” It was then that I came up with the idea of getting the opinions of several people from across the country about a different topic each day. That is when American Currents was born.
It's been a (mostly) fun six months since we first began putting together the pieces of the site. Thirteen bloggers have contributed at different times throughout the months; six of them have been around since the beginning.
So, to all who contributed their well written words and to all who took the time to read those words, I thank you!
David Loftus
Though I had doubts at the outset that this would last or go anywhere, I’m sorry to see “American Currents” come to an end. Even finding myself sweating out a quick handful of paragraphs after midnight (following a play rehearsal, say), I enjoyed it. Having to check behind the headlines and write something thoughtful nearly every night was a wonderful exercise in self-discipline -- sort of a cross between writing calisthenics and a kind of social prayer.
Having been a sometime columnist before (for a daily newspaper in a small Oregon town back in the late 1980s), I knew that a typical theme of my pieces would have to be: “it ain’t necessarily so.” Anyone who writes on a regular basis, especially on topical subjects or breaking news, will inevitably come to that refrain, because too many citizens (not to mention politicians!) rush to have an opinion -- no matter where or how they derive it -- before bothering to obtain the solid factual background on an issue.
A decent commentator should at least be sharp enough to see the holes in a developing story, if not offer a few alternative explanations for what might seem obvious … and usually does, to most people. Breaking news is too often another form of gossip, or at least an excuse for it, because it’s easier to bellyache about “those Muslims,” or “those right-wingers,” or “big government,” or “illegal immigrants,” or a thousand other boogey-men, than ponder the complex and sticky issues that truly govern our daily lives.
I don’t think I’ll be writing about breaking news on a regular basis again for a while, but if you’re interested in following my activities, watch my acting demo reel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI22qjrRjN4
Read my in-depth book reviews at the California Literary Review:
http://calitreview.com/author/david_loftus
Go to the British Web site “Book Drum” to see my in-depth profiles of Ray Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes:
http://www.bookdrum.com/books/something-wicked-this-way-comes/9780575083066/index.html
and Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being:
http://www.bookdrum.com/books/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being/9780060932138/index.html
Sometimes I even remember to update my own Web site:
www.david-loftus.com
Or if you want to be a Facebook Friend, drop me an e-mail and let me know how to link up with you.
Austin Lee
A Haiku:
A place to opine
On current national news
My dream had come true.
Shaun Hautly
It's sad to see a project like this come to a close. I own my own business and started it in the heat of a recession, and while it's amazing to have such freedom to start companies and projects in this country, it's also heartbreaking that no matter how noble a cause or good a product is, there's no guarantee of success. American Currents was (is?) a dedicated group of writers and thinkers who gave unique insight and reflection on hot topics in America. However, even with the drive and passion of all of us volunteers, the project did not succeed like we needed it to succeed.
It's been a fast 6 months, and a lot of pieces have been written by all of us. Sometimes under quick deadlines, and trying to balance writing with our jobs and careers. I will miss writing with these people. If you liked what I wrote and are interested in more, please check out my personal website: http://colonelshaun.com
Bye!
Nikki Lorenzini
I just want to thank everyone who came and read. Its been a great run, and I hope our paths cross again in the blog future!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Face Off Friday: Rating the Relevance of Earth Day
David Loftus
Earth Day is now 40 years old. Whether four decades of Earth Days were closer to a moving force in the advancement of environmental consciousness and laws or merely a symptom, things are clearly different today. We have more fuel efficient vehicles (not as many, and not as efficient, as they should be -- and would have been if the Big Three automakers hadn’t fought tooth and nail against every innovation and new law; we can thank the Japanese for getting Americans off their fat rears on this); people are recycling (not half as much as they could or should; and I’ll have more to say on that in a week or two); and even corporations are putting a green face on their activities.
I suppose it’s a victory that the average citizen pays lip service to environmental issues and global warming, while in 1970 he was more likely to regard environmentalists as long-haired hippy commies. On the other hand, the 1970 Earth Day advocates targeted off-shore oil drilling, and President Obama recently cleared the way for more wells off the Atlantic Coast. An exploratory oil rig 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana obligingly blew up this week, killing a possible 11 people, badly injuring 26 others, and threatening to spill as much as 336,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico -- proof that oil is just as safe and healthy as coal mining, and a preview of coming attractions. (British Petroleum leased the $650 million rig for half a million dollars a day!) The Comptroller General for the state of Georgia, James L. Bentley, provided a contemporary version of the know-nothings of the past: he suggested this week that Earth Day might be a communist plot, because it fell on the 100th birthday of Vladimir Lenin. And the Daughters of the American Revolution passed a resolution to call global warming “distorted and exaggerated by emotional declarations and by intensive propaganda.”
In contrast to Mr. Lee, I rode city buses around the Portland metro area to get to a film shoot and a play rehearsal Thursday. Most days I walk three blocks to an office job, having gone carless now (with occasional resort to the car-sharing service Zipcar) for seven or eight years. Despite the adjustments I and millions of other Americans have made, and despite 40 years of Earth Days, that’s not going to be enough. Our species has doomed itself, probably (as I predicted on “American Currents” when we wrote about 2012 end-of-the-world myths back on November 19) within five or six more generations, or 150 years. Mr. Lee can quibble about the numbers -- god knows the picture is far larger and more complex than human science can easily encompass -- but anyone with half a grain of sense accepts that we have placed ourselves in terrible danger; and the longer we deny it, the swifter and more dire the results are going to be for us and our children.
Austin Lee
So, yesterday was Earth Day. What a waste of time and energy. It doesn't matter. In the long run no matter how much we recycle, conserve, or reuse, the Earth will keep turning. That is just the way it is. If the environmentalists were honest with us for a minute, they would admit that they don't have conclusive evidence. Even their poster child, Al Gore, has had parts of his Nobel Peace Prize winning movie refuted. (The Nobel Prize isn't what it once was now that President Obama won the award for...well, we aren't exactly sure what he did to earn the award. Call me if you find out.)
I don't believe there is a such thing as global warming. (Now I think they call it climate change.) They changed the name because the Earth hasn't actually warmed in the last several years. They did the same thing back in the 1970's and 80's. Back then the Earth was cooling and we were on the verge of another Ice Age, so they changed it to warming as the Earth started a warming trend. With all of the changing and confused science, I choose to believe that those people are pretty arrogant to think we puny humans can actually alter the Earths climate all by ourselves.
No, global warming is just another liberal fallacy that has been drummed up to scare little kids. I remember being taught about global warming in elementary school and how if we don't recycle we will all burn up. (Okay, it might not have been that dramatic, but it was close.) I painted a recycling bin and misspelled the word "Recycle". So my teacher took the bin and threw it in the trash and gave me a new one to paint. So much for the urgency.
I hope you had fun on Earth Day. I had a great day. I drove my 5.4 Liter V-8 Ford F-150 to work, caught a few angry stares from my Prius driving neighbors. I smile and wave, so glad to know that I can sleep good knowing that my commute didn't really matter to the Earth. Never has, never will.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Obama Watches Deficit more Closely than Bush

Fox News reports that In an interview on Sunday, Timothy Geithner the Treasury Secretary, said that the Obama Administration is paying attention to deficits more closely than the Bush Administration. Or in other words: Obama and the Tea Party movement are on the same side. This answer was in response to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" about the tea party protests. According to the article President Bush had a $458.6 billion deficit in his last full year in office, while Obama is projected to top $1 trillion for the next several years in a row. Did Timothy Geithner make more math errors like he did on his tax returns or do you think that the Obama administration really is paying more attention to deficits?
Scott Hinkley:
Like so many Americans, I am also concerned about the size of our growing national deficit. Our nation is experiencing a decline in both productivity and education, which is an incredibly dangerous position to be in even when we are in a state of fiscal surplus.
Further handicapping ourselves through over-spending only stands to magnify our global decline as a super-power, and the timing of our decline could not come at a worse time. More nations are learning how to sustain complex infrastructure, one of America's last frontiers of excellence, and our citizens are having to compete for food and shelter in an ever-increasingly competitive world.
While I feel that our nation's fiscal irresponsibility has been the legacy of the last century, I am certain beyond any doubt that this issue is being mined for all of the fear it can inspire by those in this country looking to keep money and control out of the hands of average citizens.
Corporations have out maneuvered the American legal system for the past 50 years, and now, when corporations are experiencing the biggest decline in their power and influence in half a decade, they are pulling on their strings as forcefully as possible.
Jokes about math might be good for concealing a desire for greed and selfishness, but the reality, which for some reason has not been a position well championed in response to the tar-and-feather approach being brought by the Tea Party and the GOP at large, is that our deficit stems almost exclusively from the dark and insidious policies maintained by the last Bush administration.
The primary cause in my opinion is the unprecedented tax-breaks which Bush permitted, while simultaneously reducing oversight so that coffers could be raided at will. At the time, the Bush administration hid behind a misdirection of claiming that more money in rich pockets meant more money in every ones pockets.
Meanwhile, the same people getting the huge tax breaks were hoarding that capital and instead encouraging dangerous loan practices, essentially liquidating the savings of a nation while preserving their own wealth. I find it ironic that Madoff received such national attention when he was one of only a few rich crooks to rob from their own peers.
Our nation has less money than ever, we allowed our privately wealthy citizens to keep all their stolen money while the rest of the country begs for a pass on their taxes, and now those same wealthy people are trying to manipulate middle-class citizens into a state of outrage that our nation is trying to continue to pay for the services we depend on while it copes with perhaps the least Christian or even secularly-moral behavior I have ever witnessed.
If American's are so concerned about the deficit, stop driving, going to parks, calling the police, littering and pay more taxes. One day our nation will collapse beneath the weight of our absurd sense of entitlement.
Nikki Lorenzini:
Oy vey. All I know is that we are in a deficit. Whether it’s $485 billion or $1 trillion, it’s a boat load of money. You can say that you are watching your money all you want, but that is not limited to watch it fly out the window. Obama can easily say that he is watching our money and our deficit, but all I see is the tax credits he is handing out, the new health care reform that will cost more money, we still have troops in Iraq, and heck, in one of last weeks blog, only what, half of America is paying taxes? Where are we getting all this money from?
I don’t doubt Obama is watching our money. Seems like Obama is a dreamer. A real big dreamer that has a huge price tag stuck to it. In a way I can’t blame him. But before I see him doing this health care reform, I would really like to see some action from him when I hear that he is watching our deficit. I would really like to see him making some type of reasonable budget on our spending, some actual cut backs that won’t harm us (maybe see some higher up officials in DC getting salary cuts?). I am sure there are ways to have this shrink up to less than what Bush had it.
I’m sure Geithner could have had some math errors, not sure if they were intentional or not (maybe some where in between). But why be mad at him for making a math error when we all know that there is still a deficit with a president who wants to spend more money?
Austin Lee:
There is a famous story by Hans Christian Andersen called, "The Emperor's New Clothes." In the story a couple of swindlers tell the Emperor that they have developed some new clothes that only those who are stupid or unfit cannot see.
The Emperor, however, cannot see the clothes himself, but lies to not appear stupid as do his high ranking officials. It isn't until a small child calls out, "He isn't wearing any clothes!" That the rest of the people begin to realize what has happened. The emperor cringes, but presses on ahead, because he is embarrassed.
Barack Obama is the Emperor. He has listened to his Liberal professors and confidants who have taught him that capitalism is evil and government is the answer to everything. And anyone who says differently is stupid, bigoted, and hate filled. While looking back at the history of the United States he has moments of doubt, but does not want to appear stupid so he agrees.
Timothy Geithner is one of the high ranking officials. He, too, is scared to be called stupid, so he continues the charade. He cannot possibly believe that the deficit is actually being watched more closely than in years past.
Let me be the one to say: THE EMPEROR ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES! Barack Obama's spending spree is NOT helping our economy. We the people need to yell this louder, and louder, and louder. And on November 2, 2010 we can yell the loudest with our votes.
David Loftus:
Geithner’s reported comments make me want to laugh. Not a “ha-ha-that’s-stupid” laugh, but more of a “ha-ha-nice-try” laugh. While I have little doubt the Obama administration really is paying more attention to budget deficits than the Bush team did (for any number of reasons -- from a possibly stronger philosophical interest in the matter to the fact that we’ve now been in a recession for more than a year and there’s just a lot more pressure on Obama than there was on Bush with regard to budget deficits), that doesn’t put the White House in the same boat with the Tea Partiers. On that, I think the Tea Party crowd would readily agree with me.
That the deficits are much bigger now is absolutely no reflection on how much attention the current chief executive is paying to them, or whether he’s been attacking them the best way. To question the Obama-Geithner team’s math is beside the point. Odds are the deficits would have been comparably large whether McCain or Edwards or even Jeb Bush had been elected President in 2008, because they were largely put there by a combination of George W. Bush’s wars and the multibillion-dollar misbehavior of Enron, Lehman Brothers, and a vast array of banks.
What is “ha-ha-that’s-stupid” is the Tea Partiers’ assertions that Obama is to blame for the size of the deficits or the time it is taking (and will take) to turn them around. But then, these are the sort of people who can’t see that Medicare, Social Security, and U.S. military benefits are all socialist programs (and what’s wrong with -- no -- what is socialism, anyway? They certainly couldn’t tell you), but are inclined to hold a person’s middle name against him.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Faith in America: Austin Lee
I am a Christian and sometimes I am embarrassed to tell people. I feel like my faith has been hijacked by a group of people that practice a brand of Christianity that I do not support or agree with. They are about hating things: Homosexuality, Abortion, People, etc.
Christianity should be about love, loving even those that have done the very worst things. This is a post I wrote about a year ago that talks about the God I serve: A God of Love.
---------
My little brother is an amazing musician. He can sing just about any song, any style, and even a couple of languages.
However, my favorite song that he has ever performed has these lyrics: “My God is so high you can’t get over Him; He’s so wide you can’t get around Him, He’s so low you can’t get under Him. You must come in by and through the Lamb.”
You often hear about God being big and doing big things. He helped Noah build a huge boat. He helped Gideon destroy a huge army. He parted the waters to allow the Israelites to escape Egypt. He sent his Son to die on the Cross to save the entire world from its sin.
We have heard about God’s power, His strength, and His omniscience. I was reminded yesterday of the two best qualities of God. His gentleness and His love.
I need to back up a bit and tell you a couple of stories one about Elijah and the other about a horrific tragedy.
Elijah
If you want to read this whole story it can be found in 1 Kings, chapters 18 and 19. God had just performed a miracle through Elijah by ending the drought in Israel. Jezebel, the Queen, was not happy with Elijah and threatened to kill him. (The fact that Elijah didn’t trust God at this point is a great story for another time.) Elijah runs to a cave and hides out to save his own life. God instructs Elijah to go to the mouth of the cave and wait for the Lord to pass by. A powerful wind came, then an earthquake, and then a great fire came, however, God was not in any of those loud and obvious events. Soon after the great fire Elijah heard a gentle whisper.
God was in the whisper. Elijah experienced the presence of God in a whisper.
Ok. Hold on to that thought for a minute.
Tragedy
On July 25, 2006, Jennifer Ewing was riding her bike on the Silver Comet Trail near Atlanta, GA when she was attacked and murdered. On Monday, May 18, 2009, Michael Ledford was found guilty of her murder in Paulding County Superior Court.
I went to the first full day of the sentencing portion of the trial on Tuesday, May 19, 2009. As I walked into the courtroom and sat down the court was in the midst of deciding which of the audio tapes from prison would be admitted to support the prosecution in their bid to sentence Mrs. Ewing’s killer to death. The tapes that were played caused me to be even more angry with Mr. Ledford than I was when I got to court.
He complained about the cable television channels he was able to watch, he complained that his family wasn’t sending him money fast enough, he complained about being on suicide watch, and on the list goes of things he complained about. Just before the jury came back into the courtroom the prosecutor gave a brief description of another audio tape that he wanted to play. It was a phone call between Michael Ledford and his 14 year old niece. The description of the phone call was not pleasant. I assumed that a 20 second description of a 20-30 minute phone call would have only the out of context highlights and therefore the actual call wouldn’t be as bad as it sounded. I could not have been more wrong.
As the conversation was played tears came to my eyes as he described himself as famous. As his niece related to him as if he was on a reality television show and not in jail for murder. The news media was described as “paparazzi” there to take photos of Mr. Ledford's family for some gossip magazine and not because her uncle was accused of murdering a wife and mother of three. He asked his 14 year old niece to send him picture of her and her friend in bikinis. He agreed when she asked if it would make him feel “warm and fuzzy inside.” He told her to send him a letter addressed to “Handsome Mike”. He told her that if she came to visit him he wanted her to wear skimpy clothes and bring her friend. He told her that she didn’t need to worry about jogging on the Silver Comet Trail, that he would make sure all the bad guys knew to leave her alone. He talked about the injuries he sustained to his genitalia and that he was healing okay and was able to “carry his parts.”
Until May 19, 2009, I had never been in the same room with evil. It was sickening to hear him talk about his inconveniences in jail while I knew the pain and torment that he had caused the Ewings. While we were grieving with the Ewings, it seemed as if he was already moving on to his next victim, his own niece. A chill ran down my spine as I sat on the hard wooden bench in the courtroom. You could hear a pin drop.
There in the eerie, sickening silence, after hearing the worst thing I have ever heard in my life, I heard a gentle whisper that could only come from God: “I love him, just as much as I love you.”
Just like with Elijah, God showed up in a whisper. The still small voice from deep within my soul reminding me once again of a love that is so amazing, so complete, and so out of the ordinary that He loves us in spite of our brokenness.
With the personification of evil right in front of me in the courtroom I could hear my little brother’s voice in my head singing, “My God is so high you can’t get over Him; He’s so wide you can’t get around Him, He’s so low you can’t get under Him. You must come in by and through the Lamb.”
My God is so big.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Face Off Friday: Tax Gap

According to the Associated Press nearly half of US Households (47%) will owe nothing in Federal Income Tax for 2009. In addition, "...credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax."
These households are not required to pay for any of the programs that benefit all Americans: National Defense, Education, Infrastructure, etc. The bottom 40% of income tax filers actually make a profit from filing their taxes, while the top 10% of filers pay 73% of all taxes.
Is there anything wrong with this? Does it bother you that almost half of the United States doesn't contribute anything?
Austin Lee:
I find it very interesting that the Obama rhetoric is that the rich aren't paying their fair share. It is plain to see from the numbers above that the rich in our country actually pay the VAST majority of all taxes to begin with. (This is before Obama's planned increases at the end of 2010.) So, yes, it bothers me a great deal that almost 1/2 of the country doesn't have any skin in the game.
As a former tax accountant I am all too familiar with these numbers. And I am also appalled that the number of people that do not pay ANYTHING is growing every year. The sad fact is that we are rapidly approaching the 51% threshold of no return. It will be at this point that the majority of people in the United States pay nothing and receive everything.
Those of us that have managed to work hard, get an education, and make something of ourselves will have to pay for those that did not. This hardly seems fair, but the Liberals would be hard pressed to fight for the rights of those who actually worked hard.
I don't mind paying taxes, I think that there are some necessary government functions, however, I think that everyone should pay something and that is why I am a fan of the Fair Tax. (If you haven't read about it, I would encourage you to find some information.)
Everyone will be able to have their basic necessities tax free and then and only then will you be taxed on purchases that are above and beyond those limits. So, the person down the street that currently pays no taxes, but has a nicer car than you...he will have to pay taxes.
The mooching class in the country are realizing that as long as they keep electing Democrats into office they will continue to go through life receiving benefits without paying for them and that is not right.
David Loftus:
This doesn’t bother me at all. It’s an error to say such people don’t contribute anything, because (as the hot-linked news story states) they still pay excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol, and cigarettes, and their employers contribute payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. They pay state and local taxes on sales, income, and property; in my voting district, over the years we’ve approved temporary taxes (bond measures) for parks, libraries, and schools.
The lump sum of $50,000 in annual income may sound like a lot, but for a family of four in this day and age -- responsible for rent or a mortgage that may amount to at least 15-20 percent of that, car payments on one or more vehicles that add another 6 to 10 percent, food, gasoline, school fees for music and sports programs that were all covered by the schools when I was a kid, and so on -- it isn’t that much. What would have been a solidly middle-class income when I was growing up is more like lower middle-class or working-class salary today. I remember debating a solution to poverty one year in high school forensics; at that point, the federal poverty line was about $6,000 for a family of four. Today, it’s a little over $22,000. You know you’re not going to get very good housing for even twice that much, and suddenly, there you are, at $50,000 annual income. You’d have to make a little over $24 an hour to reach that annual wage, but those jobs aren’t yet that common, so most $50k households are probably two-earners, and that means extra costs for child care or teen transport, food, auto maintenance and insurance, etc.
What outrages me about this situation is the general perception, undoubtedly common among many of these very citizens who don’t pay any taxes, that the government and IRS are screwing them. They don’t acknowledge the value of the many credits described in the story, and they don’t seem to comprehend all that government does for them, unacknowledged and unseen. I have never begrudged the amount of taxes I pay, nor have I ever voted against any tax measure put before me in an election. I do, however, resent the fact that so much of my tax money has gone to kill foreign civilians and sacrifice American soldiers overseas, and to fatten domestic defense contractors, and I strongly dispute the notion that “National Defense” has benefited me, personally, one iota.
My wife has suggested that tax forms should include a section where we could check off which government programs we would like our particular income taxes to go to. It would be non-binding, just for the sake of information, but it might be extremely interesting to learn what citizens’ real priorities are.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Four Day School Week

The Klamath County School system in Klamath Falls, OR will be making a decision soon that could shorten the school week to four days from the current five.
According to an article in the Seattle Times this could save the school system $6.3 million each year. The article goes on to say that District Superintendent, Greg Thede, said a $5.8 million cut to the budget and 20 layoffs are the catalyst for an idea of this magnitude.
The Klamath Falls Association of Classified Employees (a union representing classified staff) are concerned that 380 classified staff would be out of work one day per week. Regardless of these concerns the district will move forward with this plan if it would save a "significant amount of money."
We asked today's panel: Do you agree with the Klamath County School System? What pitfalls can you see?
Scott Hinkley:
I am happy that the problems of Klamath County are finally becoming newsworthy. I think it is a tragedy that schools around America are facing such major shortfalls after so many wealthy corporations have received gluttonous doses of tax-payer money. This past decade has been filled with cuts in education and expansion of class sizes across the country, and this was during the get-rich part of the decade. Guess those tax-cuts really did hurt us huh?
I think at this point, Klamath County should shift to a four day week, as much as I am sorry for the workers who will take cuts in pay and the students who will have their educations further compromised. I think that until we are exposed to the detriment and decay in our schools, rather than concealing the price of underfunding our future generations, Americans will continue to vote ourselves right out of our higher-brain functionality.
The biggest mistake Americans have made in the past 50 years has been trading information for entertainment. Our lack of education has caused us to become fat, lazy, and celebrity obsessed. Next time you complain about bad drivers or ignorant workers, ask yourself why you didn't want to pay for them to get a basic education.
Nikki Lorenzini:
I think that this idea is totally absurd. First, let me play devils advocate to this idea: Yes, this idea can help save money. Money on electricity, salaries, buses, etc, and in this economy those cuts can go a long way. I know that there are companies out there that are doing this same thing. In fact, I know the company I used to work for did something similar to this, that people had to take one day off without pay per pay period.
But schools are not a business. They are not a corporation. They are there to educate children (if that wasn't obvious). I think its crazy that they are even considering cutting back to 4 days. I know kids get into enough trouble when they are not in school, so what is an extra day do to them?
Sure, parents can find a place for them to go during that day like a "day care" of the sorts, but that will cause even more strain on the parents. The parents work, so what are they supposed to do if they have younger children?
Why can't this school district find other places to cut money from? Can't they offer an early retirement to some of the older teachers, who I am sure are earning six figure incomes. I am sure that there are extra programs that they can cut back on, like dances, fairs, etc. I just think cutting back to four days is absolutely ridiculous.
Austin Lee:
What's not to like about a four day school week? I applaud the school system for actually using their brains for a change. They see a problem: a $5.8 budget cut, and a solution: a $6.3 Million savings by closing schools one day per week. Not only does this solution eliminate the short fall, it also provides an additional $500,000 surplus.
Some may whine about what parents are supposed to do that extra day each week. Well, maybe one of the parents should be at home that day spending time with their children and providing a nurturing environment. Maybe parents should stop using the public school system as a babysitting service.
I applaud the school system for even going public with this type of proposal. Just don't try and fire any of the teachers and their union will leave you alone.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Face Off Friday: Freedom of Speech
Is there a difference between the two? Or are they more the same than they are different? After David and Austin face off, you can have your say by leaving a comment.
DAVID LOFTUS:
Many conservatives don’t really value free speech rights because they don’t like having to hear certain things, whether they’re fundamentalists upset about sex and strong language on TV or so-called patriots who don’t like to hear about anti-war dissent, multiculturalism and other liberal values. But as soon as they want to insult and threaten people with whom they disagree, then it’s all about “freedom of speech.”
The difference I see is, the objectionable things liberals talk about -- evolution, sexuality, divergent points of view and spiritual belief, disagreement with American war policy -- do not normally involve criminal acts, but the things I hear conservatives say (for example, Glenn Beck’s “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,” or Michael Savage’s “I’d hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers”; and remember former Congresswoman Michelle Bachman’s exhortation to a campaign-trail crowd to “get armed and dangerous”?) sometimes do.
Now, I don’t believe Tea Party fanatics who threaten and insult Obama are any real threat. They’re blusterers and mouth bullies. It’s hilarious that Austin Lee tries to make people like Limbaugh, Beck, or Sean Hannity out to be victims: these men made their reputations and maintain their audience numbers by behaving “mean, angry, and scary.” It’s also amusing that Lee equates being shouted down, lampooned, or made to look mean and scary with a loss of free speech; that’s nothing more than one expression of free speech battling another -- openly and freely. However, I fear the rising tide of verbal rage over Obama and health care reform may embolden individuals who were crazy to begin with and needed an excuse to pull an act of domestic terrorism, whether a random bombing or an attempt on the life of the President.
In a nice bit of ironic timing, yesterday Scott Roeder the man who killed physician George Tiller “so he could not dismember another innocent baby,” was sentenced to life in prison. Perhaps Mr. Lee can provide an example of where liberal ideology led someone to take another human being’s life. I’m as staunch an advocate of free speech as anyone; we can’t shut these loud-mouth bullies down. But there’s gotta be some way to out-shout, out-ridicule, or humiliate them so that one of two things happens: they choose to simmer down themselves, or people just stop listening to them.
AUSTIN LEE:
These are the exact same issue as far as I am concerned and the very reason that the freedom of speech was included in the Bill of Rights. These men knew then what we still know to be true today: Opposing sides always want to shut down the competition.
Unfortunately it seems to me that after the McCarthyism of the 1950's the main opponent of free speech has been Liberals that shout down dissenting opinions from conservatives as closed minded or hate speech. As soon as a conservative radio host voices an opinion that is contrary to their beliefs or world view they begin to lampoon this opinion no matter how widely held by the American people.
The problem is that Liberals control the main stream media. So, while the issue is the same, the problem is more pronounced for the conservatives. In the media they are made to look mean, angry, and scary, while the Liberals are made to look like the free speech victims. Anytime that a conservative complains that his freedom of speech has been violated the media paints it as an over reaction. When a Liberal voices the complaint the media makes the offense out to be the worst violation of civil rights since Jim Crow.
Until the media begins to treat ALL forms of free speech violations as harmful to our freedoms we will be in a perpetual state of unbalance and unfairness.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Extended Unemployment Benefits To Lapse Again
Many unemployed Americans feel that their leaders in Washington have forgotten them, as this is the second time in a month that lawmakers have let benefits lapse before voting for an extension. Other say that it is time to stop extending unemployment benefits and start to work on building new jobs for the unemployed.
After reading our contributors' opinions on this topic, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.
AUSTIN LEE:
I was laid off from my job last October. I called a few of my friends to tell them of the news and their initial response was telling. My Liberal friends immediately said, "Go get on unemployment as soon as possible." My Conservative friends said, "How can we help you find a job, you have to get back to work." And getting a job is just what I did. For me there was no other option.
I live below my means as a part of my life and so when I had to take a significant pay reduction in my next job I ended up being able to sustain my life. It is high time that people take their medicine. Stop extending unemployment benefits and start getting people back to work. When this round expires the very least they can do in Washington is to assure us that if they extend these benefits that they are paid for.
I don't want people to be without work, but unemployment rules as they are now don't encourage anyone to take a job unless it is perfect and continuing to borrow money to provide entitlement benefits doesn't help that problem. I am proud of Sen. Coburn for finally standing up and saying that we have had enough borrowing. And I predict without another extension of benefits more people will just go and finally get a job.
SCOTT HINKLEY:
I think we should call this what it is: another Republican filibuster. This seems to be an awfully cowardly way to handle an issue that means the difference between food and shelter for our most destitute citizens. I appreciate, though marvel at the seemingly periodic significance, the drive to deal with our budget deficit, but I don't see how we can sit back idly as tax-breaks for the rich last decade are trickling down into losses in benefits for those that never got the tax cuts. I find it one of America's biggest ironies that the party which claims strong Christian values can consistently turn its back on the most needy, and because the rest of America greedily covets the fancy things those leaders have, no one will call their bluff.
My heart extends to all those families whose lives are touched by this callous oversight. Why don't we find another way to pay for all those fancy Washington dinners or stop them until we can. I hope every congress-person gets to interact with a person on the verge of financial collapse, and I hope that person spits in the resort food the congress-person probably doesn't even know the cost of as they funnel it down their fat throats.
NIKKI LORENZINI:
I’m really not sure how to answer this one to be honest with you. I have a job, and luckily have not been fired or laid off from any of my jobs. I've never had to collect unemployment. For me, I could easily say that the people on unemployment should just get a job, but I know its not that easy. There are just no jobs out there.
It's easy to get mad at the government about them letting the unemployment extension lapse. It's really hard to depended on a job for your money, but to rely on the government for it? I’m sure I would feel forgotten too if it caused my checks to lapse. Even though I feel bad that are on unemployment, and I’m sure that there are a lot of people who actually do want to work, and didn’t have a choice in the matter of not working, I really think the government needs to start creating jobs. I’m sure they could create some more jobs somewhere to help stimulate the economy and get people off of unemployment. It’s a shame that there are so many people on it, but the government needs to push people into doing for themselves, and go get a job, and that’s even if the government needs to create them. Sure, it’ll cost more money, but if it involves saving money on unemployment, then I’m sure its worth it.
JEFF WEISS:
There are many ironies regarding this sad situation. First and foremost, the Senate is well aware that the last time they waited for the very last minute to try to pass an unemployment extension package it was held up, the deadline passed, and people in need were cut off (albeit temporarily). When they finally passed a one month temporary extension, what did they do? They again waited until the last day possible to try to pass yet another one month temporary extension – and again it's been held up, the deadline will pass without them being able to vote, and people in need are about to be cut off.
Another irony is that they actually have until the 5th of April to get an unemployment extension package passed – a package that would give a lifeline to people who have lost their jobs and have no other source of income to provide for themselves and their families – but the Senate won't be voting before April 12th because they are on vacation. So, people are forced to suffer because they have lost their jobs, while the people who should be helping them will be on a paid vacation – a paid vacation from jobs that were given to them by the votes of many of the same people who are now unemployed and about to be cut off from their benefits.
Does that seem fair to you?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Face Off Friday: Now What?
Austin:
Everyone wants to know what's next. What do we do now that ObamaCare has been signed into law? If I could talk to the Republican leadership here's what I would say:
They may have won the battle, but they will not win the war. To pass such sweeping legislation in the face of extreme public opposition was arrogant, elitist, and stupid. The democrats will only lose the House and Senate majority this fall if we quit talking about how horrible this bill is now and will be later. We don't need talking point like the Democrats do, we have all of the facts on our side.
First we need to keep reminding the American people that in the history of the United States there has not been one government program that didn't cost more than it was estimated to cost. Just like a road widening project, they don't look far enough into the future to realize that by the time they add 2 lanes they should have added 4. Its the same old short sighted thinking the Dems ALWAYS use.
Second we need to keep showing the American people that this bill is simply a stepping stone to a complete government takeover of their health care. Here is what will happen in the next 10 years:
In the short term things will work just as the Dems say it will. (Do not think for a second this was by design.) Everyone will be happy with their health care and wonder what we were all so worried about. Insurance companies will get more customers because of a mandate to purchase health insurance and Barack Obama will proclaim, "See, our plan worked, just like we said!"
After a while businesses and individuals will realize that it is cheaper to just pay the fine instead of pay for health insurance. They will all drop coverage from private insurers and pay fines to the government instead. Since pre-existing conditions must be covered, most will only buy insurance when they get sick and drop coverage once they are well.
The insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums because a great majority of the people buying are sick. The Democrats will cry foul over the increase in rates and will vote to cap insurance premiums. Insurance companies across the country will go out of business because of these limitations and the Democrats will say, "There is nothing we can do, we have to have a government option."
Make no mistake. This is the direction we are heading. Keep talking to the people in your districts, keep them informed of the long term ramifications of this horrible bill. Keep reminding them that Democrats are after power and control not your best interest. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be long gone by the time their horrible legacies are truly revealed. Remind the people of American that it is our PEOPLE that make America great, not our government.
David:The Republican Party, rather to its surprise, has released an evil genie out of the bottle. Although the ball is still very much in play, there’s a possibility that the fierce battle the GOP chose to wage over health care reform -- probably intended as a strategy to gather momentum rolling into the 2010 mid-term elections -- could just possibly backfire on Republicans.
Congressmen are accustomed to insulting one another on the floor of the capitol, even in front of TV cameras, then going off together afterward for drinks (or at least heading separately and quietly to their homes). But average Americans are not used to operating this way. They actually took the health care debate very much to heart. Now even Republicans, not one of which voted for health care reform, are shocked by the ferocity of the backlash against it.
In the five days since the vote, at least 10 Democrats have reported harassment and menacing: obscenity-laced voicemail messages to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), e-mail messages urging Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla) to commit suicide, a fax bearing the image of a noose and a voicemail urging Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) to “bleed … [get] cancer and die,” bricks thrown, a gas line cut, and an envelope containing white powder sent to the Queens borough office of Rep. Anthony Weiner. Thursday was the first time 2 Republicans reported that they, too, had been menaced. These are all the acts of a tiny crazed minority, but they reflect poorly on the more mainstream opponents of health care legislation and will possibly alienate the more neutral middle. Despite all the Republican opponents’ claims to the contrary, a post-vote poll by USA Today/Gallup found that 49 percent of Americans thought passage of the legislation had been a good thing, versus 40 percent who opposed it. President Obama’s approval numbers bounced upward four or five percentage points this week, too.
It won’t last, of course. Voters will become disenchanted about something else. The Democrats will lose seats this November, as almost inevitably happens to the “ruling party” during the mid-term elections. But this particular battle has tarnished the Republican Party more than it managed to demonize the Democrats for “ramming this bill down the American people’s throat.” And seven months is likely sufficient time to demonstrate that all those horrid things that would inevitably transpire due to health care reform (i.e., Rep. Boehner’s “Armageddon”) aren’t going to happen after all. I predict a less-then-massive turnover of Congressional seats in the fall, and the Republicans might do well to move on and find a different issue upon which to base their campaigns.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A Weighty Goal: Austin Lee
The truth is her campaign actually starts to address the root issues of our health care problems. Her husband is attempting to just throw money at the problem, while she is attempting to actually change the way people relate to food and exercise. I can definitely get behind a program like that. It seems to me that we elected the wrong Obama. Mrs. Obama thinks long term, while her husband can't seem to look up from his teleprompter long enough to see that he operates in a much more shortsighted manner.
As for Ms. Simpson, her child should be taken away from her and raised in a family that places a higher value on health and well-being. Ms. Simpson should be allowed to eat herself to death if she chooses, however, she should be exempt from any financial assistance for her health care when it is required. I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to people like this. I guess I could call my congressman, but he didn't listen the first time.
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Palin Factor: Austin Lee
This drama, however, is not completely her own doing. She is an evangelical Christian and in our society those who are public figures and identify themselves in this way are immediately subject to a higher level of scrutiny. So, when it was discovered that her teenage daughter was pregnant and not married, immediately the already elevated scrutiny was ratcheted up another notch. So, while Hollywood starlets can have babies out of wedlock with positive news stories about their "baby bumps", Sarah Palin's family and daughter are subjected to negative stories and accusations that she might be a bad mother.
She is also an outspoken, woman, Republican. This in and of itself seems to require Hollywood to lampoon her as if she were Satan incarnate. Katie Couric may have done the only hard news interview of her whole career with Sarah Palin. Does anyone think for a second that Joe Biden would have been subjected to that kind of questioning from the third place news anchor. (I place the blame for that interview solely on the back of the McCain campaign. Katie Couric shouldn't have landed that interview. Her ratings get beat by reruns of Jeopardy.)
The part that is her fault: She didn't just shut up and go away for a while. If she would have just gone home to Alaska and finished out her term as governor, I wouldn't have had to write this column. If I was her handler last November I would have said, "Governor, when the press ask you about your political future you should tell them, 'I am going to get back to serving the great people of Alaska until my term is completed. I have no intention of focusing my efforts on anything else until that time.'" She could have just faded away as the answer to this Jeopardy question: "I was the former Governor of Alaska that was a Vice-Presidential candidate."
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Texas Textbook Controversy: Austin Lee
And why is it bad to mention the violence of the Black Panthers? I live in Atlanta and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is certainly worthy of being celebrated for his non-violent approach to civil rights. However, does it really do our children good to ignore the fact that not all proponents of civil rights were so peaceful? Why can't we mention that there was a segment of our society (on both sides of the race issue) that wanted to use violence? The Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers both used violence to attempt to accomplish their goals. Why is it so bad to talk about? Facts are facts.
If our children have to learn about The National Organization for Women, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Planned Parenthood, why can't they also learn about the NRA, The Heritage Foundation, The Contract with America, and the Moral Majority. The reason: Liberals don't want our kids to learn these things, because the kids might start thinking for themselves and realize...hmm...we don't have to depend on the government for our lives. And isn't it the JOB of the school board to pick curriculum? Liberals are just mad that one school district chose books they don't like.
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Gays in the GOP? Austin Lee
My question is will the gay community allow someone to be gay and a republican? This is a community that vilifies the Christian community for being closed minded and yet I believe they would vilify any homosexual that decided to vote against a Democrat. I think their support of a gay candidate is determined by whether or not he or she tows the party line on gay rights.
Being gay shouldn't determine which party you belong to. For that matter, neither should race or national origin. Our political system is broken when people of all sexual orientations, races, national origins can't choose a party based on the direction of the country. It shouldn't matter. I wish more gay men and women would see the world like my friends: Bigger than one issue.
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Face Off Friday: A Closer Look at Senator Jim Bunning
Austin:
I lost my job last October. I came home told my wife that I had been laid off and then told her that we were going to have to cut back on our expenses. We save regularly and we had enough in the bank to sustain us for 3 months without cutting back at all. But, we decided that if we cut back we could make it 4 or 5 months if I didn't get another job.
All across the United States of America there are families having that very discussion tonight. When they have a shortage of funds they have to stop spending. They can't force anyone to give them money or they would be jailed for robbery. So, they tighten their belts and slow the rate of spending to compensate for the lack of income.
Not so with the Federal Government. They can force us to hand over our money through taxes. I know that we need a military and other necessary services. I gladly pay my tax dollars for those things, but when revenues are down the government decides to increase taxes and just borrow more and more money. The madness needs to stop.
Senator Jim Bunning (R) decided that he has had enough of the spending in Washington and took a stand against breaking the pay-go rules. These rules cause the government to behave just as I did when I lost my job. If I spend on one thing...I can't spend on another. We owe Jim Bunning a big thank you.
I know he hasn't always taken such a stand, but I am grateful that he has finally said, "ENOUGH!" The spending in Washington is out of control. The Federal Reserve chairman himself indicated that the current level of debt is unsustainable. So, Jim Bunning, realizing that he could do something about it stood up.
We should be applauding Jim Bunning for coming to his senses. Regardless of his past votes, he decided to do the right thing for a change. Frankly I wish more senators would finally start listening to the American people when we say, "QUIT SPENDING US INTO OBLIVION!"
Thank you Jim Bunning. I am sorry you are retiring, I wish I could move to Kentucky and vote for you. (Well, actually, I just wish I could vote for you. I don't think I could actually live in Kentucky.)
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
David:
I don’t find anything courageous in Senator Bunning’s recent stand against the national debt or his statements attempting to justify it. In the 24 years he had been in Congress, he hadn’t taken any particular notice that President Clinton left the United States with a budget surplus, but President George W. Bush wiped that out and then some -- leaving a debt of nearly $10 trillion when he stepped down. This lovely man has also accused a political opponent of being “limp-wristed” and of “looking like one of Saddam Hussein’s sons”; has told the media “I don’t watch the national news, and I don’t read the paper …. I watch Fox News to get my information”; was dubbed one of America’s Five Worst Senators by Time magazine in 2006; and tried to block the return of public access to the records of past Presidents which Bush removed with Executive Order 13233. Clinton has said that Bunning is so mean-spirited, he repulses even his fellow know-nothings: “I tried to work with him a couple times,” the former President told historian Taylor Branch, “and he just sent shivers up my spine.”
So Bunning has finally awakened and is giving President Obama hell for his fraction of the total debt, which he incurred trying to fight the recession that developed under Bush? Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because Bunning’s not running for office again? He can look principled and unpartisan by blaming both Democrats and Republicans for this mess, but the fact is that he has been so unpopular in his own state that he polled a miserable 28 percent approval rating in April of 2009, and announced in June that he was not going to run for reelection this year because of trouble raising money and getting sufficient support from the Republican Party. Anyone can act courageous when he has nothing to lose; real courage is standing up for your principles when you DO have something to lose.
“Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for?” Bunning asks; but he doesn’t offer any ideas or answers. Gee, we need $10 billion . . . do you think we could spare five weeks’ worth of killing solders, terrorists, and civilians in Iraq to help out struggling Americans? Or is spending $10 billion for death and destruction overseas more in the interests of the United States than spending it to help struggling American families who lost their jobs, retirement income, and even homes due to an economic crisis brought on by the greed of Wall Street investment experts currently being indicted for insider trading, banks that collapsed after extending mortgages to people who shouldn’t have qualified for them, and corporations and lawyers that made millions off Ponzi schemes?
I don’t see that Bunning has made any tough or brave decisions here. It’s just grandstanding as usual.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Did the Health Care Summit Accomplish Anything? Austin Lee
So, Obama was the moderator of a very partisan discussion. What did people expect? It is allowing the fox to guard the hen house. This should have been moderated by a third party with no skin in the game. Obama couldn't give points to the Republicans because he would be undermining his own agenda and the agenda of his party. He couldn't give points to the Democrats because he would have been accused of showing favoritism. So, he basically talked a lot about nothing.
I am thankful that my job didn't require me to watch all six hours of the "debate" last week. I feel sorry for the reporters and pundits that had to sit through it because they really didn't have anything to say except how boring it was and how long each side talked. The big news of the day is that the President and Democratic leadership are still hell bent on pushing a large government solution to healthcare that the American people have already indicated they don't want. I guess we will see how that plays out this December. (By the way...good luck getting all those same votes now! Long live the Tea Party!)
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Face Off Friday: Global Warming
Austin:
Instead of telling you why Global Warming is a big pile of crap, I'll let the earth muffins tell you:
Head over to this Wall Street Journal page and read in their own words how they have lied.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
See. There really isn't much more I could add to bury this insane movement. All it took was one hacker to bring forward all the emails from the internet that Al Gore invented to bring it all down. So...its all their in their own words. Now its gettin' hot.
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
David:
Scientists tend not to be good at politics -- either personal or public. One can hardly blame many of them for a tendency to be secretive, and to try to stay away from the press: their work is so often misunderstood, misused, misinterpreted, and unfairly ridiculed by and in the media, either by reporters and editors on their own or by advocates who have an agenda to push on an unsuspecting and unsophisticated public.
Recent news stories that researchers into global warming may have fudged figures or committed errors in their mathematical models, and pressured their colleagues to present a united front for the purpose of convincing world governments to set policy, have nonbelievers in global warming crowing and congratulating themselves, thinking they’ve defeated the boogeyman of Al Gore (the man who, let us remember, had the 2000 election for President unfairly stolen from under him). The problem here is that none of these sideshows conclusively destroys the primary working hypothesis that the earth’s climate is rapidly warming due to the activities of humans. The speed with which it is happening, or the direness of the straits we are in, may still be open to debate, but pretending that these recent unsavory reports -- and if scientists purposely altered data or hid conflicting information, that is indeed reprehensible -- necessarily change the general conclusion is like saying, “oh, our good ship Titanic managed to dodge that iceberg, and there probably aren’t any others out there.”
We’ll set aside the hypocritical, non-democratic, and thoroughly non-libertarian fact that opponents of global warming (such as the Wall Street Journal) are blithely retailing e-mails that were obtained by hacking researchers’ computer systems (the equivalent of unlawful breaking and entering), and concentrate on the main issue: that we are wiping out a variety of animal and plant species, year by year, and well on the way to destroying the earth as we know it. Quibbling about which way or how fast is simply trying to ignore the obvious, like denying one’s own mortality. I don’t own or regularly drive a car. I gave up eating meat three years ago because I decided that American meat consumption plays a more-than-negligible role in ravaging the planet. Though the tremendous pain and suffering that will eventually descend on our species due to a combination of the destruction of staple crops such as corn, rice, and other grains, insufficient potable or irrigation water where they’re needed, deadly pollutants, and other disasters may not hit in my lifetime, it’s a dubious consolation that I won’t be around to say “we told you so,” or that I have no children whose lives (or whose childrens’ lives) will be made a living hell by what we’ve chosen to do, and not to do, about global warming.
Humans have a nearly unblemished record of failing to make the right choices until it’s too late, whether one speaks of accumulating personal debt, using tobacco products, staying in a self-destructive romantic relationship, pursuing a wrong-headed and counterproductive war, or turning a blind eye and a deaf ear toward impending doom.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Olympic Tragedy: Austin Lee
Of course this was in poor taste. But, what else should we expect from the news media? They cover celebrities more thoroughly than politics and have yet to sufficiently raise the alarm about the climate change debacle on going in Europe. This was simply par for the course.
Yes, newsworthy items deserve full coverage, however, full coverage does not have to include video. Especially if that video doesn't add value to the story. Let's try some investigative reporting and shove a camera into the face of some of these climate change "scientists". The facial expressions these guys show as they try to dodge and weave tough questions will add value. (But that won't happen...the media is in on the scam.)
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!