Iowa is like a reef, and ships just keep crashing into it.

Wow, looking at the preliminary results from the Republican caucuses tonight, and I gotta say: Really?

Santorum and Romney in a virtual tie, with Ron Paul chasing third.

I have to admit that the voters in Iowa are just completely incomprehensible to me. Well, no that's not true. I mean, have you ever been to a caucus?

I have.

There you are shut up with a bunch of strangers for hours. The set-up is meant to draw only the most dedicated (or the morbidly curious-- it WAS kind of like watching an overripe pumpkin get hit by an aluminum bat in sheer messiness), which of course, skews the reliability of the results.

And then there's the demographics of Iowa itself, courtesy of the US Census Bureau. It's got a little less than one percent of the US population, and its population has grown at less than half the rate of the country as a whole over the last decade. It's 91% white. Just under 3% of its population is African American, and 1.7% of its population is Asian. Its Hispanic population in 5%. Less than 4% of its population is foreign born. Its percentage of people who report speaking a language other than English in the home is one-third that of the United States as a whole. Its high school graduation rate is slightly higher than the national average (good for y'all!) but its percentage of those holding a bachelor's degree is slightly lower (aww).

I am sure it's a lovely state. But it certainly is not representative of the US as a whole. Is that why the national parties cater to it by allowing it to seize the hopes and dreams of politicians every four years far out of proportion to its actual relevance as a testing ground? I mean, this place is so bland it makes mayonnaise look like a spice.

And now, we see Rick Santorum tied with Mitt Romney (speaking of mayonnaise) as the preferred candidates out of the field, although by what appears to be the lowest percentages and the lowest turnout in quite some time, even by Iowa standards. And then libertarian Ron Paul, the guy who redefines the phrase "rope-a-dope" in my mind, follows the Yin and Yang Brothers.

I am... bemused? concerned? confused? by not only the field of candidates the Republicans have managed to cobble together, sure, but also by this refusal to consider anyone with any interest (not talking experience, but just interest, here) in foreign policy while we've got some pretty serious stuff going on in the world. Now of course the economy is a vital concern, and it should be. But I don't see Santorum or Paul having a dog in that hunt either. Santorum's thinly veiled social and racial warfare just has to be on the verge of collapse. Ron Paul's naked gospel of anti-social selfishness and self-centeredness makes the 1970s seem like a Salvation Army campaign. And Romney, poor Romney, if only we didn't feel like this guy will say or believe anything (and therefore nothing) in order to get elected (Sound familiar? You could say this about Barack Obama, the winner of the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses, with some credence, as well). So I have a question directed to Iowa:

WHAT IN TARNATION ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING???

Thank you. That is all. I must go lie down now.

Unrestrained greed sows class warfare and unrest

So Representative Ryan is criticizing those who are protesting the excesses of Wall Street?

Not nearly as surprising as Sarah Palin criticizing "crony capitalism." In the words of Inigo Montoya in one of my favorite movies of all time, "I dunna think that word means what you THINK it means."

But back to the criticism of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Rep. Ryan stated in the link above, "We shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in Washington either through spending or the tax code."

Amazing. What does he think happens under the unrestrained, excessive business atmosphere of which he is such a fervent acolyte? With no regulation, with government geared to protect the wealthy against the needs of the many, with democracy subverted in the name of wealthy oligarchs who graciously invest in campaign coffers as a easy means to secure their privilege at the expense of the wellbeing of the great mass of citizenry, Rep. Ryan, you policies promote nothing BUT class warfare. When you decry the protesters as "pitting American against American," well, that what your vision of capitalism is, after all.

In unrestrained capitalism, there must always be winners and losers. When are politicians are enlisted in promoting the good of the wealthy rather than the good of the country, there will be millions of "losers" in the name of protecting the handful of "winners."

You keep talking about "job creation," yet under the policies of you and your ilk we have seen job LOSS even with the financially irresponsible promotion of insanely low tax rates which were supposed to produce job growth. You cannot reasonably make a case that all the corporate welfare you and your cronies have promoted has "promoted the general welfare."

Apparently, it's completely acceptable for corporations, who may be persons but are in no way CITIZENS, to exercise free speech, but completely unpatriotic and dangerous for CITIZENS, who are not corporations, to do likewise in the dusty corners of your mind, Representative Ryan.

Interesting. And Orwellian.

You can't always get what you want, especially if you don't even know what you need

An anonymous poster (Hmmmm, really?) made the following points on my previous comment about the disenchantment of many, including myself, in the progressive camp with the administration of President Obama:

I never expected to like everything Obama did, even though I worked hard for him.
Ad [sic] I can't imagine either voting Republican or voting for a 3rd party candidate (same as voting Republican). Keep in mind, people, that only 15% of the country identifies themselvs [sic] as liberal, while close to 50% calls themselves conservative. And many of the rest lean conservative. We can't have an all-progressive President until we do a better job of educating and enlisting our fellow voters.

I am a big girl-- as I said, I certainly never expected President Obama to be able to do everything, and I don't think anyone else who is disappointed did either, if they are rational, adult people. I was hoping for some compromise and bipartisanship from our elected leaders, especially since we certainly didn't get that from the last administration, and I hoped that President Obama would use his surge of support to pressure out congresspersons to cooperate in this. I was massively disappointed by the failure to seize this golden opportunity, and now we as a country are in even more dire straits due to that failure. Our country can never win by having only one political side capitulate. Do we really want to live in a country that designs its government and economy so that there are more losers than there are "winners," even though we are all Americans?

I also agree that there is a need to better explain what progressives and liberals believe, and why those beliefs are in the best interests of this country. And who better to help educate our fellow-citizens than our president, as I pointed out in my previous post?

But something else "anonymous" said concerns me, and helps support my point. It's this part: "I can't imagine voting Republican...." It is this kind of thinking that marginalizes a voter and sustains and exacerbates our current political and economic situation.

I certainly can imagine voting for a Republican. Of course I can! I've imagined it a LOT-- I've just never been able to do it very often. But I've always been willing to consider it, as I view each election on a case-by-case basis. As much as I joke about being a "yellow-dog Democrat" (pronounced "yel-la dawg" in my youth), I have voted for Republicans during my political life. They make great dog catchers. No, no, I'm kidding. Besides, "Republican" does not necessarily mean "conservative" as it is currently used, just as "Democrat" does not necessarily mean "liberal." Can't be repeated enough.

Seriously, I believe it is the duty of a voter to be conversant with the particular positions of each candidate regardless of party, and then vote for the person who is the most rational, most reasonable, and the most likely to represent that voter's priorities. I did not vote for Senator McCain for president because he failed all three of those tests in his current political incarnation. His choice of a running mate who eschews any thought larger than a sound bite or a snippet of Scripture merely punctuated this for me. When he stopped being a principled politician who sought to reform corrupt politics and end government-sponsored torture merely for political expediency, he lost me-- after I had admired many of his positions for years.

Our allegiance as voters must be to results, not rhetoric or labels. It is precisely the kind of thinking that refuses to consider any alternative outside one's alleged political party that has put us in the current mess in which we find ourselves. Democrats, through their failure to stick together over any issue-- ANY one! Pick ONE!-- have allowed the Republicans to peel off former Democratic supporters through scare tactics and sham social issues. Republicans have used populist rhetoric and rigid party discipline to stifle debate even within their own party, much to their detriment as well as that of our country in general, as they are now discovering. But further, as I tried to point out in my previous post: when President Obama and his advisors believe that they can count on the blind and unreasoning support of core constituencies to whom they are openly unfaithful and even contemptuous, those constituencies will be ignored. Republicans do the same thing through cynical class warfare, but no one seems to expose this.

Now to the point about the alleged loyalties of the American electorate. It certainly takes an act of political bravery to openly proclaim oneself a "liberal" in this day and age, even though I would argue that loyalty to an identity or label is completely counterproductive. Progressives need to attack the idea that being liberal is being "unAmerican" or "elitist" and that what is passed off as "conservatism" is normative. I would argue that this paradigm is a kerfuffle merely designed to forestall examination of where one's best interests truly lie.

Historically, conservatism (as an international political idea, not merely as an American phenomenon) has been, by definition, in favor of preserving the status quo. Its roots are in feudalism and preservation of the aristocracy. Modern American conservatives have at least outwardly turned this on its head, and for the last fifty or so years have told the electorate that the American government is unjust, that the American government is a form of oppression, that American government is corrupt. This is truly mind-boggling, since that is the exact same claim made by the extreme Left during the 1960s-- I mean, it's like the Yippies suddenly shaved and bathed and put themselves in suits with red power ties and declared common cause with their complete political opposites, if you think about it. But even more shockingly, these same people who hate the federal government have then been in charge of that same government for the past forty years! At this point, I think it behooves us to ask how these two facts can exist simultaneously.

I think many people who are voting and self-identifying as "conservative" are actually strongly in favor of reform, and I think the Democratic party needs to capitalize on this, as well as on certain disconnects that would help awaken these voters from their knee-jerk allegiance to a label rather than their own rational self-interests.

Let's just talk about economic well-being as a case in point. There are millions of people who have genuinely suffered during this current recession and indeed since the late 1960s, as the average standard of living for middle class people has actually slightly degraded in real terms.

I would hope that we can all agree that the middle class is the largest cohort of citizens in this country, which means that they should be able to wield a numerically significant proportion of political power. And yet, no one would argue that those in the middle class have been able to hang together and exert their influence to any real extent. There is a basic disconnect between corporate policies and their impact on the middle class, and the support of the middle class for politicians who advocate these policies. This reminds me of a Rolling Stones lyric: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." In terms of the voting patterns of the middle class, one could rephrase our conundrum as, "You can't always get what you want, especially if you do not know what you really need." I will amplify this point at a later date.

Nonetheless, as long as voters evince the kind of blind loyalty to party, as well as by that huge mass who claims to be conservative while being phenomenally ill-served by that philosophy, it does accomplish one conservative objective. This kind of division and illogical thinking certainly will maintain the status quo. And, really, with so much dissatisfaction being voiced in public forums from polls to mass media to town hall meetings, certainly we can agree that change is demanded if this country is to become strong again.

This just in: Memphis schools may be shut down

The city of Memphis owes the schools district millions of dollars. So the board decided to shut down the schools' August 8 starting date:

Classes for Memphis City Schools will not start this fall until the City Council deposits $55 million -- the amount the city has budgeted for schools from tax revenue -- in the district's account, school board members decided Tuesday night.

The board voted 8-1 to delay the start of the school year indefinitely, putting the system in the limelight as the district attempts to force city leaders to make good on funding promises.

"We've been patient; we've cut 1,500 jobs," said board member Tomeka Hart. "We're not going for everything. We're not saying give us everything you owe. We are just saying we have to have the money in the bank from our city so we can pay our bills.

"It's a difficult situation they are in but we can't continue to sacrifice our difficult situation to help them out of theirs. We did not create this situation, and we are a governing body as well."

City Council president Myron Lowery said several of the funding issues are tied up in court and therefore not negotiable right now.

"The council supplies less than 10 percent of almost a billion-dollar school budget," Lowery said. "They have voted to delay for having less than 10 percent in hand. That is ridiculous."

He blames the problem on poor communication between Supt. Kriner Cash and Mayor AC Wharton.

School employees will not be paid until school starts, throwing thousands of Memphians into a quandary, including Sarah Harper, who said, "as much as I would like to get paid, as much I need to get paid, let's not muddy the water about what the real issue is. Our children are being made the pawns. The city of Memphis needs to fund Memphis City Schools and fund them now. Demand they make this right.

"We've got to have the money. If we don't have it, we can't open the doors," she told the board, her voice rising with emotion. "I will guarantee you this city would be up in arms if they have to teach their children at home or find somewhere for them to go."

The vote came 21/2 hours into the emergency meeting, with impassioned arguments on both sides from members of the teachers union.

Cash said the board had spoken but said it was no victory.

"Our children need to be in school. I can't tell you that passionately or emphatically enough. I am going to keep fighting to get a resolution," he said, but made no promises. "What's next? I expect the city to be in touch with us."

Earlier, Wharton was perplexed by the board's discussion to delay, telling the City Council that money to fully fund the district had been set aside.

"The money is in the budget -- no ifs, ands or buts about it," he said. "On Friday, I stated to Dr. Cash that we have fully funded Memphis City Schools for the fiscal year 2012. The money is there, point blank. I don't know how to state that with any more clarity."

Wharton was visibly upset, at times pounding the podium in the council chambers.

The district says the city has shorted it $151 million over four years, including $78.4 million for the 2011-12 school year.

The city has not approved the district’s budget, required by state law. The district is to submit its budget to the state by Aug. 1. School had been scheduled to start Aug. 8.

If MCS cannot produce an approved budget showing the city is paying its fair share for schools by Oct. 1, new Commissioner of Education Kevin Huffman told Cash on Tuesday that he would withhold state funding for MCS.

At 50 percent, the state is the largest provider of funds for public education in Memphis.

MCS board president Martavius Jones cast the lone vote against the move to delay the start of school after talking on the phone with Wharton during a recess in the meeting.

"I didn't get a commitment from him. I tried," Jones said, adding that the best solution would be one that didn't hurt taxpayers. "The city is going to have to take this out of their reserves (and) that will make borrowing costs go up, which hurts taxpayers."

While the city has approved the money, it has not been sent to the school system because the council has not yet approved the district's budget, as required by state law.

While Jones said he has never known the council not to approve the budget before school started, it was not approved until Sept. 14 last year, more than a month after the start of school.

But the environment this year is different, said school board attorney Dorsey Hopson, because the council's legal position in the merger with Shelby County Schools is that the city schools no longer exist.

Well, the school district is certainly right about one thing (left unspoken): The second parents will have to scramble around for day-care (which unfortunately many parents feel is the primary function of school districts rather than promoting learning), they will hold their elected city officials's feet to the fire.

President Obama's re-election problem

I am sure that I am not the only one who has been receiving the multiple emails asking for political donations. I have not responded to these emails.

I am sorry, President Obama. I am not going to donate to your campaign. I may not even vote for you (my fingers are shaking as I am writing this, given how important my vote is-- at least to me).

Look, I understand that for the past year, you have had a Republican House, led by John Boehner (with Eric Cantor grabbing more and more control of his marionette strings even as we speak). But that's partly your fault.

You entered the presidency with a huge pile of political capital, and you squandered it. I will say that I was very pleased by your signing of the Lily Ledbetter Act as your first bill. You did approve a raise of the tobacco tax. You did sign the renewal of SCHIP, which tries to make sure poor children have access to health care. But you talked about the Hundred Days of FDR, but then you started backpedalling from other principled positions almost immediately. You backflipped on employing lobbyists in the administration. You kept using signing statements. You did not push Congress hard enough and sat on the sidelines while necessary reforms to our financial systems were either papered over or killed outright (I am still steaming over your inability to articulate why Elizabeth Warren is the person to oversee the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was her idea, and which will probably get gutted while you once again stand aside).

You are not a member of Congress. I get that. But you have this asset known as "the bully pulpit" (in the words of Teddy Roosevelt), and even George Bush proved to be a more masterful user of this asset than you, and you have the advantage of being able to speak English.

I would love to see some bipartisan action in our government, and I know that you believe you have been trying to do that. But compromise in which only one side-- yours, supposedly-- does the compromise is just weak. You keep trying to get the Republicans to play with you like a computer nerd trying to hang out at the jocks' table in the high school cafeteria, but you have lost your momentum to pressure them into it. You have also lost the House. As long as you do not specifically highlight again and again and again the class warfare that has been utilized by Republicans for the ultra-rich against the middle class for decades, you will keep losing ground. On the campaign trail you used to be a pretty good speaker. Where did that guy go?

I am a moderately progressive voter. I believe we have a duty to use government for good. I believe we should work for economic justice, transparency in government, and ethical decision-making. I believe that the budget must be balanced through a combination of tax increases and cuts in spending. I believe in raising taxes on companies that cut jobs. I support public education, and high standards and expectations for students. I believe in the right to privacy. I also support the death penalty. I support limitations on illegal immigration through the enforcement of laws on the books, because I believe that illegal workers are not only exploited and endangered thanks to their illegal status but that they drive down wages and working conditions. In a country with nearly 10% unemployment, we do not need to be importing workers. It's that simple.

I am also a teacher. Your education secretary has no real education experience, and "Race to the Top" is certainly not much of an improvement over No Child Left Behind. You and Basketball Boy have not yet admitted that charter schools run by for-profit corporations do not work.

No, I do not feel represented by you.

And I am not the only one. About a month ago, at the Netroots Nation Conference, it became obvious that the White House strategy of depending upon fawning liberal and progressive support while ignoring many of their concerns might have some consequence. Read the opinion piece at the link, please do, but I want to point out this one particularly resonant point:

Pfeiffer didn't really have to submit to this. The White House desperately wants liberal dollars but I can't imagine they're particularly worried about liberal votes. Democrats are never scared of their base, because liberals are terrified of Republicans:

"We can either work together and finish that work that we started in 2008 or we can be relegated back to the sidelines and see what a Republican president ... does to this country," he said at the event, which was streamed online.

He's right! A Republican president will most likely do what the last three Republican presidents have done: Starve the government of revenue, allow industries to capture regulators, launch pointless and bloody foreign misadventures, and threaten to gut the welfare state. I mean, all of those things might be happening now, with a Democrat, but they would happen so much worse with Mitt Romney, probably! So vote Obama again!

But it goes back further than this. In August 2010, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs basically said that liberals who criticized President Obama were on drugs:

"These people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality. They wouldn't be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."

Later in the day, Gibbs put out a statement saying he had spoken "inartfully."

"I watch too much cable, I admit," he said.

Still, the dust-up underscored the tough political position in which the president finds himself. Left and right are unhappy with him, narrowing the political base that Obama needs to pass legislation and avoid losses in the November midterm election.

Until this point, Obama and liberal activists have largely minimized their disagreements in public. But Gibbs' comments could strain the uneasy alliance, ushering in a period where mutual disenchantment is voiced more openly.

The backlash against Gibbs was swift.

Gibbs, who put the "ass" in "political assassination" held on until May of this year, which goes to show something about how out of touch the President really is.

Some liberal blogger famously stated that Obama wasn't liberals' boyfriend anymore. The thing is, President Obama was never my boyfriend. I preferred Hillary Clinton, because I felt that she was the stronger candidate, but I accepted that he won the primary and there was a clear choice between his professed platform and that of Senator McCain. I am not one of these people who lets emotion cloud my judgment regarding political candidates. I understood that it would be hard for President Obama to do many things while he addressed the very real economic problems created by Republican economic policy, especially deregulation and de-funding of government programs. But you lost your fighting spirit almost the moment your hand rested on the Bible and the Chief Justice mangled the oath of office.

Now, at the Netroots Nation Convention, White House Communications director Dan Pfeiffer claimed victory on a number of progressive fronts, but there are some glaring problems that are the root of our discontent.

1. Taking credit for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." As I recall, this administration has gone to court repeatedly to keep DADT in place while the military has "time" (maybe "all deliberate speed?" Is that vague enough?) to get ready for the eventual day when this administration may finally try to sneak in the extinction of this policy when it may attract the least attention. The policy is still in place. So don't pretend it's gone.

2. Health Care "Reform." Real health care reform is not a give-away to the insurance companies. We don't have a health care system in this country. We have health insurance, which only makes money if it discourages people from getting health care. This vaunted "reform" was the product of massive compromise (read "capitulation") to the very people who then promptly turned around and began denouncing some of their very own demands (hello, Mitt Romney!).

3. Iraq and Afghanistan (oh, and Guantanamo). Still there. Still adding billions monthly to the deficit, since none of this war has been paid for through taxes. And I want to point out that historically, we have made sure that that "shared sacrifice" included the people back home during war by attempting to pay for at least some of the war in question with tax increases. Until these two. No, the very people who screamed that it was our patriotic duty to go to war in 2001 and 2003 also deny that it is our patriotic duty to at least attempt to pay for this war. And President Obama has given them a pass on that.

4. Education. See above.

5. Financial Reform. Again, see above.

6. Economic policy. Do you have one-- one that you really care about enough to fight for it? And economic reform does not happen through compromise. Period.

A while back, Mr. Gibbs made some sort of a comment that the White House didn't need to worry about liberal and progressive backlash against the unfulfilled promises of the Obama Administration, since we have nowhere else to go. Okay, your half-Republican administration has been marginally better than a Republican administration. But is that really much of an accomplishment? Talk about being damned by faint praise.

Here's the thing. My most important political priorities were ignored during the first eight years of this century. But at least I wasn't being constantly asked to pay for that privilege through giving political donations to the people doing it.

I am just about your age, Mr. President. I am not a young adult who cast their first ballot for you caught in a haze of starry-eyed promises-- one who very well may stay home come November of 2012. I will not throw away my franchise. But there is a difference between voting for a candidate in whom I believe while knowing that Electoral College calculus means my vote will not count, and voting for someone who solicits their constituency's money and then openly and gloatingly ignores that constituency.

So, about those donations? During the Republican administrations under which I have lived during my life, I have learned that I can be ignored politically for free. That's the part that you and your advisors and spokesmen didn't figure out. And it may not matter to you. But it matters to me, and my pocketbook.

Of fires and fees and taxes

I have been following the evolving story of Gene Crannick, the rural Tennessee man who made the news when a nearby fire department watched while his trailer burned because he hadn't paid a $75 fee.

If you haven't been following this story, here's a pretty good summary of the debate, and you can find video of an interview with the homeowner on the web. Try this site from yahoo news for the summary.

Here's my take. First of all, this county's residents have chosen not to tax themselves to provide fire protection. We can see from this example how wonderful it is to live like our Founding Fathers did, as the Tea Partiers love to reminisce about. Two centuries ago, in the time of our Founding Fathers, there were no professional fire departments and it was not seen as the government's responsibility to provide fire protection (my alter ego, the History Geek, would like to remind you that the first US fire department was established in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin, but the first professional fire department was established in Cincinnati in 1853. At left, you can see an image from Franklin's attempt to encourage colonial unity and mutual aid in 1754). One could even argue that the Founding Fathers' vision of government did not include services like police protection, sanitation and sewage services, water purification, immunizations against smallpox and influenza, and a host of other things we moderns take for granted as being provided for us.

If your neighbor's house caught fire two centuries ago, hopefully you and your other neighbors would get together to try to put out the fire, although frankly that didn't work too well. That's why there are now professional fire departments. And it requires tax money to pay for them. Heck, it requires tax money to pay for volunteer fire departments, because there really is no such thing as a "bucket brigade" any more. Fighting fires requires expensive equipment and maintenance of that equipment. Once again, this must be paid for collectively by the community in the form of taxes.

Now, getting back to the situation at hand, Mr. Crannick claims to have "forgotten" to pay his fee that stands in lieu of a tax.

I wonder if the fact that this charge was called a "fee" rather than a tax makes any difference? It is called a "fee" because the town does not have jurisdiction to tax Mr. Crannick, and because payment is voluntary. That also means that they have no obligation to provide services to Mr. Crannick, as a non-fee-payer. Since 1990, the nearby town has offered to absorb the risk of fighting fires for those who lived in the county, IF they were willing to pay a fee. And this is an important distinction that needs to be made. The county residents chose not to tax themselves to provide fire protection, and it sounds like some of the residents expected to be able to mooch off those who did pay the tax in the event that tragedy struck.

Simply applying logical principles, and leaving morality out of the discussion for a moment, let us consider: seventy-five dollars obviously does not even begin to cover the cost of fighting a fire. Depending upon where Mr. Crannick lives, it may not even cover the cost of the fuel to get the fire truck to his house. So obviously, the only way that the fee is going to actually induce the neighboring town to offer fire protection for those outside its limits is if every person who wishes to have service will pay the fee even if that person doesn't happen to have a house on fire at the time. This is basically an insurance policy, if you will, and the way that works is that as many people as possible share the risk, and probably pay for something that hopefully they will never have to actually use. And by the way, in the interview I watched, Mr. Crannick admitted this was not the first time he or one of his family members had "forgotten" to pay this fee. The last time it happened, Mr. Crannick's family member HAD been allowed to pay the fee on the spot and the house fire was extinguished.

I have a feeling that Mr. Crannick didn't really "forget" after an experience like that. I have a feeling he felt that he could continue to ignore the real purpose of the fee and just pay on the spot if a member of his household caused another fire, which is exactly what indeed did happen. I guarantee that the residents of the town with the fire department pay far more annually than $75 for fire protection, and I would hope that he would recognize that. I wonder if he didn't deliberately choose not to pay the fee, thinking that he had gamed the system.

I fear that this situation may end up being more common, if certain anti-tax groups get their way. Eventually, if we lower taxes enough, services will have to be cut, and to restore them one will have to pay a fee, voluntarily. But is this a good thing? Not for "forgetful" people or for poor people or for even clumsy people who set their yards on fire when they don't have fire protection. You will have freedom, all right-- including the freedom to watch your house burn down in exchange for that freedom from taxation which the self-satisfied members of the Tea Party-- and perhaps Mr. Crannick himself-- so tragically misinterpret.

But seriously, in my vision of a just society, we live in communities, and we look out for each other. We support each other, in part by paying taxes to provide good things-- I would go so far as to call them necessary things. To be specific, I mean good things such as police and fire protection, sanitation, good roadways and good schools and safe water and a host of other beneficial things-- all paid for by taxes. In my perfect society, we balance individualistic concerns and self-interest (the part of us that says, "I don't want to pay taxes") with the benefit of being members of a civilized society (the part of us that says, "I want security and companionship and shared identity"). And my vision of this society goes back to, indeed, one of our Founding Fathers-- Governor John Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay colony.

In 1630, John Winthrop wrote these words as he approached the new English settlements in America and pondered how the members of a successful settlement that claimed to be founded upon the laws of God should behave:

"....We must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." Just a few lines later, Winthrop compared this new America to a "city on a hill" that would be an example for the world. This image is so famous and familiar that it has been quoted numerous times by presidents and statesmen, including that crusading icon of the anti-taxers, Ronald Reagan.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall once famously stated, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." This is certainly so in some cases, like cigarette taxes and fuel taxes and "sin" taxes on alcohol. In the case of Mr. Crannick, however, the refusal or failure to pay a tax (alternative) led to destruction. If this is a vision of the future that sounds good to you, then by all means, support the vision of limited government that this story describes.

DADT? WWTD?

A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from enforcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding the service of gay men and women in the military.

I stopped and re-read that sentence, and threw up a little in my mouth. The mere fact that I could write "Obama" and "enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would almost make me question my sanity-- until I start recounting the countless other ways this administration has failed to have the cojones to stand up for what is right in some crazy quest to somehow gain bipartisan support for ANYTHING from a party implacably committed to that same administration's failure.

(And let's not even get into the decision announced today that an administration run by a former law school professor is appealing on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act when marriage has traditionally been under the purview of the states.)

I'm sorry Mr. President, and this is coming from a friend -- albeit a disappointed one. Guess what? They're never going to love you. They're never going to even LIKE you. There's a goodly percentage of them who are pretty certain to always despise you for your name and for your racial background, besides whatever you might do. They're never going to be convinced that you are anything but a black radical Muslim sleeper agent born in Kenya. Here's your chance to BE bipartisan and steal a page from the other guy's playbook by standing up for a truly conservative, libertarian principle: keeping government out of one's private life.

So here's the story:

A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the department is under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.

The fact that it took a group of Republicans (albeit far from typical ones) to call the administration's bluff just makes this all the more incredible.

This policy has been a failure since its inception. It has robbed our armed forces of loyal and dedicated patriots willing to put their lives on the line for their country in a way that few of their critics have done. We have lost translators and bomb-sniffing dog handlers and a host of other critical specialists-- all based upon rumor and innuendo and a host of dire, insane "what-ifs" that would make Glenn Beck proud.

Here's a chance for President Obama to show some backbone, and actually deliver on something he has pledged to do. And this judge has now made it easy for him.

So let me be direct: Man up, President Obama. It's time to do the right thing because it is right. It is not the time to take surveys or ask permission: you are the commander-in-chief.

Here's something to make it easier for you, too: I'll help you find just the right wording for an executive order. See if this sounds right:

"Establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In the Armed Forces.

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.

3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the Armed Services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgment of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.

4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.

5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.

6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order."

Sound good? Simple, straightforward, and, if you are a History Geek, familiar.

Well, guess what? Except for the addition of the words "sexual orientation," this is exactly the text of Executive Order 9981, which was signed by President Harry S Truman on July 26, 1948, in order to desegregate the military. The same Harry Truman who fired one of the most popular generals in the US Army because he was insubordinate, in order to make clear that civilians run our military, and not the other way around.

Just ask yourself, Mr. Obama: What Would Truman Do?

What WOULD Truman Do???

President Truman wouldn't wait to see what the Senate says. President Truman wouldn't wait to see what the survey says like some farcical version of "Family Feud." And yes, he took his licks for it. But in the end, he has been adjudged one of the greatest presidents in the history of our great country.

It's not just a Democratic thing to do. Even Barry Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, eventually decided that homophobia and discrimination against gays, including in the military,* was wrong by 1994. That should help with your longing for bipartisanship.


So, helped by the cover of a court order, go ahead and issue that Presidential Order. It'll make you look presidential. And BE presidential. But perhaps you claim that Congress has somehow made it impossible to issue a presidential order-- a claim I find to be difficult to believe. But okay-- if that's the case, stop claiming that enforcing this order will cause "irreparable harm" to our military readiness if in the same breath you claim that you will end this policy "on your watch." Don't appeal the court order ending something you say is wrong. Your administration has done this over and over, and it just makes you appear to be a hypocrite.



* -- From a 1994 interview with the Washington Post: "So how did this super-patriot, former fighter pilot and retired Air Force general get involved in gay rights?

'The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?" Goldwater says. "Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. ... So I came out for it.'"

Lions and tigers and "socialized medicine," oh my!

I was having that rarest of all things the other day--a reasoned, polite political conversation.

I know! Never happens, right?

But yes, there I was, just having this conversation, when along came someone not involved in the original conversation, which is cool, sure--until they start trying to be irrational and have no intention of doing anything except trying to plant words in your own mouth and make ad hominem attacks and, in the very last resort, resort to doublethink in an attempt to short-circuit true thinking about the issues at hand. One person actually claimed that foreigners were coming to the US in droves to escape the perils of universal health care. Really? Where are these scads and scads of people???

We were talking about fixing our broken health care system--it is, of course, an oxymoron to combine "health care" and "system" in the same phrase, but whatever floats your boat. But soon along came dis guy, as my Jersey friends might say, and started claiming all kinds of weird stuff I never said. Then someone else chimed in with how we should never be in favor of "socialized medicine" in our country.

So okay, I asked, just to be clear, what exactly do you mean by "socialized medicine?" I received no answer.

It's often that way. People trot out sound-bites of the minutest size when they don't have anything else to say. I mean, seriously, let's agree to disagree, and share ideas so that maybe we will find a palatable solution somewhere in the middle, but don't just bring out the flamethrower when you don't really want to examine what the flames mean.

So I have to wonder, what exactly does "socialized medicine" mean? If by socialism you mean the sharing of burdens among a group of people, I just want to ask this: what do you think insurance is, anyway? Remember, we don't have a health care system. We have health insurance in this country, provided by one's employer, in most cases, for better or worse. And this is by no stretch of the imagination a "system." Insurance is legalized gambling through the use of actuarial tables. Insurance tries to get the most people to pay for something that they will not use. And in case the odds are not stacked enough in the house's favor, the house also reserves the right not to pay out if they lose too much to any gambler-- not that one could be considered a "winner" if one ends up needing a lot of expensive medical care. What a system! It's almost as corrupt as... Communism was.

Here is the problem, as I see it: the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have thus far completely controlled the debate about health care reform. Congress is in the pockets of their billion dollar lobbying campaign, and we voters don't hold our elected representative accountable for selling out the interests of their constituents (definition: US!). Thus there has been precious little reform, and all of this has been directed by government employees who are provided free, lifetime, government- sponsored health care by that same government that they declare too corrupt and inefficient to provide for us. We cannot reform these industries because they block any regulation of their industry as "un-American."

We already pay for other people's health care. Having once been charged eight bucks for a solitary Tylenol extra strength while in the hospital, I can assure you of that.

But, hey, rather than think about what is really wrong with our current method, let's trot out thought-stifling words like "socialized medicine" and "death panels" if someone ever actually suggests that the system is broken for a large portion of Americans.

Finding Middle Ground Near Hallowed Ground

The controversy over the construction of a Muslim cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City continues unabated after weeks of heated rhetoric. I saw on the news today that over 60% of New Yorkers oppose the construction of the center and mosque.

We should never condemn the members of an entire group based on the actions of the most extreme members of that group. This particularly applies to religions. Would those of you who are Christian want to be judged by the excesses of the Crusades, or the Irish Troubles, or the Sex Abuse crises currently rending so many denominations in two? I would imagine most definitely not. In the same way, no one should condemn all Muslims for the actions of the Taliban, Muammar Qaddafi, or al-Qaeda.

In America, we often condemn Muslim countries such as Iran or even Saudi Arabia for their lack of toleration for those of other faiths. We are proud of our commitment to freedom of religion. Well, situations like this are where our values truly get tested. We only have values if we stick to them even when it is difficult and uncomfortable. It's easy to claim the high road when that road is smooth and easy.

Muslims have the right to worship freely in America, and unless we want to allow extremists like those who attacked us on 9/11 to succeed in their campaign to destroy America and what it stands for, we must resist the impulse to retreat from that value.

Having said that, it would also be wonderful if our Muslim brethren would be sensitive to the very real pain and trauma that still lingers in the wake of these attacks. They don't need to be told that the world will never be the same again, since their lives were changed as well by the terrible events of that day. It would be a sensitive gesture to reconsider the location of a Muslim cultural center and mosque so close to a place that was, let's face it, attacked by people who claimed a fervent if misguided devotion to that religion.

I would like to humbly suggest that a Muslim cultural center doesn't HAVE to be built at that location, and the greatest examples of charity, kindness, and concern for others enshrined within the pages of the Qur'an could be demonstrated by a willingness to consider an alternative location. If the group promoting this project truly wishes to advance understanding about Islam to a still-traumatized America, perhaps it could consider relocating this project to somewhere less sensitive. Frankly, a Muslim cultural center and mosque on this location would not go very far in its goal of promoting understanding and friendship for millions of people-- the very people I am sure they hope to reach out to in goodwill.

Let's search for a middle ground near this hallowed ground.

Asylum for Home-schoolers

A German family has been granted political asylum because they home-school their children. From TIME magazine:

The Romeikes are not your typical asylum seekers. They did not come to the U.S. to flee war or despotism in their native land. No, these music teachers left Germany because they didn't like what their children were learning in public school - and because homeschooling is illegal there.

"It's our fundamental right to decide how we want to teach our children," says Uwe Romeike, an Evangelical Christian and a concert pianist who sold his treasured Steinway to help pay for the move.

Romeike decided to uproot his family in 2008 after he and his wife had accrued about $10,000 in fines for homeschooling their three oldest children and police had turned up at their doorstep and escorted them to school. "My kids were crying, but nobody seemed to care," Romeike says of the incident.

So why did he seek asylum in the U.S. rather than relocate to nearby Austria or another European country that allows homeschooling? Romeike's wife Hannelore tells TIME the family was contacted by the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which suggested they go to the U.S. and settle in Morristown, Tenn. The nonprofit organization, which defends the rights of the U.S. homeschooling community - with its estimated 2 million children, or about 4% of the total school-age population - is expanding its overseas outreach. And on Jan. 26, the HSLDA helped the Romeikes become the first people granted asylum in the U.S. because they were persecuted for homeschooling.

The ruling is tricky politically for Washington and its allies in Europe, where several countries - including Spain and the Netherlands - allow homeschooling only under exceptional circumstances, such as when a child is extremely ill. That helps explain why in late February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement formally appealed the Romeike ruling, which was issued by an immigration judge in Memphis, Tenn. His unprecedented decision has raised concerns that the already heavily backlogged immigration courts will be flooded with asylum petitions from homeschoolers in countries typically regarded as having nonrepressive governments.

"It's very unusual for people from Western countries to be granted asylum in the U.S.," says David Piver, an immigration attorney with offices in a Philadelphia suburb and Flagstaff, Ariz. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, only five Germans received asylum in the U.S. (The Justice Department declined to comment on specific cases.) Piver, who is not involved in the Romeike case, predicted the U.S. government would appeal the decision "so as not to offend a close ally."

Successful asylum petitions typically involve applicants whose situations are more dire, such as women who were forced to undergo abortions or genital mutilation and men whose lives were threatened because they are homosexuals or political dissidents. But Piver believes the Memphis judge was right to grant the Romeikes asylum, since the law covers social groups with "a well-founded fear of persecution" in their home country.

In Germany, mandatory school attendance dates back to 1717, when it was introduced in Prussia, and the policy has traditionally been viewed as a social good. "This law protects children," says Josef Kraus, president of the German Teachers' Association. The European Court of Human Rights agrees with him. In 2006, the court threw out a homeschooling family's case when it deemed Germany's compulsory-schooling law as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty drafted in 1950. Given this backdrop, it's little wonder the Romeikes came up against a wall of opposition when they tried to talk to their school principal about the merits of homeschooling.

One of the Romeikes' concerns was about their kids getting bullied. But their main objection involved what was being taught in the classroom. "The curriculum goes against our Christian values," Uwe says. "German schools use textbooks that force inappropriate subject matter onto young children and tell stories with characters that promote profanity and disrespect."

While there are no official figures, it's estimated that up to 1,000 German families are homeschooling their children. Elisabeth Kuhnle, a spokeswoman for a German advocacy group called the Network for the Freedom of Education, says a recent homeschooling meeting attracted about 50 families in the state of Baden-Württemberg, where the Romeikes used to live. She also reckons many German homeschooling families have relocated to countries like France and Britain, where homeschooling is allowed.

In 2007, Germany's Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling - which did not specifically involve the Romeikes - that parents could lose custody of their children if they continued to homeschool them. "We were under constant pressure, and we were scared the German authorities would take our children away," Romeike says. "So we decided to leave and go to the U.S."

German officials, for their part, note that the Romeikes had other options. "If parents don't want to send their children to a public school, they can send them to alternative private schools," says Thomas Hilsenbeck, a spokesman for the Baden-Württemberg education ministry. Homeschooling advocates counter that there are few private schools in Germany, and they tend to be expensive. But beyond that, many religious parents have problems with sex education and other curricular requirements. "Whether it's a state school or a private school, there's still a curriculum that is forced onto children," says Kuhnle.

And then there are the social aspects of going to school. Homeschooling parents tend to want to shield their children from negative influences. But this quest often runs counter to the idea that schools represent society and help promote tolerance. "No parental couple can offer a breadth of education [that can] replace experienced teachers," says Kraus, of the German Teachers' Association. "Kids also lose contact with their peers."

Concerns that homeschooling could lead to insularity - or worse, as Kraus puts it, "could help foster the development of a sect" - are shaping policy debates in European countries. In Britain, for example, Parliament is considering legislation that would create a new monitoring system to ensure that homeschooled kids get a suitable education.

In Sweden, where parents have to apply for permission to teach their children at home, the government is planning to impose even tougher restrictions on homeschoolers. And in Spain, parents are not allowed to educate their children at home. Period. If a child has special needs that prevent him from attending school, a teacher will be sent to his home.

By contrast, homeschooling is legal in all 50 U.S. states, some of which don't require families to notify authorities of their intent to teach their children at home. Tennessee is among the states that require some form of notice as well as periodic assessment tests.

When Uwe and Hannelore heard that the judge had ruled in their favor, they celebrated by taking their five children - who range in age from 4 to 12 - to Baskin-Robbins for ice cream. But the next day, they were back to their regular schedule. Lessons start at 9 a.m. and end at around 4 p.m. The school-age kids are learning all the usual subjects - math, science, etc. - with the help of textbooks and other teaching materials, in compliance with state law. The family has also joined a local group that organizes activities and field trips once a week for homeschooled children.

Meanwhile, the HSLDA says it is working to defend a homeschooling family in Sweden and is investigating cases in Brazil, where homeschooling is banned - all good fodder for a comparative-government class, whether it's taught in school or at home.

The original version of this article has been updated to reflect the fact that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has submitted an appeal requesting to overturn the judge’s decision to grant the Romeikes asylum.

Um, duh- they didn't move to Austria because they could become a cause celebre here, although, frankly, Austria's economy is doing better than ours is right now. But I'm sure they'll be very comfortable in Tennessee, especially if they get financial support from the HSLDA and make the talk-show rounds, including the 700 Club.

I am not so sure that a Pandora's box hasn't been opened here-- if homeschooling is placed on a par with fears of, say, genocide or mutilation, what's next?

I happen to live in a state where there are even fewer regulations on homeschooling than in Tennessee. Sadly, some of the people who homeschool here belong IN an asylum. Seriously-- since there are no standards or oversight at all in this state, we had a mother "homeschooling" who had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and had the kids basically working as her caregivers. When the kids were finally placed in school they were absolutely illiterate and terrified. We've had parents "homeschool" their kids who had barely an eighth grade education themselves. We've had step-grandparents claim to be homeschooling who were actually abusing their grandson and chaining him up in his room until the authorities stepped in and released him. The damage that the hated public schools then had to try to undo was staggering in both instances.

Then there's those that barely try. There was the family who lived down the street from me who homeschooled for just two hours a day because both the parents worked. My favorite was the lady who wanted to homeschool her son but called the principal and demanded all MY activities, tests and quizzes that I had made up on my own time in the summer-- PLUS the answer keys! How she got my name, I'll never know, but you can imagine my response. And that's just the tip of iceberg for what I've seen in my own career.

But most homeschooling parents try their best, and some do an outstanding job-- just like public schools do. I just find it suspicious when there are more regulations and oversight on puppy mills (barely, but still) than there are on homeschooling. In the Romeike's case, since they had no intention of sending the kids to school, I don't know how they could talk about bullying, unless they were planning on never having their children interact with other kids EVER. I am sure these people felt that they were being persecuted. I am not sure they had to be given a free ticket to America to escape it, however.

Sauce>Goose. Sauce>Gander?

(Yep, those ARE headlights you see reflected in his eyes....)


The citizens of my beloved hometown of Tulsa just elected themselves yet another dipsy millionaire as their mayor (past honorees of note? See Sen. James "9/11 was retribution from God for the US not supporting Israel" Inhofe). Tulsa's new blow-dried Hizzoner has been intent on breaking the policemen's union and the firemen's union and forcing the people who protect the city of Tulsa to take sizable cuts in staffing, pay and benefits, but assured everyone that all parts of city government would take similar hits. But notsofast:

The Mayor’s Office is not sustaining a budget cut and, in fact, is projected to need an infusion of cash before the end of the fiscal year so it is not over budget, Tulsa’s City Council learned Wednesday.

Budget Director Pat Connelly told councilors during a special meeting that budget amendments incorporating more than $10 million in cuts to the general fund will be brought to them next week.

But it will not include a 4.4 percent reduction for the Mayor’s Office as all other city departments have taken, he said. Such a cut would have decreased the executive office’s annual budget of $1,048,000 by $46,000.

This development comes in spite of Mayor Dewey Bartlett having maintained throughout the process that all city groups would share equally in addressing the city’s budget crisis.

Connelly said the payroll for the current staffing level in the Mayor’s Office will exceed its appropriations. The council soon will have to transfer more money into its budget.

“So it doesn’t make any sense to cut them now when you’re just going to have to go back in and provide some additional dollars,” he said.

The staffing expenses come from a combination of then-Mayor Kathy Taylor’s administration and Bartlett’s new administration, which took over less than two months ago, Connelly said.

Some councilors laughed at the revelation in disbelief.

“Good luck with that,” Councilor Bill Christiansen said...

Muh-huh. Just what you expect from a guy named after one of Donald Duck's nephews.

President Obama's "Liberal" Agenda for Education

Well, now that the speech has been made, we see that President Obama's evil, socialist, partisan agenda to indoctrinate our nation's schoolchildren is this, summarized from the text of the president's speech:

1) It's not just the job of teachers and parents to make sure students learn. You, the students, have responsibility in this process, too.

2) Education provides the opportunity to discover your talents, but you have to develop those talents.

3) You not only have a responsibility to yourself to make the most of your education, you have a responsibility to your community and your country to become educated.

4) No matter what difficulties you have to overcome, there are no excuses for not making sure you make the most of your education.

5) Being successful is hard work no matter what impression you may get from tv or music, and you will have to overcome setbacks and failures in order to become successful. The key is to persevere.

6) Ask questions.

7) Ask for help.

8) Never give up on yourself.

9) Do your part to improve this country.


Wow. How dare he???????? What exactly in this message is not prudent and conservative, in the best sense of the word?

And please note that, unlike so many who get their news from the Colbert Report without getting the irony, I refrained from announcing my opinion until AFTER I heard the speech and read the text. Would that all supposedly responsible citizens would do the same.

I will confess that I am ashamed of the initial response my school district chose when this speech was announced. Letters were sent home to parents, which announced a set of limitations which made it nigh impossible for a teacher to have his or her students watch the speech. Parents were basically assured that their children would be protected from being forced to listen to a speech about the importance of education by the president of the United States. The fact that bitter, immature, uncivil, partisan sniping was in any way given credence at the central office was one thing. But then days later, we got a grudging admission pointing out that, well, we need to respect the office of the president, and Barack Obama IS our president. Oh, thanks.

Here's what I resent: when President Bush was still in office, any letter similar to the ones sent home last week would have been decried as unpatriotic and the worst sort of injection of political-- and in particular liberal-- bias into the classroom. But the second that a Democrat is in the White House, it is suddenly fine and dandy to use fear-mongering and smear tactics against the office of the president. We did not see such a response when Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush gave similar speeches to students, either.

It is my policy to never criticize the current president-- no matter who he is-- to my students. (Yes, that's one reason why I have a blog.) I can and do control myself and act like an adult. Furthermore, just because you vote for or against someone doesn't mean you should not continually re-evaluate and judge how well they have represented your beliefs and values. There have certainly been things I have disagreed with done by every president in my lifetime, including this one.

I would hope that our district administration would also follow this policy, and show the same restraint and respect we expect our students to demonstrate to us, whether they like us or not. I was hoping that this letter was just a reaction to a bitter but vocal handful of district residents who were stirred up by their blind obedience to the Limbaugh Lobby to hate any and all things Obama, and by their vociferousness often scared the bejebus out of petty bureaucrats. But by catering to this element, administrators, you appear to agree with them, and that is the injection of political bias into the classroom that should not be tolerated no matter who is president.

However implicit and subtle our district administrators think their very political response was to a non-political speech, our students are no dummies. Many of them realized that a reactionary fringe opposed to civil discourse was allowed to control the day on Tuesday. And that IS un-American.

Chip Saltsman for GOP chairman

I would like to put out my endorsement for Chip Saltsman to be elected the next chair of the Republican National Committee.

I believe that Mr. Saltsman encompasses all of the qualities that define the modern Republican party. If Republicans want to elect a chair of the national committee that completely represents who they are as a political movement, Chip Saltsman is your man!

First, he demonstrated his sense of judgment by sending out a lovely CD full of songs conveying the principles of the modern Republican party:

The controversy surrounding a comedy CD distributed by Republican National Committee chair candidate Chip Saltsman has not torpedoed his bid and might have inadvertently helped it.

Four days after news broke that the former Tennessee GOP chairman had sent a CD that included a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” to the RNC members he is courting, some of those officials are rallying around the embattled Saltsman, with a few questioning whether the national media and his opponents are piling on.

“When I heard about the story I had to figure out what was going on for myself,” said Mark Ellis, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party. “When I found out what this was about I had to ask, ‘boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.”

Alabama Republican committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it “didn’t bother me one bit.”

“Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift,” he said. “This is just people looking for something to make an issue of.”

“I don’t think he intended it as any kind of racial slur. I think he intended it as a humor gift,” Oklahoma GOP committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. “I think it was innocently done by Chip.”

The song came with 40 others on an album from conservative satirist Paul Shanklin, a personal friend of Saltsman. The song is a parody of a 2007 Los Angeles Times column of the same title and is written to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon.”

“Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.” the opening of the song goes. “The L.A. Times, they called him that ‘cause he’s not authentic like me. Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper said he makes guilty whites feel good. They’ll vote for him, and not for me ‘cause he’s not from the hood.”

The song, written shortly after the publication of the Times column, was first played on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. On Monday, Limbaugh prominently re-posted the song on the top left corner of his website above the headline, “Drive-by media misreporting of ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ song.”

The flap has generated unflattering attention at a time when the GOP is trying to rebuild its brand and reach out to new voters after an election in which GOP presidential nominee John McCain ran poorly among minority constituencies.

The day after the story was first reported by The Hill, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan issued a statement expressing disgust over the song.

“The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party,” said Duncan, who is seeking reelection to his post. “I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction.”

Duncan was joined by Michigan GOP Chair Saul Anuzis, another RNC chair aspirant who chided Saltsman for sending out the CD.

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said he was “disappointed” when he heard about the story and questioned Saltsman’s viability as a candidate going forward.

“There are a lot of things about Chip that would have made a good a RNC chairman, but this has definitely hurt him,” he said in an interview with Politico. “With less than a month to go Chip needs to be talking about where he wants to lead the party and he is not going to get that opportunity.”

Not everyone is so sure, with some RNC members contending that Anuzis and Duncan may have actually hurt their candidacies with their responses.

“Those are two guys who just eliminated themselves from this race for jumping all over Chip on this,” one committee member told Politico. “Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this.”

While South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele have decided to stay away from the controversy, offering no comment, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who would be the party’s first black chairman, has drawn notice for his vigorous defense of Saltsman.

“Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president,” Blackwell said in a statement. “I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.”

As a result of his position, a source close to the race said that at least 12 uncommitted committee members have contacted Blackwell to thank him for his support for Saltsman and have expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis “for throwing a good Republican under the bus.”

Indeed, in a fluid race in which six candidates are vying for the votes of 168 members, both Blackwell and Saltsman stand to benefit from a backlash to the flap.

Most observers expect Duncan to lead after the first ballot, but few expect he or any other candidate will be able to secure election on a first ballot. For either Saltsman or Blackwell to win election they will likely need the votes of the other’s supporters to break in their direction, along with any other committee members who are not enamored of Duncan’s leadership.
In calls to committee members in recent days, both Saltsman and Blackwell have been reminding Republicans of how both Duncan and Anuzis reacted to the story.

“I wasn’t angered by what Mike had said, it was just revealing to me how each one responded,” said Ellis of Maine, who as an uncommitted member received calls from all six candidates Monday. “Their responses were kind of a surprise to me because I saw it as something that was not an issue, something that was manufactured from outside the committee.”

Those nasty bastards in the mainstream media (or as Spiro Agnew liked to call 'em right before they selfishly revealed his profit sharing plan, those "nattering nabobs of negativism") are to blame for this whole thing, because they have been after good Republicans ever since they cruelly went after poor ol' Spiro and then Richard Nixon, all because they were jealous of what a great president and moral leader he was.

I'm so glad that Rush Limbaugh, another fine hero of the party, has included a link to the song in question, and am so happy it replaced that infomercial for OxyContin.

Poor old Chip, good ole boy that he is, was completely misunderstood by some "Democrats in Republican clothing" who objected to the use of the term "Negro" when referring to the current president elect, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, whom new research has shown to not only have been born in Tehran as the love child of the Ayatollah Khomeini, but to have the mark of the beast and cloven hooves (that's why you never see him barefoot).

Now, about those backstabbing bastards who dared to criticize good ol' Chip: first of all, what do you expect from a sumbitch named Saul, anyway? Who could take any Republican seriously who has the same name as someone who made it his mission to persecute the followers of our Lord and Savior? You know we can't trust their kind to look after anyone's interests but their own.

But Ken Blackwell has shown himself to be our kind of Negro. He knows that "Negro" is really a term of affection, like "boy" or "uncle." Hell, the word "Negro" always reminds me of a time when life was simpler, and you could always find someone to shine your shoes or bust up a chiffarobe. And that's the kind of time we need to have restored by men like Chip Saltsman.

What's all this fuss about some music? I think Republicans need to show their love of the arts more, because you can only listen to Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood so many times, you know? It's a wonderful idea to rehabilitate that piece of commie trash Peter, Paul, and Mary and cleanse that song of its ability to hook our kids on drugs, because really, what did you think that dragon was puffing, anyway? I think the other candidates for chairman should show their support for Chip by helping put on a minstrel show-- now, THAT was good clean family entertainment! Woo-ee!

So, please support Chip, before those Magic Negroes and their commie friends take over EVERYTHING, wanting to hand out welfare to every person who's lost his job because he selfishly demanded that he be paid more than three dollars an hour in a vicious plot to cut corporate profit. Right thinkers everywhere know that that's a waste of money that just encourages the little people to expect things like socialized medicine instead of learning how to live with a little cough for months. Using taxpayer money to bail out the saps who actually are stupid enough to pay the taxes is all a commie plot. It makes them uppity instead of realizing that they should be grateful just to have the chance of getting crushed by heavy machinery in a factory run without the nanny state protection of OSHA. The GOP must stand up for using guvmint funds for good capitalist purposes, like gutting the EPA or pouring trillions of dollars into the pockets of good Republican-supporting corporations and protecting bonuses for executives everywhere so that they can hire more yard workers and pool boys and brass polishers on their yachts to create good jobs for illegal immigrants whose asses we can ship back south of the border if they complain those who should be grateful for whatever trickles down. Because that's what Republican economic policy stands for. And we can't have that if Magic Negroes think they have the right to actually run for president and then promise to change the way things always have been.

Chip Saltsman for chair of the Republican National Committee! He's got a vision for America! Electing him will drive all of the "wrong sort" straight outta the Party, which can only make it stronger!


(PS-- Y'all DO realize that I'm being satirical in this piece, right?)

Oh, for cryin' out loud -- or, some will think hell freezes over...

... because I am now about to appear to defend Sarah Palin. Okay, now, I have heard enough of the brouhaha over Gov. Sarah Palin's wardrobe. Any hands raised with me on this? Ah, there's one now! Yes ma'am-- you in the mukluks!

Anyone else?

And the fact that this is coming from Republicans from McCain's campaign is even more ridiculous. Just goes to show that guys can be just as bitchy and catty as girls. Apparently, Republican lawyers are flying up to Alaska to demand back the threads. And tell me how many times you snorted or rolled your eyes as you read this snippet of an article from the UK's Daily Mail:

Sarah Palin is sorting through her luggage working out what clothes belong to her and what do not, her spokesman said yesterday.

Meg Stapleton added that the Alaskan governor was coming under unfair attack from a 'firing squad' of anonymous John McCain staffers in a frenzy of finger-pointing.

'It’s a circling firing squad,' said Ms Stapleton.

In a string of damaging briefings, it was claimed that Mrs Palin had spent 'tens of thousands' more on her clothes than budgeted for, that she once met McCain aides dressed in nothing but a towel and that she did not know Africa was a continent....

She and an aide are sorting through luggage to identify campaign clothes purchased by the Republican National Committee.

The designer clothing, which Palin intends to return so it can be donated to charity, became a damaging election issue that is still haunting the defeated vice-presidential candidate.

But Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s foreign policy aide, praised Palin and said attacks from other staffers were 'dishonorable'.

He told The Anchorage Daily News: 'I think it’s unprecedented in terms of presidential politics to have this level of vindictiveness and pettiness. It’s like these people fell out of favour with a middle school 14-year-old girls’ clique. It’s really unbelievable.'

Much of it is over the Republican National Committee’s purchase of more than £90,000 in clothes for Palin.

Look, I am sick of people who vilify their political opponents personally. I am certainly no fan of Sarah Palin, for logical reasons: too smugly anti-intellectual, too likely to inject her own personal sectarian religion into her politics instead of universal religious values, potential bookburner, and so on. But she gave McCain some definite cred that he had been lacking with core Republican constituencies that made this race closer than it would have otherwise have been. She showed a great sense of humor about herself on her SNL appearances, and I give her great credit for that, especially compared to Sen. McCain's wooden grimaces in place of grinning on the same show. She and I don't agree, but, good Lord, she's not Medusa. I am sick to death of bitterness. I actually with my own two ears heard someone I know call President-elect Obama a n----- in rage over the election the other day.

If you are coming from Alaska onto the world stage, you're going to need some clothes. You can't tromp around in pelts (kidding!) or North Face outerwear all the time. As a practical matter, I see nothing wrong with Palin getting a new wardrobe as the running mate of a national political figure (although I do draw the line at clothing for the rest of her family). The problem is that, according to the McCain-Feingold law, this kind of thing cannot be done by the campaign. And, um, McCain staffers knew this since McCain sponsored the legislation, and so rather than use their noggins, they engaged in some hocus-pocus that just enraged loads of Republican donors.

Now, there was a simple solution for all of this.

John and Cindy McCain keep their finances separate, right? And Cindy McCain is rolling in the stuff, yes? So Cindy McCain, who certainly knows how to wear $150,000 well (and even all at once!) should have just taken her new BFF Sarah on a little shopping spree. This would have been just a few personal gifts between friends, and at the end of the campaign, give 'em back to Cindy or whatever.

Problem solved, and no one would have been the wiser.

But, hey, Republican lawyers, go on and fly up to Alaska to repo the rags. It's all silly and petty at this point.

Spreading the wealth, or spreading the dumbth.

I'm sure that I am betraying my age, but I love the word dumbth. If any word encompasses what passes for political discourse in this country, it's dumbth.

Like all these working guys that claim that they are "Joe the Plumber." You're not making a living, you're not getting by, you're angry without understanding why, you've got no healthcare? Joe the Plumber.

You're not making any money as working people because unions have been eviscerated under the government policies of the last forty years. You're not making any money, Joe, because you've bought the crock that unions are your enemy and not your ally. You're not making any money because you have spurned the training that craft unions provide, since you equate that as cuddling up with communists. You unthinkingly react to the "spreading the wealth" socialist bugaboo put out by a campaign bankrupt of ideas that has simply marinated in bitterness and anger when you need to understand that you don't have any wealth to spread.

"Spreading the wealth" means regulating business so that billionaire bankers and executives don't get bonuses in exchange for abysmal performance that has put all of our livelihoods at risk--bonuses paid out of your pocket either indirectly through inequitable pay schemes or through your money given to them in the bailout. "Spreading the wealth" simply means increasing opportunity for everyone to make a decent wage in exchange for their hard work. "Spreading the wealth" means not providing tax breaks-- and that's YOUR tax money we're talking about-- for businesses that send jobs overseas-- jobs like yours. Just examine where the wealth has concentrated over the last eight years-- it hasn't been into YOUR pockets.

The "market" isn't going to do it for you, Joe. The "market" doesn't care about anything but protecting the same incestuous coterie of executives that determine each others' compensation by serving on each others' boards. Notice how quickly all that rot about "free markets" evaporated when the credit dried up-- talk about socialism! Suddenly there were the same executives who scream about getting "government off our backs" running screaming toward that same government with their hands out for a bailout.

So here are a few questions: if government is such a bad thing, such a weak force for good, why do its detractors want so badly to control it? And who HAS controlled it for the last eight years? Has it shrunk or grown in that time? Has it attempted to balance its budget or has it run record deficits? Has it concentrated on the needs of Workin' Joe or Executive Joseph IV?

In the last several decades, Americans have worked ever longer hours for ever-stagnating wages and ever-increasing healthcare costs. Our productivity has exploded-- and so has our debt. But hey, go ahead and vote for executives to make 411 times what you make-- or more. Refuse to believe that they are being paid off the labor your aching back provides, and that profitability doesn't matter nearly as much as stock price. Of course your masters want you to believe that any other system would be "socialism," because that's a word that short-circuits the thinking of loads of Americans, almost as badly as the word "Muslim." Dumbth.

But capitalism isn't the problem, Joe-- rapacity is. Capitalism is powerful when it is regulated against overweening selfishness which is the height of a lack of patriotism. Where else can people rise through their own efforts-- as long as the deck is not stacked against them? And of course, this fever to hold down wages for everyone but executives is short-sighted too, because workers are also consumers. When the credit dries up, so does the economy, because workers certainly can't consume when they have no access to any sort of money. When consumers can't buy, it's the small businesses that suffer most of all-- unless you count yacht-makers.

These politicians and businessmen would have you believe that government can't do anything for you economically when government has done PLENTY for them. And to sweeten the pot, they flavor their message with a brand of Christianity that completely contradicts the words and actions of Jesus or Moses, that denigrates any love for one's fellow-man or sense of community by worshiping the god of self-centeredness, the god of sandbox morality.

Think before you vote, Joe. Don't be spooked or herded.

I wonder how long it will take for the anonymous commenters from Crystal City, VA and its environs to swoop in.

THIS is what I call attention to civic duty.

These people decided that a little thing like 9,000 miles keep them from voting in their first presidential election as US citizens:

A New York City couple has traveled halfway around the world in the name of civic duty.

Susan Scott-Ker and her husband arrived in New York on Wednesday after flying 9,300 miles to vote in Tuesday's presidential election.

They have been working India but decided to return to New York when their absentee ballots failed to arrive. Their trip began in Bangalore with stopovers in New Delhi and Chicago.

It will be their first time voting in a presidential election. The New Zealand-born Scott-Ker and her Morroco-born husband became American citizens a year ago.

They estimate the trip will cost $5,000.

So if they're willing to drop 5K in order to vote, will you let anything stop YOU next Tuesday? Of course, I imagine that the readers of this blog will be a united "No," but encourage all your friends and family to persevere. This election looks possibly to have record turnout. Unfortunately, that will be made worse in my state by the facts that there's about 14,000 other things on the ballot, too, but we will persevere in this house.

A Fist Full of Anger

I was watching yet another attack ad that apparently is the only way some people know how to communicate, depending upon innuendo when enervation has set in. It got me to thinking about the dangers of failing to understand that this country that we should always truly put first is full of people-- people who are not all like you.

The iconic American is the cowboy-- the independent free spirit, who goes his own way and rides off into the sunset tied down to no one and to nothing. One could even call this icon a "Maverick." He may appeal to other mavericks, or those who style themselves as such, but there can't be more than one maverick-- everyone else just becomes a part of the herd. To the Maverick, almost everyone else is the "other."

But the problem is that the rugged individualist is never a part of a community. He doesn't know what it means to build a future within society because he takes too much pride in his self-imposed exile into the sunset. These iconoclasts do not consider the needs of others; they remain aloof from love; their friends are few. Even those "good guys" who might be their natural allies keep them at arms' length because the Maverick cannot be counted upon. His attention span is too short, and there's always another dust-covered mesa to cross. He shoots from the hip-- which is another way of saying that he doesn't always have a plan. He knows how to fight, but that makes him the gunslinger, not the mayor-- or even the sheriff.

But there comes a time when people have to work together in a crisis, especially a crisis that was caused by a refusal to attempt foresight or consider consequences. There comes a time when the townspeople realize that the Maverick always has his own interests at heart, and that ultimately he shields himself from the consequences of his actions by insisting on his own truth, his own path. In his heart, he believes that he is the only person who can determine what is right. He doesn't pretend to have the answers because the questions don't interest him. So he attacks instead of plans.

The Maverick is brave, yes. He knows right from wrong, but often justifies doing wrong for expediency's sake. Sometimes he crosses the line, consumed by his own mythology. He doesn't have opponents, only enemies, and he doesn't seek to defeat them so much as to destroy them. Sometimes he becomes willing to do anything in his quest to win.

Sadly, sometimes the Maverick just becomes the Desperado.

“Joe the Plumber?” Tchah. Here’s the real story of Dad the Mechanic.

I was raised in a working class home. My father toiled for over thirty years as an aircraft mechanic, and before that he was a truck driver and a salesman. Before that, he served in the Navy during World War II. To join the Navy, he dropped out of high school in his senior year.

Dad was a registered Democrat, as most people in quasi-Southern state Oklahoma tended to be in the 1960s, if you get my mortified drift. But I don't think I ever remember him voting for the Democratic candidate in a presidential election. I mean, this is a man who put a “Goldwater for President” bumper sticker on my tricycle. I'm serious. On the local level, though, he voted Democratic and Republican, based on whomever he thought was the best candidate. And that's the way that it should be.

However, as I reached adulthood, I noticed that the people Dad was voting for for president really didn't represent his economic interests very well-- and that meant they didn't serve MY economic interests very well, as someone who wanted to go to college from this working class household. They tried to destroy the power of working people to band together in unions to demand fair wages and benefits. In fact, their rhetoric demonized the phrase “working people” as a kind of shorthand for “communists who want to redistribute wealth.” Of course working people want to redistribute wealth! If it’s their labor that enriches corporations and CEOs, they should be paid wages that reflect that! My father climbed through the fuselages of commercial aircraft for over thirty years. He studied diagrams of wiring and schematics and took tests continually. He came home reeking of sweat, covered with metal shavings that cut his skin hundreds of times before he could shower them off. His labor made those planes fly.

How could it be American to claim that he was just a sucker who was spoiled in asking to be able to bargain collectively with his fellows for a fair wage and benefits? Who benefited from the anti-worker policies of the last 40 years? Let’s see. In 1980, the average differential between workers’ salaries and CEO salaries was 42. This means that CEOs earned 42 times more than their average workers’ salaries. Now, fine, CEOs have more education and decision-making responsibility, so they should be compensated for that. Okay. But by 2005, that multiplier was up to 411. That could be justified if corporate earnings had increased at a similar rate, perhaps, but they haven’t. And workers’ wages have stagnated as unions have been depicted as crime-infested communist fifth columns—and many working class and middle class voters have bought it! Genius!

These administrations and congressmen that my Dad voted for wanted to alleviate requirements that corporations actually fund their pension plans, and wanted to encourage shifting the options for people to save for their retirement into stock-market based plans. These plans were good for the corporations, because more people would then buy their stock, which would then reward their shareholders. It was perfect! Not only would employees' toil enrich the corporation, but they would reinvest their wages into company stock, which would then make them work harder because their retirement would depend upon the success of the company in the stock market as well as in the greater marketplace (And if you think those two things are merely synonymous, you are cute.)

These same administrations for which my Dad voted came up with a brilliant strategy. They would get working class people to vote for their anti-working class administrations through a bugaboo of social issues. "Gun ownership!" my dad cried-- but we had one rusty squirrel gun from circa 1908. "Criminals loose on the streets!" But we left our cars unlocked and our house unlocked and the worst thing that ever happened to us, crime-wise, was that someone once stole our dog. A guy once tried to back a truck up to our house and steal some lawn equipment, but our neighbor who was built like a gorilla started questioning him and the guy split.

Then there was this gold mine: "Abortion!" You know, we never knew anyone who got one, but there was still something strange about the political career of this issue. Republican administrations have controlled Washington for 28 of the last 40 years, but abortion really seemed worthy of a few loud platitudes only at election time. It was especially good to get Catholics and fundamentalist Christians to vote Republican contrary to the teaching of their religion in almost every other area (And, Catholics, if you don’t believe me, try a few of these: Laborem Exercens, Mater et Magistra, Pacem in Terris, Populorem Progressio. And to all Christians, try looking up how many admonishments there are regarding justice for the poor in both Testaments, and then try looking for the term “abortion” in Holy Scriptures. Try online concordances—it’ll be quicker. I’ll wait.). Strange that in all that time, what was talked about so loudly before the first week in November every four years suddenly disappeared as an action item immediately after that. It seemed that Republicans had very little interest in actually eliminating abortion, because then how could they distract voters into voting against their economic self-interest? The majority of the judiciary of this country have been appointed by Republican presidents. Abortion hasn’t disappeared because it is too useful of a political tool. And that surely is evil.

My Dad managed on his very modest wages to put three kids through college, and as long as we got plenty of loans, we made it. But there was no extra to put toward retirement besides the pension plan. Every year, the money covered fewer things, and the corporation was legally allowed to renege on the promises it had made to its retirees. Every year, doctors’ visits and medicine became even more expensive. Every year, property taxes on my parents’ modest little house went up to pay for things that should have been paid for through an equitable tax system. By the time my Dad’s cancer was killing him, he decided to spend $10,000 on a (futile and excruciating) chemotherapy regimen. Eight weeks later, he was dead. But before he died, he admitted that the government he had voted for absolutely didn’t care about people like him. Except to charm their votes from them every few years through the cynical use of issues that, ultimately, don’t matter as much as being able to live in a modest, comfortable, dignified way after a lifetime of back-breaking toil. Toil that has made this country great and powerful. Toil that is sneered at by the conservative elites who dress up their disdain for American working people by plunking hardhats on their heads or by clutching dead pheasant carcasses every now and again so that they can masquerade as being “just like us.”

And here's the secret: taxes pay for good things as well as bad things. The trick is to demand that our government not spend money it doesn't have and then use that irresponsibility to cut services the government SHOULD be providing to all of us. If only we weren't distracted by a load of stalking horse issues that disguise the very dangerous and irresponsible economic agenda of the GOP-- an agenda that has gotten us into a very real crisis today.

My Dad was a hard-working American. He deserved better policies from his government in exchange for his precious vote.

Maybe that’s why people like the make-believe “Joe the Plumber” bother me so much. This man supports anti-worker policies and then wonders why he can’t get ahead. He hasn’t undergone the training that is required to be a plumber, but claims that Democratic policies are what’s holding him down. He claims that Obama would prevent him from buying the plumbing business for which he works while omitting that he doesn’t have the training (or, frankly the funds) to do so, nor even to be a licensed plumber to begin with. And he doesn't have the sense to know that neither McCain nor Obama have anything to do with his failure to pay his OHIO state income taxes.

"Joe the Plumber" isn't real. My Dad was.