Sunday, May 31, 2009

When Some Should Not Bother Commenting

It amazing the comments people leave on blogs sometimes.

Today at the NW Republican, the Coyote (one of its contributors) wrote a post entitled Did Barack Obama shut down businesses who did not support him?

The whole premise of the post is that Obama is using his newfound ownership of the auto industry to shut down auto dealers who contributed to Republicans and not to Democrats.

That is what the post was about.

Here are a couple of the more asinine comments that he got:

"So what. Bush didn't take a physical to get into the National Guard."

What? What in the hell does George Bush's military record have to do with Obama shutting down auto dealerships because they did not contribute to his cause? The comment was left by Anonymous by the way.

Here is another one:

"Why do you guys have to shoot churches up???"

WTH?!?!? This comment was left by........guess who? That's right Mr. Anonymous.

Why do people leave comments to post that have absolutely nothing to do with the posts subject matter? And why do people leave comments anonymously? That is one of the most irritating things about the blogosphere. What is wrong with these people. Do they not have the balls to back up their own words?

Give Me Your Eyes

Here are some lyrics to a song called "Give Me Your Eyes" by a Christian artist named Brandon Heath.

The words to this song are very powerful. They really seem to hit a person right between the eyes. It is a plea to God to allow us to see the world as He sees it.

looked down from a broken sky. traced out by the city lights.
my world from a mile high. best seat in the house tonight.
touched down on the cold black top. hold on for a sudden stop.
breath in the familiar shock. of confusion and chaos.
all those people going somewhere.
Why have I never cared?

Give me Your eyes for just one second. give me your eyes so i can see.
everything that i keep missing. give me your love for humanity.
give me your arms for the broken hearted. ones that are far beyond my reach.
gives me your heart for the ones forgotten. give me your eyes so i can see.

step out on a busy street. see a girl and our eyes meet.
does her best to smile at me to hide what's underneath.
there's a man just to her right. black suit and a bright red tie.
too ashamed to tell his wife he's out of work. he's buying time.
all those people going somewhere.
why have i never cared?

Give me Your eyes for just one second. give me your eyes so i can see.
everything that i keep missing. give me your love for humanity.
give me your arms for the broken hearted. ones that are far beyond my reach.
gives me your heart for the ones forgotten. give me your eyes so i can see.

I've been there a million times. a couple of million eyes.
just moving past me by. i swear i never thought that i was wrong.
well i want a second glance. so give me a second chance.
to see the way you see the people all along.

Give me Your eyes for just one second. give me your eyes so i can see.
everything that i keep missing. give me your love for humanity.
give me your arms for the broken hearted. ones that are far beyond my reach.
gives me your heart for the ones forgotten. give me your eyes so i can see.

So there is it. I really wanted to share this with my readers.

Here is a video of the artist performing it:

Update: Mel Gibson poll

Remember when you visit this site to visit this week's poll, Best Mel Gibson Movie.

There are only 4 days left in the poll and only 3 people have voted.  Let's get those votes going!!!


Top 5 Careers

I stole this idea from Dave.

He put a list together of his Top 5 All-Time Careers, which he actually stole from the movie High Fidelity. The idea in that movie was that Rob Gordon (the main character in the film) put together a list of the top 5 jobs he would want if training and money were not of issue.

So here is my list. No particular order. Just as I thought of them.
  1. record store owner
  2. professional musician
  3. high school teacher
  4. artist/cartoonist
  5. professional writer
So it appears that a few of Dave and I's favorite jobs match each other.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Taking Back Sunday - DOTM

I told Dave that I would do up a Discography of the Moment of these guys for him. Here you go Dave!

First here are some TBS links for you:


Taking Back Sunday
Released independently in 2001.
Band lineup:
Antonio Longo - vocals; John Nolan - guitar; Eddie Reyes - guitar; Jesse Lacey - bass; Adam Lazzara - bass (on the song "One Way Conversation" only); Stevie D - drums (on the songs "Go On" and "Summer Stars" only); Mark O'Connell - drums.
Tracks: 6

Lullaby
Released independently in 2001.
No lineup changes.
Tracks: 1

Tell All Your Friends
Released in March 2002 by Victory Records.
Produced by Sal Villanueva.
Lineup:
Adam Lazzara - vocals; Eddie Reyes - guitar; Mark O'Connell - drums; Shaun Cooper - bass; John Nolan - vocals, guitar.
Tracks: 11
Singles:
"Cute Without the E" "Great Romances of the 20th Century" "You're So Last Summer" and "Timberwolves at New Jersey"

Where You Want To Be
Released in July 2004 by Victory.
Produced by Lou Giordano.
Lineup changes:
Fred Mascherino replaced John Nolan on guitar and Matt Rubano replaced Shaun Cooper on bass.
Tracks: 11
Singles:
"A Decade Under the Influence" "This Photograph Is Proof" and "Set Phasers to Stun"

Louder Now
Released in April 2006 by Warner Brothers.
Produced by Eric Valentine.
No lineup changes.
Tracks: 11
Singles:
"MakeDamnSure" "Twenty-Twenty Surgery" "Liar" "What's It Feel Like to be a Ghost" and "My Blue Heaven"

Notes from the Past
Compilation album released in October 2007 by Victory.
Tracks: 12

New Again
Released in June 2009 by Warner Brothers.
Produced by David Kahne, Matt Squire, and Jamie Siegel.
Lineup change:
Matthew Fazzi replaced Fred Mascherino on guitar.
Tracks: 11
Singles:
"Sink Into Me"

Live from Bamboozle
Live album released in August 2009 by Warner Brothers.
Recorded in May 2009 at the Bamboozle Festival in New Jersey.
Tracks: 13

Live from Orensanz
Live album released in August 2010 by Warner Brothers.
Recorded in December 2009 at Angel Orensanz in New York City.
Tracks: 11


And here is a bonus. A video of the song "Liar" from the album Louder Now.


What the heck does Free Ballard mean?

We drive around a lot. Not sure why. It is just what we do.

So not a day goes by of us driving around that I don't see a bumper sticker that says 'Free Ballard.' Never did know what the heck it meant.  I kept meaning to do a web search on it to find out what those silly bumper stickers meant.

I knew what Ballard was. It is a neighborhood in Seattle, Washington. Been there many times. Nice area. But what do these people want Ballard free of?

So today I finally remembered to check it out and here is the scoop.

Apparently Ballard used to be its own city.

But on May 29, 1907, the city was officially annexed and became a community of Seattle.  It was no longer its own city.  On that day, the fire bell at city hall rang 22 times and the flags at city hall were lowered, becoming another part of greater Seattle.

On May 29, 2007, citizens of Ballard gathered at the site of city hall and rang that original bell another 22 times to remember their independence and protest its annexation. The people that gathered at the site wore black armbands and had a moment of silence.

Many have called for Ballard to un-annex itself from Seattle.

Seems a little silly but I guess I can understand the pride of the residents of Ballard and their wanting it to again be its own city.

I don't really have an opinion on this either way. But at least I know what those stickers mean now.

Friday, May 29, 2009

The Definition of Marriage

I was curious about this so I decided to look up the actual definition of the word in several dictionaries.

According to Random House Dictionary 2009 :
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Dictionary 2009:
"the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1998:
"legal union of a man and woman for life, as husband and wife."
Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law 1996:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dis solvable only by law.."
So the word marriage clearly is defined by a union between a man and a woman.

However....

According to the American Heritage Dictionary 2009:
The word civil union is defined as "a legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority."
Civil union is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 as:
"legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals....provides the couple with legal benefits that...are equivalent to those of marriage, such as rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making....and employee benefits for partners and dependents."
So this whole fight is about a word. A word for crying out loud.

Red and I spoke in some decent length about this subject on my post All Men Created Equal.

I am starting to understand less and less why the people fighting over this issue can't just be happy with a civil union. It provides the same rights as a marriage. It just isn't called marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and Civil Union is (generally) between a couple of the same sex but they basically mean the same exact thing!

I can't believe I am saying this but quit your darn whining and be happy with what you have. This is NOT a separate but equal issue. The fight is all because of a WORD!!!

Let's just move on.

NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Update (May 28)



           





So the conference finals are over.

Detroit won the Western Conference Finals over Chicago and Pittsburgh won the Eastern Conference Finals over Carolina (they swept Carolina - I knew that series would be a quick one).

So the Stanley Cup finals start Saturday, May 30 between the Red Wings and the Penguins.

Personally, I am not ready to call this one. Both teams have had really good seasons.  If I had to pick right now I would probably go with the defending champion Red Wings.  


Thursday, May 28, 2009

Return of the Poll of the Week!

I have not done one of these since January. Now is a good time to start this one up again.

I will start off with a movie poll.

This weeks is The Best Mel Gibson movie.

Lethal Weapon (the series)?
Mad Max (the series)?
Payback?
Conspiracy Theory?
Braveheart?
Other?

And remember if you choose "Other" please leave a comment on THIS post with what you think the best one is. Please.

Thanks and Happy Voting!!

Lefty/Righty Part II: The Environment

This is sort of a sequel to my recent post "Lefty" or "Righty."

In the comments on that post, Red asks me what my stance on the global warming debate was. I told him that an issue of this magnitude deserved more than just a little comment and would do up a post devoted entirely to it. So here it is.

In regards to 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whatever it is it is called these days, I do think that the world's weather patterns are changing for the worse. There are more earthquakes, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, etc...than there ever have been in history (and to be honest, that fact might even be up for debate).

I do not think, however, that these changing weather patterns are completely man made. In fact, I think the percentage of blame that falls on humankind is relatively small.

I do, however, think that mankind in general is not taking care of their environment.

People really do need to recycle more. We are eventually going to run out of our natural resources and we as a people need to be aware of that fact.

More cities around the country should institute car pool lanes on the freeway as an effort to promote carpooling and to help reduce carbon emissions at least a little bit.

As for Al Gore. Well, I have seen the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth.' It is quite compelling. And I do agree that some of what he has to say is true. But not everything. I think a lot of it is scare tactics based on what he says is scientific research.

However, that scientific research is not necessarily reliable. Remember back in the 60s when 'scientific research' proved the magic bullet theory in the JFK assassination? I don't buy that either.

I think we do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Actually, I will go even further than that. We need to reduce (not eliminate, just reduce) our dependence on oil in general.

We need to find cheaper, alternate, more environmentally friendly, sources of energy. However, we need to perform the necessary research to guarantee that these alternate sources of energy are reliable. It is all well and good to invent some car that runs exclusively on solar energy but if the thing only goes 30 mph that isn't efficient.

But we should research things like solar energy, wind energy and nuclear energy.

We should give generous incentives to automobile manufacturers that build cars like hybrid vehicles. Those have proven efficient and environmentally friendly.

Should we allow drilling in Alaska? Yes and no. Allow drilling but do not give the oil companies free rein. Don't just turn them loose to drill whenever and wherever they want. It needs to be controlled so that the wildlife and other natural resources in the area are not affected. And I think that control should be left up to the STATE of Alaska. NOT the federal government.

I'm not what one would call an outright tree hugger but I do respect my environment and think it should be protected.

But at the same time I think that many liberals take the issue of global warming too far. They are trying to appeal to the less intelligence of our species and con them into thinking it is all our fault that the environment is screwed.

Sure we screwed up our environment. But certainly not to the extent the climate change wackos seem to think we have.

The interesting thing is that even with all the damage that has been done. The planet is fine. There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet isn't going anywhere.....WE ARE!!! LoL!

But really. Some things just happen. Some things are just part of the natural order of things. Perhaps it is just the way God made the planet. Maybe it was designed from the beginning to eventually start to break down.

I dunno. It's just a theory.

So on this particular political issue I think I would fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum but leaning slightly (very slightly) to the right.

Top 7 Blogs

This is a list of my 7 favorite blogs...and this is in order of preference:

  1. Oklahoma Lefty
  2. Scott's Blog
  3. Jesica's Journey
  4. Red Stater
  5. Brad Neese At Large
  6. Christarchy
  7. Not Always Right

At some other point I think I might do a list of my least favorite blogs.

"Lefty" or "Righty"

Am I a "lefty" or a "righty"? Am I "liberal" or "conservative"? Amd I a "moonbat" or a "wingnut"?

I think that I am a little of both, depending on what issue we are discussing.

Below I have listed a few of the main issues that we political bloggers tend to talk about and what my specific stance is on each. Perhaps it will clear up this whole am I a lefty or righty debate. Perhaps not.

Abortion
I am pro-life.
In my opinion, abortion is murder. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This puts me clearly on the right.

Death Penalty
Again, I am pro-life.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Executing a criminal for murdering someone does not bring that person back. Is revenge really justification?
This would put me toward the left.

Gun Control
I am a firm believer in gun "control" but not gun "criminalization."
I believe that it is the right of an American citizen to own a gun.
I also believe that things like background checks and waiting periods are acceptable means of controlling who does and does not purchase a gun but I am not so naive as to think that it keeps guns completely out of the hands of criminals.
This would put me on the left again.

Gay Rights
I believe that homosexuals are people and deserve the same rights as everyone else.
I do not believe in adding the term "sexual orientation" to the definition of hate crimes. I believe that all violent crime, regardless of race or sexual preference, is a hate crime.
I'm not sure where this puts me. Probably somewhere left of middle.

Flag Burning
I believe it is the right of an American citizen to desecrate an American flag is they so choose to. To criminalize the act takes away a person's constitutional right to free speech and free expression.
I also believe that those people that do burn flags are idiots. It proves nothing. Nothing except that these people can't find a better way to express themselves and show their distaste of their country in another way.
I think this puts me on the left.

Tax Reform
I am an advocate for a system much like the Fair Tax or some sort of national sales tax instead of the current progressive tax system.
I have no idea where this would put me.

Health Care Reform
On this ever changing my mind subject, I am current in favor of expanding both the employer-based system and eligibility requirements for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
I do not favor a completely, government-controlled or "single payer" system. The government has proven ineffective in handling things so they need to keep their nose out of health care decisions.
I do not favor tax credits for individuals because I really just don't understand how this would really help.
I'm not sure where this puts me either. Probably somewhere in the middle.

So just based on these few key issues, I would have to say that I am probably somewhere in the center but slightly left of center.

I dunno really. I guess this did not really clear anything up. LOL!

today's shuffle

  1. With A Shout - U2 (from October deluxe edition)
  2. Synchronicity 2 - Police (Synchronicity)
  3. I Want to Conquer the World - Bad Religion (No Control)
  4. The World Has Turned and Left Me Here - Weezer (Weezer)
  5. Stagger Lee - The Staggers (The Sights, the Sounds...)
  6. As We Wept - Demon Hunter (Demon Hunter)
  7. Punk Rock Girl - Dead Milkmen (Beelzebubba)
  8. Diet Aftertaste - Helmet (Aftertaste)
  9. Saints - Destroy the Runner (Saints)
  10. Rudie Can't Fail - The Clash (London Calling)
  11. Lakinis Juice - Live (Secret Samadhi)

Donnas - Keep on Loving You

Okay, this is the last one of these.  Donnas doing a cover of the REO Speedwagon song "Keep On Loving You"

Strangely, I did not realize that they did so many cover songs.


Donnas - Strutter

The Donnas again. This time doing a cover of the KISS song "Strutter."

Donnas - Safety Dance

Here is a video (sort of) of The Donnas doing a cover of that old 1980s Men w/o Hats song "The Safety Dance." This version is so awesome. In fact, it is about 10 times better than the original.


New Otisburg Video Short



Also posted at YouTube.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Justice Sotomayer...Oh dear

I have to admit that I am a little nervous about President Obama's first pick for Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayer.

It appears I am not the only one though.  A few other bloggers have sounded off on this lady.

Over at Red S Tater, Red asks a very serious question on his post Very Serious Question about Judicial Nominees.  Simply put, he asks should a who believes that a person's race and background makes them better equipped to make decisions be considered a qualified judicial nominee?  I responded with a big absolutely not!

Over at the NW Republican, there is the post The Sotomayor Pick.  Over there, the writer tells Republican to give Obama a little wiggle room for his Supreme Court nominees but at the same time not to:

"...simply roll over and cave on her either.."

He also discusses the same comments Red spoke about on his post as well as the comments she made regarding making policy as a judge.

The basic premise of his post is summed up here:

"her voting record on the court is not as bad as some.......I am willing to give her a little more latitude than the Democrats gave any of Bush's appointees......"

I can respect that opinion. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt but she better darn well be ready to atone for some of the statements she has made.

Jim over at Fried Green Onions on the other hand seems to be okay with her.

His post titled GOP Should Back Off On Nominee Who Was Raised Catholic.... warns Republicans who have begun the attack already to be careful. And in his post Like Obama His Supreme Appointee Will Revert to Early Religious Training When Installed states basically that once a Catholic always a Catholic.  I guess he is thinking that she will be more conservative than liberal in her decisions. 

While I can agree that most of the time, a Catholic politician is going to be more conservative, I submit Catholic Exhibit A, Nancy Pelosi and Catholic Exhibit B, John Kerry, as evidence to the contrary.

So after some thought, like I mentioned earlier, I will give her the benefit of the doubt but still, there is something about her that makes me not trust her....hmm...sounds a lot like what I said about Obama during his campaign.

Pay attention people, the next few weeks could have quite an effect on things for the next couple of decades.

All Men Created Equal

I read a post today on the blog of the NW Progressive that brought up an interesting point.


The interesting point that is brought up has to do with how after all this time after the ratification of the Constitution we still as a people have a hard time fulfilling the spirit and vision of the document.

Specifically with the preamble:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So with the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and the various states around the nation that do not allow same-sex marriage, are we saying that perhaps we aren't all equal? Are we saying that like the argument used against the black people years ago that they are equal but we (white people) are more equal?

By telling these people that because they are homosexual, they have less rights than those who are not? 

These laws that are being passed, it seems to me, are giving the very loud message that homosexuals are exempt from liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How to Lose a House

Sorry, best title I could come up with.

I have not blogged about this situation but have mentioned it privately in bits and pieces to a few people. I have not posted because before I really thought it was not the world's business about my financial situation. And it is a subject that is a sore spot for me to talk about. So I decided it was time to go ahead and let everyone in on the "big secret" about my previous housing situation.

First, I was not one of those people that applied for a home loan knowing they could not afford it. I had a really good job with a company I had been working with for quite a while and at that point had no intention of ever leaving the company.

We were living in a rental in Northwest Oklahoma City at the time. It was not a bad place but the utilities were crazy because the house was not well insulated. Besides, we had recently moved to Oklahoma with the intention of owning a home. So we went looking. We found one we liked. We applied for the loan and we were approved for it.

We never had any problems paying our mortgage payments. I made more than enough money to pay it.

But here is where the problems began....

I started having some problems with my company. Mostly with mid-management. Little things like them promising something and never following through with them, outright lies, and a general lack of respect. Almost the entire time I was there, I honestly felt like an outsider. Like I was the one from Washington that did not fit into their Oklahoma City world.

But after several months of jumping back and forth in my mind between leaving the company and sticking it out, I decided to give them one last chance to redeem themselves and give me a reason to stay.

I applied for a promotion that I was, quite frankly, more than qualified for. Definitely more qualified than anyone else in the department. There were 4 openings. Certainly the job was mine. I went through the application process, the testing process and 2 separate interviews.

A few days after the 2nd interview I got a call from one of the managers who told me that I did not get the promotion. I was pretty irate to say the least. Come the next day at work I am a little more than surprised to find out that out of the 4 people that did get selected, I personally trained 3 of them!

So that was it, I was done. End of story. Goodbye [name of company]. In retrospect I should have stayed anyway. But I didn't. Big mistake. You live and learn I guess.

I had another job waiting in the wings though. However, it did not start for another month. Okay, here is a problem. I won't be able to pay the mortgage that month. This was November 2007 by the way.

So I did what I THOUGHT was the responsible thing to do. I called my mortgage company which I will call Company X instead of their actual name so I don't end up getting sued for libel. I called them up and explained the situation. They told me not to worry about it and put my mind at ease. They would just extend the loan out. No big deal. They do it all the time. They will just send me some paperwork to sign and return to them and once we got back on our feet we could just call them up and have them start up the loan again. Sound easy right? Wrong!!

December comes and still no paperwork. I did get a statement which included late fees though. So I called back. "We have no record of that conversation." What?!? "No problem, we will get that paperwork started for you. Send it back signed and the loan would essentially be put on hold." Here is how they explained it to me:

I could do one of two things. A forbearance, which means whatever amount the loan was overdue, they would add to the loan and make my payments higher. Or I could do a loan modification. Which means they add the amount the loan was overdue to the loan and the payments would stay the same but the time period would be extended. I chose the loan modification.

January comes. No paperwork. Got another statement.

February comes. No paperwork. Another statement.

I call again. I can pay my payments now folks. Heck, I was able to start paying them again in January. I am told not to mail any payments until I have gotten the paperwork. I tell them I don't have it. Where is it? "It's in process." In process? I need to pay my bill. Get on it. Fine. I will wait. *sigh*

March comes. Paperwork arrives....for a forbearance, not a loan modification. I call again. This is not what I agreed to. "Okay, we will send out the correct paperwork." The guy on the phone does let me make a payment though.

Next month, I get a foreclosure notice but no new paperwork! And come to find out that they did not accept my payment. I call them and ask what is up. They can't take a payment until the paperwork has been processed because at this point they will not accept a partial payment.Arggh!!!

May comes. Paperwork arrives. I look it over. It is for a loan modification. Good. But they want me to pay over 3 grand in late fees, legal fees and other fees. Whoah there, what?!?

Another call to Company X. "The rep that you originally spoke to told you there would be fees involved in a loan modification." Oh no she didn't. I would remember something like that. "It's right here in her notes." Well, those notes lie. I would remember that. Oh, and the legal fees are being assessed because we started foreclosure proceedings.

What?!? Why did you start foreclosure proceedings? I have been talking with your company about this situation since November. And I have been trying to make payments since January but told I could not until the paperwork that I never got until MAY is finished.

"Well, we can continue on with this loan modification and end the foreclosure proceedings but you will still have to pay all the fees."

I don't have 3 grand on me right now. Their answer......"Well sir, that is not my problem." Dead silence.

Somehow, I miraculously come up with the money and send them a cashiers check.

However.........

On another note, my wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in June 2006 and we have also been dealing with that. She had just ended one round of chemotherapy and was told they would have to start another round. At this point we are all stressing out and exhausted with life. Between dealing with Company X and the thought of losing our house and dealing with cancer that won't go away and on top of this we were having problems with our daughter's school so we pulled her out and started homeschooling her. And...all this stress is affecting my work which is adding to the stress itself.

So we begin to think long and hard about our options. We are seriously considering moving back home to Seattle. There is a better support system there. But we don't have the money to move. But if we still had the money we sent to Company X we would. Can the bank do a stop payment on a cashiers check?

We go to the bank. The decision is made. If we can get that money back, we will move back home. If we can not, we stay in the house and try to move on with our lives. The bank says they will issue a stop payment. That is it. We move.

I call Company X and inquire about our options to keep from the house being foreclosed on. They tell me they can do a deed in lieu of something. Basically we turn the house completely over to the mortgage company. All I have to do is sign some paperwork turning the house over to them and it is done. No foreclosure on our record.

That paperwork never showed up. But I did receive a noticed about a sheriff's sale on our house and about a month later a document advising us of who bid on the house and who now owns it.

So our home was foreclosed on.

A lot of this I blame on myself.

I never should have called them in the first place. I could have just been a month behind in payments and made it up somewhere. But I thought I was being responsible.

I never should have quit my job. I could have just hung on and dealt with a crappy work situation. But I was really irritated at the time and really unhappy with where my future with the company was headed.

And maybe I should have just gave them their money and stayed in Oklahoma. We could have made do with where we were at. It would have been hard but we could have done it. But we were really unhappy there. Dealing with cancer without any kind of support system except ourselves was really getting to us.

Psychologically and spiritually it was a good move for us. We are still dealing with cancer (3 years later) but it is easier to deal with here. Life in general is good here in Washington.

The downside is that we will now ever own a house again and our credit it completely shot.

And that is the story of the Great Housing Battle with Company X.

So think what you want about me. Call me irresponsible. More often than not I will probably agree with you.

That is all I have to say about it so I will end the tirade here.

What does the Constituion say about the Supreme Court?

The U.S. Supreme Court these days seems to really like legislating, or creating policy, from the bench. It seems more lately that they are letting their political ideology cloud their objective nature in determining whether or not a law is constitutional or not or when decided cases. Are these acts in and of themselves constitutional?

I decided to do a little bit of studying in regards to this and here is what I found:

Here are the powers of the Supreme Court as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution:

Article 3, Section 1:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one
supreme court....."


But what sort of judicial power in invested to this court?

Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases...arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made...under their authority......trials of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed...."

Okay, this has nothing to do with this post but if you read this particular section and take it literally, the Timothy McVeigh trial was unconstitutional.

So far, the actual powers of the Supreme Court in my opinion are pretty darn vague. What about legislating from the bench? Is that unconstitutional?

Alexander Hamilton, wrote in the Federalist Papers regarding judicial review (the "implied" power of federal courts to overturn the actions of the other branches of government):

"The interpretation of the law is the proper...province of the courts. A constitution..must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body...."

The basis for the idea of judicial review stems from the case Marbury v Madison. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court declared that something was unconstitutional.

The problem with judicial review is that is simply has no textual basis in the U.S. Constitution. The theory behind judicial review was to promote checks and balances between the three branches of our government however the Supreme Court remains the least checked of our branches of government. When was the last time a justice stood on trial for their good or bad behavior? In all the years of the Supreme Court, in its entire history, only one justice has ever been impeached. That justice, by the way, was not removed from office.

The Supreme Court is the only branch of government that is not accountable to by the people of the United States. Personally, I don't like the idea of someone holding such a high and powerful office where the people have no say in who holds that position.

President Obama just nominated his first nominee for the Supreme Court. The reason why a President's nominations for this court are so important is because that particular President wants that justice to have an impact on the laws of our country well after he is no longer President. Personally, I think that is just wrong.

I think the justices of the Supreme Court should be elected, just like any other national political figure. Not that I think this would ever happen. That would take some major changes in our Constitution.

However, if they have to be appointed by the President, make them like members of his cabinet. When he leaves office, they leave office and a new Supreme Court takes over when the new President does. However, like the other idea, this would never happen and if it did would take some major revisions to enact them.

Sure the Constitution is a great document that our country is based on but there were some flaws in it. I think the lack of information regarding the U.S. Supreme Court and the process of selection and tenure of the justices that sit on the Supreme Court are two of those flaws.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Yet Even More Thoughts on Health Care Reform

Here are some of my very basic thoughts on what we can do to reform the health care system in the United States.

First, we need to expand the employer-based health care system.

I think we should require the large companies to offer their employees health care coverage and/or offer generous tax incentives to the companies that do offer coverage.

Also, we should subsidize and/or give tax incentives to smaller companies to give them the opportunity to offer decent health coverage to its employees.

Next, we should expand the Medicare/Medicaid system.

The eligibility requirements for these programs need to be reformed so that those who really need health care can get it.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about giving people tax credits so they can afford to purchase their own health insurance. While the motivation behind the idea is noble, the idea itself is kind of stupid. It is a great idea for those that can afford to purchase their own coverage but for whatever reason do not. Giving these people a tax credit might actually give them an incentive to buy coverage. But for joe somebody that can barely afford to pay the bills they already have, this does not help them one little bit.

Next, we have to reform the system so that the pharmaceutical companies are out of the pockets of our Congressmen. Prescription drugs are one of the worst factors in the increasing costs of health care in this country. The result of which ends up being that people can't afford the drugs to keep them from getting really sick so they don't take them and then....they get really sick and end up in the emergency room where they are unable to pay for the doctor's and hospital's services. This continues the cycle of increasing health costs because the providers have to charge others with coverage more money to offset the services they had to provide essentially free of charge.

Also, the general public desperately needs to be educated about the health care crisis. Many people are necessarily aware of the problem nor are they fully aware that THEIR lifestyles are contributing to the rising costs.

If more people were educated about health care in general and about their own health we could decrease the number of people with heart disease, or diabetes, or we could decrease the percentages of childhood obesity and early onset high blood pressure. People just simply don't take care of themselves anymore. This is another major factor in the increasing costs of health care. The fact that more and more people need the care of a physician.

Maybe these people really do need to pay extra for their coverage. I dunno. I'm torn on that one.

That is all for now. I'll probably have more later.

How Do You View America?

Here is a recent article posted by Red titled Two Americas? 

I found it to be quite interesting.

The question he asks is...
Do you define America more by her mistakes and failures or by her achievements and successes?

Who Is Right and Who is Wrong?

Here are my thoughts on the current religion discussion going on. This is sort of a response to the discussion going on over at Dave's blog on the following posts:

It's Not an I'm Right and You're Wrong Debate

The Literalists

Thoughts on the Divine

Respecting Other Religions

The bottom line to me is that yes, we could all be wrong on the God/Religion question.

I could be wrong.
Dave could be wrong.
Red could be wrong.
Jim could be wrong.
The Muslims could be wrong.
The Jews could be wrong.
The Buddhists could be wrong.
and so on.

The problem is that none of us, with the exception of Dave maybe, can't really wrap our heads around the fact that we could, in fact, be wrong.

As for me (I won't speak for the others, I'm not a mind reader), I don't think I'm wrong. If I thought I were wrong, I could not be following the beliefs that I do. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am wrong.

You see, I have studied many world religions quite thoroughly.I have exposed myself to several different worldly belief systems. And I found them lacking. And I did this with an open mind because I did it well before I held any specific beliefs to begin with. Well before I came to the conclusions that I now have.

The beliefs I hold I found after much study and reasoning and more study. I found it to make the most sense to me. The others in some way shape or form did not make sense to me. While some of those religions do in fact espouse some of the same ideas as the belief system that I follow, they just did not make sense to me in the grand scheme of things.

I have faith that the belief system I practice is the "right" one. I believe that the others, while having good intentions, are not the "right" paths to heaven.

That being said. I respect the followers of those religions. My God tells me to love everyone, friend and foe alike.

I respect the right of those people to follow their beliefs. My God created mankind with free will.

With that free will they can either choose to accept Him and love Him. Or they can use that free will to reject Him. It is their choice.

I think those others are wrong, but I don't reach hell fire and brimstone to them. That is not my style. I try to talk to them with respect. I try to understand where they are coming from and try to get them to understand where I am coming from. I try to reason with them. I try to talk logically to them (try being the operative term).

I try to teach mostly by actions instead of words. In my opinion, words rarely do sway a person to your point of view.

Anyway, I believe what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right.

I don't tell people that they are wrong. That is, I am not that blunt about it. I try (again, using the word try) to treat people with respect whether I agree with their religious beliefs or not.

My God instructs me to go out into the world and preacher His word to all people. But he never said specifically how to do it. I have my methods and the fundamentalist evangelists have theirs.

In any case, I do not feel like I am a better person than they are because of my methods. But I can almost guarantee you that I am more respectful.

Okay, I think that is all I have for now.

Revising the Constitution

After reading this post at the blog of the Northwest Progressive, I got to thinking about our U.S. Constitution a bit.

How hard should it be to revise?

Most state constitutions can be amended by some sort of ballot initiative by the people from what I understand.

Presently though, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in Congress and then (and only then) does it to go a vote of the people.

On one hand, I would think this gives Congress too much power. Then again, I think they have too much power anyway.

I tend to think that if this really was a country by the people, of the people and for the people, the people should really have a better say in the laws that are passed. Right now, they sort of have a say in that they elect people to represent them in Congress to make the laws. But is that enough?

I almost think that perhaps we as a people should take a more active role in making and shaping the laws of our country.

However....

Most people sadly don’t really care and would really rather someone else do the work for them. Unfortunately, those that would be willing to take an active part in the political process are in the minority. The lazy ones of course still gripe about the state of affairs. But, they are unwilling to do anything about it.

And also...

There are a lot of wackoes out there. Maybe we really don’t want the people making the laws. LOL!

I also think that the courts need to stay out of the policy making business. 

But anyway, back to the whole the people making the laws thing and not leaving it entirely up to Congress.

I dunno. I’m torn. Any thoughts?

No Lobbyists in the White House?

First a quote from when Obama was campaigning:
"I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race....I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House."
Interesting...

Did you know....?

Attorney General Eric Holder was a lobbyist for Covington and Burling?
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for the National Education Association?
Ron Klain, Chief of Staff to Joe Biden, was a lobbyist at O'Melveny & Myers?
Deputy Secretary of Interior David Hayes was a lobbyist at Lathan & Watkins?

So maybe I'm not the brightest crayon in the box or anything but don't most of these people work (at least the majority of their time) in the White House? I am trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt in thinking that he meant what he said literally. That is, nobody that actually works IN the White House would be lobbyists but I think it is probably safer to chalk this one up to another campaign lie. 

Shocking.......(notice the sarcasm).

So.......did we REALLY end up with the better man? 

I think my beautiful wife Jesica said it best this weekend.....
"maybe we should have voted for McCain."

Another reason we need Term Limits

There are currently 16 members of Congress under investigation.  That sounds like a small number but keep in mind that this is the number of Congressmen that are being investigated, meaning they somehow got caught and/or were unable to pay off the members of whatever group they are under investigation with.

Who are they?

  1. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
  2. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr (D-IL)
  3. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) (he is actually under investigation by the Dept of Justice for funneling money to family and friends).
  4. Rep Gary Miller (R-CA) (also under investigation by the Dept of Justice - for failing to pay taxes)
  5. Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) (again, Dept of Justice)
  6. Rep. Timothy Murphy (R-PA) 
  7. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
  8. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
  9. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
  10. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
  11. Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
  12. Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
  13. Senator Roland Burris (D-IL)
  14. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
  15. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
  16. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Not that this REALLY matters, but it is interesting that out of these 16 Congressmen, 12 of them are Democrats. I figured there would be a more equal amount of both. However, my theory is not that there are more Democrats screwing up while in Congress. My theory is that their are more Republicans "in bed with" the various departments so they don't get caught. Or when they do they are able to buy those folks off.....or already have them on their payroll in the first place (which is why many of these folks are being investigated in the first place).

My whole point is that the people currently in power are corrupt and need to get out of office and go find real jobs. We need fresh blood. We need term limits to give our government institutions that fresh blood.  It has been made obvious that even though our elected officials are corrupted individuals the stupid people of their respective states will still keep voting them in because of name recognition.

We need to get them out of office and off the ballot so that people will actually start voting on the issues again instead of the names.


Thanks to NW Republican for this find by the way.

MLB Standings (Memorial Day Edition)

What is going on this week with America's favorite past time?

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East
Boston Good to see the Red Sox back on top/
NY Yankees Booo!!! Not a big fan of the Yanks. Can you tell?
Toronto
Tampa Bay
Baltimore

Central
Detroit
Kansas City
Minnesota
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland

West
Texas
Los Angeles Angels
Seattle Only 6 games out of first. They can make this up. Really
Oakland

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Easter
Philadelphia
NY Mets
Atlanta
Florida
Washington

Central
Milwaukee
St Louis
Cincinnati
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburgh
Houston

West
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego
San Francisco
Arizona
Colorado

LEAGUE LEADERS

Batting Avg
Jason Bartlett (Rays) - .373
V. Martinez (Indians) - .371
J. Votto (Reds) - .371

Home Runs
Raul Ibanez (Phillies) - 17
A. Gonzalez (Padres) - 16
A. Dunn (Nationals) - 15

RBIs
Evan Longoria (Rays) - 49
J. Bay (Red Sox) - 45
R. Ibanez (Phillies) - 43

Wins
Roy Halladay (Blue Jays) - 8
Z. Greinke (Royals) - 7
B. Arroyo (Reds) - 6

ERA
Zack Greinke (Royals) - 0.82
J. Santana (Mets) - 1.50
W. Rodriguez (Astros) - 1.83

ESPN Power Rankings (1st 10)
Dodgers
Red Sox
Yankees Booooo!!!
Cardinals
Rangers
Brewers
Phillies
Tigers
Blue Jays
Braves

For those that might be interested, the Seattle Mariners are ranked 20th (behind the Giants I might add that they just spanked in their latest series against..hmmph)

Monday, May 25, 2009

Wealth and Poverty

Here is a cool article I found over at Christarchy:

Early Christian Teaching on Wealth and Poverty

And here is an excerpt:
"We who once took most pleasure in the means of increasing our wealth and property now bring what we have into a common fund and share with everyone in need." -- Justin Martyr, 1st Apology

And another one....

"And instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.” – Irenaeus, 130-200 AD

Check out the article. Just some interesting stuff to ponder on.

Friday, May 22, 2009

No Help For California

The federal government has decided not to step in help California with its financial crisis stating they don't have the authority to help and that if they do it for one state, they would be expected to help out all others that request help.

Here is an article from the LA Times about this.

First the federal government does not have the authority is a bunch of hogwash. Since when has not having the authority to do something stopped them? If they really have read our Constitution in regards to the "authority" of the federal government and know their U.S. History, they know full that they have been overstepping their authority practically since day one. Don't give me that don't have the authority crap.

Second, don't want to help one because all the others will want help too. What about helping out the large financial institutions? You aren't helping any of the smaller ones that really need help. That theory should have came into play with that bailout. Same with the auto industry. The feds helped out the big 3 but aren't helping any other auto companies. Not that the other companies need any help but if you are going to help one you have to help the others.

Personally, I don't necessarily think the federal government needs to help out the state's financial crisis per se, I just think their reasons as to why they aren't is a load of crap.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Is is possible that I could be missing Bush?!?

When I read articles such as the one below, I almost am.

My wife send me this article about a guy that owns a car dealership in Florida. His business is being taken away and given to someone else.
Why? I don't know.
By who? Take a guess.

Here is the article (here is the link to it):

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu,
a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and
paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second
generation to manage this business.
We currently employ 50+ people and before
the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in
the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen
local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All
depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially
strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have
strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is
open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our
employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14,
2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken
away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another
dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles
with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes
impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the
Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able
to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory,
(approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform
warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles
or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at
Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a
mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS
NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My
business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did
NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into
bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How
will they provide for their families? This is a total economic
disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to
your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

George C.
Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu



Things like THIS never would have happened under Bush. It is things like THIS that are going on that make me almost miss the guy (among other things which I won't get into now).

The current administration by this act is not only putting 50+ people out of work and taking a business away from someone whose family has owned it for over 30 years, but is also causing this man (and probably some of his employees too) to file for bankruptcy.

Way to go fixing this economic crisis we have going on!!!

I think it is time for a freaking recall. Can we do that?

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Respect and Disagreement?

This is a response of sorts to a post Dave recently posted about respecting other religions.

Although there is some common ground between us, there is a big problem with any sort of reconciliation between Christianity and Islam. That problem is that even though we (depending on if you agree with this or not) both worship the God of Abraham, the Muslims differ greatly in their teachings on Jesus. Yes, we both believe that He existed and was a great teacher. The Muslims believe however, that he was merely a prophet. An important prophet but just a prophet nonetheless.

They deny his divinity. However, this is not a big problem because there are a lot of groups of people claiming to be Christian that don't believe Jesus was God.

However, they also do not believe that Jesus really died or that he really rose from the grave. This presents the big problem because to call yourself a Christian, these two ideas are absolutely essential.

So Muslims obviously are not Christians. But does that mean they have no hope for salvation? Personally, I don't know for a fact. I'm not God. Determining who is saved and who isn't is not my job.

However, Jesus Himself did say "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." This leads me to believe that a person must believe in and follow Christ in order to be saved.

Call me arrogant. Call me intolerant. Call me whatever you want to call me. But this is what I believe.

To be perfectly honest, I have to think that if all religions led to salvation, there would be little point for a person to follow a particular religion in the first place.

If you don't have the faith that your religion is the "right one" what would be the point in following it?

Going back to respect though. I certainly do respect other religions. I don't agree with them though.

I can respect a person religion by, for example, not out right telling the person they are going to hell (that is not my style) and by talking to them in a respectful (or in my case usually an inquisitive) manner and by rationally discussing our differences. This does not mean, however, that I have to agree with their beliefs.

Honestly, if I thought their belief system was any more or even just as true as mine, I probably would not be following mine in the first place.

So I have to agree with the idea that a person can respect a person's religion but not believe it to be true. And I don't necessarily think it would be arrogant of a person to preach at a person from another belief system. Especially in the case of Christianity, that is one of the things we are called to do. To preach the Gospel. Although I myself am not much of a preacher, I just try to live my life the way Christ would want me to and hope that nonbelievers might see that and look into why I live that way. However, if by preaching you mean standing in front of a crowd of Muslims telling them all they are going to hell for being Muslim, yeah I could call that a bit arrogant and (in my opinion) not the right way to go about doing things, especially in a Muslim community.

There is some common ground among us. And that you can agree with. But there are many things that we do not agree on. But we can still respect each other.

Today’s Shuffle

  1. You – Bad Religion (from No Control)
  2. Your Racist Friend – They Might Be Giants (Flood)
  3. The Grouch – Green Day (Nimrod)
  4. Walls – Emery (The Weaks End)
  5. At Your Graveside – The Staggers (The Sights, the Sounds, the Fear and the Pain)
  6. Bleed Alone – Haste the Day (When Everything Falls)
  7. I Believe – Third Day (Wire)
  8. Adelaide – Anberlin (Cities)\
  9. Midnight Moon – Smoking Popes (Born to Quit)
  10. Pardon Me – Weezer (Make Believe)
  11. The Flame That Guides Us Home – Demon Hunter (The Triptych)

More Thoughts About Term Limits

What do you think about 4 terms as a term limit for both Senators and Congressmen?

Or...

Instead of term limits for Senators and Congressmen what about letting the people of their respective states deciding how much they will get paid based on their performance? Maybe then, these idiots will figure out who they are working for.

Or....

How about setting it up like a jury pool and have it rotate in and out every few years? Would that even ever work? Probably not. Too many logistical problems with that idea I think.

Whatever the case, we need to keep in mind that any changes to anything related to term limits will take a Constitutional amendment to change, which would need a 2/3 majority in Congress to even make it to a vote of the people. I really can't see 2/3 of Congress agreeing on anything though.

Any thoughts?

Monday, May 18, 2009

Disbarment of Bush Lawyers?

According to Justin Blum from Bloomberg:
A dozen Bush administration lawyers should be disbarred for their roles in approving harsh interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects...
Okay, so we all know that I am not a big fan of certain interrogation methods but I honestly do not believe that we need to indict anybody in Bush's administration because of it. I don't agree with what was done. That much we know. However, I do honestly think that when it all comes down to it, he (Bush) thought he was doing the right right and there is no sense in bringing him or anyone in his administration up on charges because of it.

And I certainly don't think a bunch of lawyers need to lose their livelihood because they followed orders (and don't give me the lame-ass "Nazis followed orders too" speech. Bush wasn't the greatest President but he wasn't as bad as Hitler by any stretch of the imagination. I don't want to here any comparison between his lawyers and the Nazis).

MLS Standings (May 18)

Today's Standings:

Eastern


Chicago
DC United
Kansas City
Toronto FC
New England
New York Red Bulls
Columbus

Western

Chivas USA
Seattle
Colorado
Houston
Real Salt Lake
Los Angeles
San Jose
Dallas

And the newest ESPN.com Power Rankings:

Chivas USA
Chicago
DC United
Seattle Sounders FC

MLS Standings (May 18)

Today's Standings:

Eastern


Chicago
DC United
Kansas City
Toronto FC
New England
New York Red Bulls
Columbus

Western

Chivas USA
Seattle
Colorado
Houston
Real Salt Lake
Los Angeles
San Jose
Dallas

And the newest ESPN.com Power Rankings:

Chivas USA
Chicago
DC United
Seattle Sounders FC

Funky Governor Poll

Okie Funk has a poll on his blot titled "Who has the best chance to win the Oklahoma governor's race in 2010?"

His choices are Drew Edmondson and Jari Askins (and the obligatory 'someone else').

Really? These are the only choices you have? That sucks!

Personally, I do not like Edmondson. He may or may not have done some good things as Oklahoma's Attorney General but personally I think everything he does is politically motivated. The guy WANTS higher office. He wants it bad. And for that reason alone (even though I have others) I can not support him (yeah, I know I can't vote in Oklahoma elections so it doesn't matter but maybe someone that respects my opinion will read this and remember not to mark his name on the ballot when it comes time).

As for Jari Askins, I don't necessarily have anything against her but something about her just doesn't sit right with me. I can't place my finger on it.

It just dawned on me though. Okie Funk's poll only included Democrats. Typical.

For those that are interested, so far, from what I have read, there have been 2 people announce their intention to run for Gov. on the Republican ticket. Those 2 are current U.S. Representative Mary Fallin and State Senator Randy Brogdon, neither of which I would not mind seeing as Governor of my former state of residence.

Ten Commandments Allowed on Oklahoma Capitol Grounds?!?

The most recent post over at McCarville Report reports that Governor Brad Henry just signed a law allowing the 10 Commandments to be placed near the Capitol Building.

I have to really give Gov Henry props on this one. In this day and age, standing up against the religion nay-sayers, this sort of thing takes some guts!

Way to go Brad!!!

This past Sunday, our congregation's preacher did a sermon on the Ten Commandments and spoke about how even though the Ten are a religious idea and a symbol of our country's Judeo-Christian values, they themselves had transcended religion and become more a symbol of morality and how people should live their lives in general. 

Thanks to Mike at the McCarville Report for supplying this post!

Evolution in Health Care Continued

First off, I am just about done reading that book that I posted on a current reading recently. Some of it does make a lot of sense to me but in the grand scheme of things I really can't get all that excited about the single payer system. In a lot of ways, it is, like Red has said in the past, a government health insurance plan and I'm just not sure I can jump on board that train.

That being said, I have done some other research about the health care debate. Some of which I posted on the previous post entitled The Uninsured. Here are some other thoughts I have come up with during the little bit of research I have done. Keep in mind that this research is ongoing and I may come up with some other ideas as time progresses.

As I see it, here are some of the "key elements" in getting everyone covered (everyone that wants to be that is):

1. Employer Mandates
I think we should make some sort of a requirement for all large companies to offer their employees some sort of health insurance. This would not be a big deal because at present time 62% of our people get their coverage through their employer (according to the EBRI Issue Brief No. 310 October 2007).

2. Subsidies to make coverage more affordable
This would cover the small to mid-size employers to assist them in giving them the option to offer coverage to their employees. According to the same previous study, 94% of companies with 50-199 employees offer coverage, 83% of firms with 25-49 employees offer coverage, of the firms with 10-24 employees, 76% offer coverage to their employees.

Point being, okay maybe a mandate or requirement might not be necessary but if coupled along with subsidies for the smaller companies, it would certainly be a step in the right direction (IMHO).

3. Medicare/Medicaid Expansion
Ok, this doesn't sound all that great when you first hear it but hear me out first.
I think the eligibility requirements for Medicare and Medicaid could be less restrictive. I honestly think that by expanding these programs to cover more of those citizens that want coverage but can not afford it, we can reduce the number of the uninsured by a huge margin. (As stated in the previous post, over 50% of those that are uninsured are not eligible for these programs but too poor to pay for it themselves).

4. Regulation of the Insurance Industry / Insurance Reform
Yeah I know, regulation of industry is considered a bad thing. Sorry conservatives, I am okay with a little regulation of big business.
I think the industry should be regulated so that they don't do things like deny coverage (or make the premiums astronomical) based on a previous illness or deny coverage (or, again, price the premiums so high nobody can afford them) based on a person's credit rating.

These are my thoughts based on what I have read thus far but in keeping with the title of the post, keep in mind that I may come up with more thoughts on it at a later time as my research progresses.

Today's iPod Shuffle


  1. Janets Planet - Haste the Day (from Pressure the Hinges)
  2. Mykel and Carli - Weezer (Weezer Deluxe Edition)
  3. Blueprint - Fugazi (Repeater)
  4. Spin the Black Circle - Pearl Jam (Vitalogy)
  5. Milquetoast - Helmet (Betty)
  6. Wind of Change - Scorpions (Crazy World)
  7. Hateful Notebook - Descendents (Everything Sucks)
  8. Let Them Die - Smoking Popes (Get Fired)
  9. Church on Sunday - Green Day (Warning)
  10. Stand Up Comedy - U2 (No Line on the Horizon)
  11. Broken - All (Pummel)
  12. Wish You Were Here - Pink Floyd (Wish You Were Here)

The Uninsured

Here are some interesting facts I dug up about our nation's uninsured (that is, those without health insurance):

  1. Over half of those that are uninsured are not eligible for public programs (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) but can't afford to purchase their own coverage.

  2. 1/4 of those that are uninsured are eligible for these programs but are not enrolled.

  3. 1/5 of those that are uninsured earn high enough incomes to afford coverage but have chosen not to.

(these numbers by the way came from a study done by the Urban Institute in 2006)


Okay, so group #3, I could honestly care less about. Well, that isn't what I meant. What I meant is if the people in group #3 have enough money to pay for insurance and don't, that is their problem. They should know better.

The people in group #2, I almost...almost feel the same way. A lot of people don't want to apply for help of any kind like welfare or food stamps or state medical because they are too proud to ask for help. That I can understand. However, in my opinion, this is being a bit irresponsible. If they qualify for a program like Medicaid, they should apply for it. There is no shame in having free medical care.

The problem with our health care system is with those in group #1. Half of the uninsured are poor but don't qualify for Medicare. With this information, I would think that probably the best way to rectify this situation is change the eligibility requirements for these programs and get the people that can't afford coverage on it. And you wouldn't necessarily have to make it free for all. There are state medical insurance programs where the person plays a small premium. I mean, it is state medical so it isn't the best thing to be on but it is better than nothing, isn't it?

Any thoughts?

Cartoon

Here is a cartoon from an Australian newspaper that Jesica found and sent to me. I found it somewhat amusing.





Sunday, May 17, 2009

MLB Update (May 17)

Here is the newest update for all you baseball fans.

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East
Toronto
Boston
New York Yankees
Tampa Bay
Baltimore

Central
Detroit
Kansas City
Minnesota
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland

West
Texas
Los Angeles Angels
Seattle
Oakland

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Easter
New York Mets
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Florida
Washington

Central
Milwaukee
Chicago Cubs
St Louis
Cincinnati
Houston
Pittsburgh

West
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Francisco
San Diego
Colorado
Arizona

LEAGUE LEADERS

Batting Avg
Victor Martinez (Indians) - .409
M. Cabrera (Tigers) - .389
C. Beltran (Mets) - .379

Home Runs
Adrian Gonzalez (Padres) - 15
R. Ibanez (Phillies) - 13
C. Pena (Rays) - 13
A. Pujols (Cardinals) - 13

RBIs
Evan Longoria (Rays) - 46
J. Bay (Red Sox) - 40
A. Pujols (Cardinals) - 37

Wins
Zack Greinke (Royals) - 7
R. Halladay (Blue Jays) - 7
B. Arroyo (Reds) - 5
C. Billingsley (Dodgers) - 5

Strikeouts
J. Verlander (Tigers) - 69
J. Santana (Mets) - 67
J. Vazquez (Braves) - 67

ERA
Zack Greinke (Royals) - 0.60
J. Santana (Mets) - 1.36
W. Rodriguez (Astros) - 1.90

Otisburg Video

Here is a video that I put together on my laptop of the Otisburg song "Goodbye California."  It is posted on You Tube and the Otisburg MySpace page.




#1? Really?!?

It appears that my blog has made the #1 slot on the BNN list this week!

Wow! Who would have thought that my mindless ramblings would be influential to others. Scary thought, huh?

Otisburg Interview

Here is an interview that Dave did with my band Otisburg recently. Dave has done a LOT of interview with bands over the years so it was pretty cool to have him do one of us. Thanks Dave?

Otisburg hails from Seattle, WA and plays a good mix pop punk, power pop, and folk punk. The band at this point is Scott and Steve(otherwise known as Otter) and they are following in the footsteps of the Violent Femmes, playing their punk rock tunes acoustic style (while still plugging in for some numbers). Sure I might not be the most objective person in the world where it comes to this band (seeing as one of its members is one of my best friends) but my bias aside, Otisburg is a band that show a lot of promise. I highly suggest checking out the song “Hey Jennifer” on their MySpace profile. It’s my favorite. 

Visit Otisburg at MySpacePureVolume, or read a history of the band here.

Oklahoma Lefty: How did the band get together? What’s the history of the band?

Scott: I wrote the whole history down once and we might blog that on the MySpace, right Steve? The basics from my standpoint are that Brant, Steve, and I started the band. Brant and I knew each other from college and we finally sifted Steve out of Craigslist after meeting a lot of, shall we say, not so good fits. These included a Finnish guy who only wanted to play Van Halen and a Korean guy who wanted to make progressive instrumental rock. We almost gave up. After we met Steve, shared the songs we had been writing, and then heard his, we knew we had a band.

Steve: Yeah, we probably should put that history up on our MySpace. He is right about the basics though. I still remember that Craigslist ad. Something about band into the Descendents (and some other bands) needs singer. I was all over that. LoL!

OL: For those who have never heard Otisburg, how would you describe your sounds? 

Scott: It’s pretty simple. Throw together ‘90s alternative and pop/punk and we’re somewhere in there.

Steve: I would have to say our sound is kind of random based on the mood that we are in. Currently, we are somewhere between a folk punk sound and an indie rock sound. I try not to label us though to be honest because I am not a big fan of genre labels because often they really do nothing to really describe what a band sounds like. Plus, I don’t want to let us get pigeon-holed into one style because you never know what we are going to be up to next!

OL: A couple of years ago you were poised to release an EP. What happened to that release? 

Scott: Um… well, I’ll let Steve answer that question…

Steve: The EP, “Born Yesterday” became an internet-only released and was released in late 2007. You can hear the entire EP on our MySpace (www.myspace.com/otisburg)

OL: Describe your song writing process.

Scott: My songwriting process is way different than Steve’s. He can write songs in his head just riding the bus or whatever he happens to be doing. I usually have to have an instrument under my fingers to write something. Either way it all comes out in the end. After one of us writes the basic words and progressions we just play it for the other, throw ideas back and forth, and eventually the song comes out the way we like it. Sometimes we don’t have to change much if anything, though.

Steve: Yeah, sometimes I just come up with stuff off the top of my head and other times I have to work at it. But normally, I differ from Scott in that I usually come up with lyrics first and then either try and come up with a riff that fits it or I take to Scott and he comes up with something. From my viewpoint, Scott usually comes up with the music for a song first.

OL: Where did you get the name Otisburg

Scott: Superman

Steve: When trying to come up with a name, we tried to come up with a really obscure super-hero/comic book type reference. I was sitting down thinking of the movie Superman: The Motion Picture and came up with Otisburg off the top of my head. I went to the other guys with that idea and the name stuck.

OL: I know that this is considered the worst question to ask, but oh well. What are your influences?

Scott: Not the worst, but I won’t try to give you any worse questions to ask! My influences are pretty much Weezer, The Descendents, and The Ramones.

Steve: I would say as far as writing goes, my influences are also The Descendents and Weezer. As far as my playing goes, I really can’t say. As a punk guitarist, my biggest influence has always been Greg Ginn (Black Flag) but as a singer, I have no idea. I guess I don’t really have an “influence” in that regard. I just do what I do.

OL: Are you currently working with any record labels?

Steve: No, not presently. We kind of stick to the DIY ethic.

Scott: Right now it’s such a cool time because you don’t really need a record label to get your music out there. We plan to just distribute anything we do online, whether as a CD through CDBaby.com or our own site, or digitally through iTunes or wherever.

OL: Any plans for a full length release? 

Scott: Yeah, for sure! We feel the world deserves a full length! We’re in the writing process right now. Anyone who’s heard songs like Punkrocksong.com or Doughnut Riot can expect a set of songs in a similar vein. Not necessarily joke songs, but definitely with tongue firmly in cheek. So far we’ve got songs about garbage men, high school bands, and married people, among others. Also we’re playing around with the idea to do an acoustic release, either alongside of or part of the full length. Can’t really say for sure yet.

Steve: Yeah, hopefully sometime this year.

OL: If you could play a show opening up for any band, who would it be?

Steve: The Descendents!

Scott: Definitely Weezer for me. Those guys are great!

OL: Any final thoughts?

Steve: Yeah. Milk it does a body good! J

Scott: Stick with us! Check back often on the MySpace because we’re working on demos for the new stuff and kind of planning to release them there as a way for people to give us feedback as we make the record!
 

--

What About Term Limits

We need term limits in this country. It is essential. Without term limits there is no way to get rid of corrupt incumbent politicians who almost ALWAYS win re-election.

Currently, there are no term limits for our elected legislators in Washington DC. No term limits for U.S. Representatives. No term limits for U.S. Senators?

Why?

There is a term limit for the President? And why is that? Congress and the people of this country decided a few years ago that they did not want one man to be in power for too long.

In fact, did you know that the United States is one of the 1st countries to ever put a limit on terms for its presidency?

However, there are no term limits for Congressmen.

Currently, a U.S. Senator serves for a 6 year term but can run for re-elections as many times as they want. Representatives of course can run as many times as they want as well for 2 year terms.

And why are their no term limits?

Opponents say that term limits restrict the ability of the people to elect anyone that they want and think would be most qualified.

Oh. So do we not have term limits because the people themselves do not want term limits? Absolutely not. In fact, in the early 90s initiatives and referendums were put on 23 states ballots. In almost every one of these states term limits were approved.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1995 in the case U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton that states cannot impose term limits on federal elected officials. These decision effectively overturned the voters wishes in those 23 states.

This case was in response to an amendment that has been made in the Arkansas state constitution that stated no ballot access would be given to a Congressional candidate that had already served 3 terms in the U.S. House or 2 terms in the U.S. Senate. Soon after this amendment was adopted (by a vote OF THE PEOPLE in November 1992) the League of Women Voters sued the state to have it invalidated stating that it caused restrictions to who was qualified to run per the U.S. Constitution.

The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed that the amendment was unconstitutional. Hang on a minute. The people voted it in to make it PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. If it becomes a part of the Constitution, doesn't that make it Constitutional?!?!?

Anyway, it went all the way to the Supreme Court who declared term limits unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4.

Not only that but the idea of term limits was a part of the Republican Party's so-called Contract With America in 1994. Remember that? What happened there?

I will tell you. The Supreme Court declared that imposing term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. So an amendment was brought to Congress but never got anywhere because it lacked the 2/3 majority needed to bring it to a vote of the people.

So much for this country being of the people and by the people. The people can't even make laws without being told that the laws are illegal. @@

So why don't we have term limits? Because those in power do not want term limits. They want to stay in power.

The members of Congress themselves. The lobbyists that have these Congressmen in their back pockets. The special interest groups that have the Congressmen on their side. They are all opposed to term limits.

Why? Because they fear the idea of a career politician that cares more about their own power than the interests of the American people being forced out of office.

Other opponents of term limits argue that they are opposed to them because we need experience in office. Not novice leaders. Their argument states that we would not want a doctor without experience operating on us so why would we want a politician with no experience working for us in Washington?

I can answer that. Because the politicians with experience DON'T work for us in Washington. They work for themselves! Plan and simple.

Another argument of the opponents states that re-election gives politicians an incentive to do well. What??! What a crock of shit! What about a freaking sense of duty! How about patriotism? How about the desire to do the right thing? Politicians don't need an incentive to do their job? They need to remember that they represent US in Congress, not themselves. I have to say this is one of the stupidest arguments that I ran across.

There is a grassroots organization still ongoing to try and implement term limits on the members of Congress.

Click here to check out that grassroots organizations website.

You can also sign a petition to place limits on Congressional officials.

We really need to go back to the time when being a politicians was a short period, near voluntary public service and not a long-term career to aspire to.

The United States must become once again a system of the people and by the people and for the people.

Help bring an end to career politicians that care more about re-election and their careers than about the people that elected them in the first place.

Click here to sign the petition.

Anyone with their thoughts on term limits (for or against) please feel free to express them here.