Jousting Windmills

Obama: Welcome Back Carter?

Jun 162010

President Obama’s Oval Office Address to the nation on Tuesday evening was a lot of talk about the problem, but no real solution. For the first two thirds of the speech, when he talked about the clean up, he seemed distant and may have contradicted himself. When he talked about clean energy being the future it seemed like it was the same old big dreams song I had heard before. Obama, like former President Jimmy Carter, is big on dreams and long term goals, but weak on immediate solutions.

Calling together panels of experts to solve the problem of the spill is all well and good, but 8 weeks later still not having a solution is unacceptable. The American people expect results, not committee meetings to further discuss possible strategies for reducing the leak. If another 8 weeks go by without that leak being shut down, then Obama’s numbers may never recover.

Saying BP will pay is nice, but making them pay long term is a much more complicated matter. An escrow account is a good start, but is 20 billion enough? Do we even have a clue yet of the final cost? What happens when BP decides enough is enough?

Using this disaster to push for alternative energy would be nice, but he talked about wind energy and other alternatives none of which really deal with what we use oil for. Oil is mainly for cars, Mr. President. What are we going to run them on? Not the hybrids or the smart cars, but all the cars that belong to people too broke from the recession to afford the new vehicles even if they were readily available.

A Gulf Coast Restoration Plan is nice, but again this is a long term goal not a short term solution. The reaction coming from those who make their living from the Gulf is that we do not need plans, but solutions. Counting days no longer matter when the root of the problem has still not been solved.

Carter faced a different oil crisis, but his lack of leadership and solutions in that time is being mirrored in this time by the current administration. We need solutions, not dreams. We need prompt results, not long term planning. We need leadership that we can get behind now, not hope that change will come some time. We were promised change, but not from bad to worse.

It's Not Easy Being Greene

Politics No Responses »

Jun 152010

It is not easy being Alvin Greene, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from South Carolina. There are numerous questions, controversies, and even conspiracy theories surrounding his unlikely win in the primary last week. The media and politicians from both sides have questioned everything from his moral character to his mental capacity to run a campaign. Even with his win in the primary, he seems like the loser in this political game.

Greene is unemployed. He was kicked out of the military after 13 years last August because “things just weren’t working”. He lives in his father’s home, with no cell phone and no computer. None of this shouts political ambition.

Greene is facing felony obscenity charges. He was caught on video showing allegedly obscene photos from a website to a female victim at the University of South Carolina. These charges were filed before he through his hat into the political arena. He is being represented by a public defender because he claimed to be unable to afford his own attorney.

Greene funded his “campaign” himself. According to reports he originally tried to pay the $10,400 needed to get his name on the ballot with a personal check. He returned a few hours later with a check from his campaign account. Questions have been raised on where he got the money from, but he is adamant that it was his own money.

Greene is not the most eloquent speaker. His way of speaking has lead both interviewers and members of his own party to question his mental health. One democratic representative who spoke with Greene said that if he were his client he would ask for a mental evaluation. Something just seems off about his reactions to this entire situation.

Greene has almost no campaign support. No campaign staff. No office. No advertisements of any kind. He does not even have a website. Of course he would need to buy a computer to look at it anyway.

Greene has no party support. Leadership of the Democratic party have asked him to step down. They are not supporting him at all, but some are going so far as accusing him of being a Republican plant. Even if he was a plant that still does not explain how he got the votes. The scale of the conspiracy required to get him on the ballot and then get him the votes needed to win is unrealistically epic in scope.

The late Andy Warhol once said that in the future everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. Mr. Greene your clock is running. I hope you survive the experience. It is not going to get any easier to be you any time soon.

Who Are You Representative Etheridge?

Politics No Responses »

Jun 142010

“Who are you? Who are you?” No this is not the start of a CSI episode, or a Who concert, but the mantra repeated over and over again by Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) in the course of his assault on a “student” who asked him nothing more than “Do you fully support the Obama agenda?” he says “Who are you?” or “Tell me who you are?” over 10 times in the course of the 1 minute 11 second video version I saw. In fact he does not say much else.

His actions spoke louder than his words. He acted like a fed up celebrity confronting a paparazzi, but he is not. He is an elected official, a public servant, and nothing justifies his grabbing the individual questioning him by the arm, knocking the camera out of his hand, or grabbing him by the neck. He acted like he had been threatened, insulted, or generally accosted. He was not. The individual addressed him respectfully and asked him a simple question. It was not personal, controversial, or even rude.

Questions have been raised over whether the individual is indeed a student as he portrayed himself, but this is really irrelevant. It serves as an attempt to spin it so that if the individual was being deceptive then Etheridge’s actions were somehow justified. No matter who the individual was the representative’s reaction was violent, excessive, and likely criminal. Nobody has the right to assault someone else no matter what the spin.

Whether DC authorities will have the nerve to take it as far as criminal prosecution remains to be seen, but I would doubt that they do. If this action were taken by a tea party attender or any other common citizen, I bet their treatment would be much different if also caught on video. Rank, as they say, has its privilege but some ranks come with responsibility and rules of behavior.

I would ask the representative who he was. Is he above the law? Is he setting a good example? Is he upholding the standard of his office? No, no and most definitely no.

Cynthia Dunbar - Bringing Theocracy to Texas?

Education, Law, Politics 1 Response »

May 252010

The current controversy surrounding the Texas board of education and their attempts to rewrite history with an extreme right wing evangelical spin brings to mind the words of writer Robert A. Heinlein, who said “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” At the center of this controversy is Cynthia Dunbar, an evangelical Christian, lawyer, and author, and a member of the Texas Board of Education. She has proven willing to use her power to force her extreme religious views into the Texas educational curriculum, even when her beliefs do not match with historical accuracy, or to put it bluntly the truth.

Dunbar firmly believes the United States was founded on Christian principles – a belief likely reinforced by her education at Regent University School of Law, Pat Robertson’s university. Her invocation for Friday’s Board of Education meeting began with, ““I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses.” She also stated the founding fathers had the intent of creating “a Christian land governed by Christian principles.” In her book, One Nation Under God (Onward, 2008), she states the founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government.”

If the founding fathers were driven to create a Christian government, as Dunbar believes, then why would they have lead a revolution against the prior government? Revolution against the government is against biblical teachings. In Romans 13:1 the apostle Paul wrote “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Until the American revolution, authority to govern came from God, but the founding fathers saw the authority coming from reason instead.

The founding fathers were men of the Enlightenment – the era of philosophical awakening – a term Dunbar tried to remove whenever possible. They were men of reason not superstition. Quite a few were Deists, not Christian. Deists believe that a supreme being created the universe, that religious truth can be found through reason and observation, and denies the need for faith or organized religion. Reason was the litmus test for government, not that government be held to a “biblical litmus test” as Dunbar holds.

To put the thought of a Christian nation to rest once and for all one need look no further than the Treaty of Tripoli from 1796. Article XI of the treaty states “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” There it is plain and simple. Should be enough to convince anyone, but not Dunbar. Even though Thomas Jefferson helped draft it during George Washington’s presidency, and John Adams signed it, that is still not enough for her.

Thomas Jefferson seems to be a problem to Dunbar for several reasons. She would see him marginalized if not outright vilified for coining the term “separation of church and state.” She has claimed the separation of church and state is a myth. To her this is not the intent of the first amendment. Her belief system, outlined in her book, would go to the extreme as to “require that any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.” This requirement for Christian knowledge would be in direct contradiction to the Constitution which says in Article VI, section 3 that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Dunbar also finds fault with the public school system, a system Jefferson helped found, and a system she was elected to serve. She goes so far as to refer to public education system as a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.” She goes on to call the creation of public schools unconstitutional, even “tyrannical”. She say this is because they threaten the rights of the family, as granted by God in the scriptures, to control the education of their children. Her own children were home schooled and sent to private schools, rather than sending them to public schools which to her would be “throwing them into the enemy’s flames.”

One need only read the first 2 pages of her book to see her inability to separate her beliefs from the reality of a situation. She compares modern America to Nazi Germany before the Holocaust. She then says targeted group, the unfortunate “chosen people”, this time would be “devout, Bible-believing Christians.” She then say they are the only group in the United States it is acceptable to malign. This shows how far her beliefs are out of touch with reality, so far that they border on the paranoid.

Do not write her off as extremist, a radical, or paranoid. She may be all three of these things, but to write her off would ignore the most dangerous thing about her. She has power. Power over the education and futures of 4.8 million Texas schoolchildren. Power over possibly millions more in other states forced to follow the lead of Texas. Power to strike a blow for the extreme evangelical right, far beyond the beliefs of most conservatives. Make no mistake, she is dangerous. Her beliefs make it clear that she supports the idea of an evangelical Christian theocracy. Pretty sure that is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Big Ben, Big Ego, and Big Disappointment

Uncategorized No Responses »

May 072010

Ben Roethlisberger was a hero to the city of Pittsburgh and Steeler fans everywhere. After 2 Superbowl victories and a reputation as a clutch quarterback, able to pull victory from the jaws of defeat, the whole “Steeler Nation” was behind him. “Big Ben” was a legend in the making.

Whatever legend was being made, Ben has put an end to that himself. Various reports, including this week’s Sports Illustrated cover story, have cited Ben’s bad behavior, poor judgment, and most offensively his sense of entitlement when it comes to women. Fame never justifies behavior like his. Even though he was not charged in the events of March 5th, 2010 down in Georgia, his 6 game suspension from the NFL was still justified. Ben has shown a pattern that needed to be dealt with. From his risky and egotistical behaviors to his repeated accusations of forcing himself on women, Ben is on a downward spiral of self destruction and needs to be held accountable.

The Steeler’s organization, and more specifically the Rooney family, have shown a low tolerance in the past for players who draw negative press and attention to the good name of the Steelers. The Chief, Art Rooney Sr., would not have tolerated any of Ben’s recent behavior. The heirs to his legacy seemed to be continuing that tradition. Superbowl MVP Santonio Holmes learned that recently after being traded after a positive drug test and allegations of misbehavior in a club. The Steelers have stood for integrity in the past, and yet the organization turns a blind eye to Ben’s behavior. He is dragging the good name of the Steelers down and that hurts the organization, the fans, and those players who helped build that good name to begin with.

One of the living legends of the Steelers, Terry Bradshaw has even tried to offer Ben his advice. Bradshaw said, “Best thing to do is don’t ever put yourself in that position again.” Simple, but sound advice, from a former player with a reputation for being a little on the simple side. He may not have been thought of as bright in his time, but his reputation as stupid has been eclipsed by Ben’s repeated poor decision making.

Now some are even claiming his decision making problems are not his fault, but due to brain damage caused by repeated blows to the head. This remains to be proven, and either way it is really no excuse. Bad behavior is still bad behavior.

Without change, is Ben destined to follow in the footsteps of Hall of Fame member, Lawrence Taylor, arrested recently for the rape of a 16 year old girl? Entitlement is an addictive drug and without change it is easy to see Ben follow a similar path to self destruction. It is a pattern that continues to repeat itself with sports figures.

The telling moment for me came on a recent trip to the grocery store with my son, at 12 a die hard Steeler fan. He pointed to a pack of BIG Ben Beef Jerky and said nobody is going to buy that anymore. Ben has said he will change, but without sincere public effort and no further lapses in judgment, I’m not sure anyone will buy that either.

Anti-Obama Prayer on Facebook

Life, Politics No Responses »

May 022010

“Dear Lord, This year you took my favorite actor, Patrick Swayzie. You took my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett. You took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson. I just wanted to let you know, my favorite president is Barack Obama. Amen”

This “prayer”, currently circulating on Facebook, is a variation on the one e-mailed by New Jersey teacher’s union representative Joseph Coppola about that state’s governor, Chris Christie ,during a conflict over proposed education cutbacks. In his apology Coppola stated, “While it was intended as a joke I recognize that it was in poor taste, bad taste and was definitely an error of poor judgment and I sincerely apologize to the governor.” That apology was issued after the message was sent to 17,000 union members. Currently on Facebook 1,183,063 people have read this message and clicked that they like this statement and that number is growing.

For those unfamiliar with Facebook, most posts, statements, or links come with a Like button that you can click to show approval, support, or general agreement. The fact that well over a million people have shown support for this statement is frightening. Defenders of this statement may try and excuse it as a joke, but the fact that it is worded as a prayer makes it no laughing matter.

Prayer is sacred to a number of religions. Joking about prayer should be troubling to a number of people. The recent controversy over South Park and Mohammad illustrates the problems that can arise when humor and religion are at odds. This “prayer” would be at odds with several religions, but since the “prayer” begins with “Dear Lord,” it brings to mind Christianity first and foremost.

Christians willing to support a prayer calling on God to “take” the president is an act of hypocrisy. Christianity does not need any more attention for hypocrisy. Christians that are Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty do that well enough already. No matter who the statement is about, and no matter how the individual may feel about their politics, this “prayer” stands at odds with Christian teachings and beliefs. Invoking the Lord in this “joke” qualifies as taking the Lord’s name in vain. One commandment broken. Another commandment says something about not killing. Asking the almighty to do it for you? Probably sacrilege at best.

What is the truth behind the sentiment of this message? Would those who supported this statement be upset at the death of Barack Obama, or thankful for answered prayers? To publicly support a “prayer” calling upon the almighty to take the president’s life borders on sedition. Threats against the life of any president, no matter how veiled, are no joking matter.

Lane Bryant, Fox, and the Family Hour

Life No Responses »

Apr 252010

Lane Bryant wanted to put a twenty five second ad for their new Cacique Intimates on American Idol. Fox refused to air the ad as-is, asking for modifications, and also refused to play the ad until after 9pm. A Fox spokesperson said, “8p is the Family Hour”. The initial refusal to air the ad, and the statement used to justify that decision both raise questions.

Is the fact that the ad features a plus sized woman a case of discrimination against the overweight? The lingerie featured is no more revealing than a swim suit. The fact that the lingerie ad features a plus sized model with a fuller figure than the thin super models of Victoria’s Secret ads has many claiming discrimination. The model is more typical of the average American woman and yet somehow not appropriate for the 8pm hour. This just perpetuates the illusions that lead to negative body image and eating disorders.

Fox’s prime time programming on Sunday evening featured a female model in just as revealing attire during an ad for razors for men. The model in the ad, which aired several times prior to 9pm, had figure more similar to those used by Victoria’s Secret . The woman in the lingerie did not even have anything to do with the product being sold.

“House”, “Bones”, and “Lie to Me” all air in the 8pm hour and all are rated TV-14. This must mean that they are only appropriate to families where the children are all over the age of 14. These shows all have dealt with sexual and/or violent content and yet air during time Fox designates as family time. The episode of “House” for Monday, April 26th deals with the subject of open marriage. Fox must by their own statement find this to be appropriate subject matter for the family hour.

The episode of “The Cleveland Show” which aired on Sunday night at 8:30pm, following a new episode of “The Simpsons” further contradicted Fox’s claim of the family hour. The Cleveland Show is a spin off of “Family Guy”. This Sunday’s episode titled “Buried Pleasure” was a re-airing of an episode from February of this year. The episode centered around a minor character and his sex doll. The sex doll is shown several times during the episode and is scantily dressed with its mouth in a permanent o shape. He is fixed up with a female character who then proceeds to beat him and several other male characters. At this point Cleveland’s wife says, “I never hit a girl, either. But I will smack the white off a bitch!” The two female characters then fight for an extended sequence which includes the wife grabbing the other woman by the breasts and the swinging her. The show ends with the minor character walking off after being reunited with his sex doll. This is in no way acceptable as family viewing, and Fox would be unable to say otherwise.

The content Fox allows in prime time both in programming and commercials contradict their own statements and further illustrate the double standard being placed against the Lane Bryant ad. Fox needs to be honest with themselves and with the public.

YouTube Video – Lane Bryant Ad Under Fire

NJ Teachers Union: Lessons to Learn

Education, Politics No Responses »

Apr 132010

The New Jersey Education Association, the states largest teacher’s union, is locked in battle with Governor Chris Christie over his proposal that they take a one year pay freeze and contribute 1.5% of their salaries toward paying for their own benefits package to which they currently contribute nothing. The concessions would prevent cuts in language and art education and in cutbacks to the school lunch program. Eleven of the local unions have already agreed to the concessions, but the central union leadership continues to block the plan.

I have no great love of teacher’s unions. During my senior year of high school we had two unions each claiming they were the union of record for my district. One union called for a strike, the other did not. What ensued was a chaotic mess of half the teachers striking, while the others remained in school teaching. My mother, as a substitute teacher and member of the union still teaching, crossed the picket lines. Everyday going into school I would be yelled at by teachers on the picket lines who were well aware of this fact. Needless to say it was not a great experience.

I do, however, have great respect for teachers. My mother is 73 years old and still substitutes as many days a year as she can. She also tutors over a dozen kids in the evening. Over twenty years ago she started tutoring for ten dollars an hour. All these years later and she still has never raised her rates. Teaching to my mom is not about the money. Teaching is about teaching. Being a teacher is who she is.

It is my feeling that if you asked individual teachers they would, even if somewhat begrudgingly, consent to the concessions. They would be saving the jobs of co-workers and preserving the integrity of programs for their students. To confirm my suspicions, I talked to a close friend who is a third grade teacher, and her sentiment was that her union would be upset and fight it, but that she herself would be thankful in this time to still have a job and the benefits. She said she does not currently contribute to her benefits, but even she realized this was becoming rarer and rarer.

The union bosses are the ones blocking the concessions. One union representative has gone so far as sending a “joke” memo hinting God should take the life of the governor. Wonder what message that sends to students? Wonder if the union members during that strike forgot they were still teachers when they came back off the picket lines? That is my biggest problem with teacher’s unions, when the union becomes more important than the teaching.

Adoption: No Guarantees, No Returns

Law, Life 1 Response »

Apr 122010

The case of the seven year old boy from Russia adopted by a 33 year old single mother from Tennessee and returned to Russia by her when his behaviors and psychological issues became too much for her and her family to deal with has hit a personal chord with me. I spent 5 years of my life working with children and teens that for one reason or another ended up in the care of the system. Some of these were kids from failed adoptions, and in at least one case the teen was from Russia. The work was hard, dealing often with disrespect and outright violence directed toward staff. The work could also be rewarding, seeing kids make changes and improvements in their lives because of the support of staff. The problems and rewards were a lot like those of parenthood.

Adoptions do not come with any guarantees, just like parenthood itself. Adopting an older child is always a risk, and adopting an older child from a foreign country and culture just adds to that risk. The teen from Russia that I worked with in the group home had come over here at a young age but still had memories of her prostitute mother and of things no child should ever have to remember. Who knows what experiences this boy had before he came here? The Adoptive mother’s allegations that she was deceived by the adoption facility in Russia as justification for her actions seems to be a case of passing the blame for not being fully prepared for what she was getting herself and her family into.

The boy was only here for six months and in that time the adoptive mother never had him talk to a psychologist, let alone attempted any form of counseling. Without any professional input she is still quoted as using terms such as mentally unstable and psychopathic issues. I realize she is a nurse, but I doubt her credibility to diagnose such issues. Had she tried some form of counseling and that failed I could see her becoming frustrated and maybe looking to institutionalization as an option, even short term. The teen I worked with had been placed in the system by her original adoptive family with the initial hope of reunification, but after time that was not seen as a viable solution. At least they tried something before giving up. The adoptive family of the Russian boy has said they thought love for this child would be enough, but sometimes love is not all you need. Sometimes you need professional support and intervention,

This story has an unhappy ending. The adoptive mother may or may not face criminal charges and the boy is back where he was six months ago, likely more confused and hurt than he was before. My case at work had a happier ending. She was placed with another family who was adequately aware and prepared to deal with her problems and concerns.

Russian authorities are upset over this situation, and understandably so. This is one in a string of problems with American adoptions, but putting an end to U.S. adoptions is not the solution. The solution comes from reforming the policies allowing for better education and screening of prospective parents prior to adoption so they are fully aware of the risks involved and improving access to existing resources such as community based counseling and support groups for families who adopt internationally.

Parenthood is not easy and there is no six month guaranteed return policy.

Protection v. Control

Law, Politics No Responses »

Apr 102010

Ronald Reagan once said that “Governments first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” I think that both sides of the political spectrum need to be reminded of this concept. It seems to me that both sides want more and more control over the lives of the individual. From Socialistic Seeming Social Programs on one side to Radical Religious Fundamentalism on the other, it seems both sides think they could do a better job running our lives then we can for ourselves.

I grew up trying to emulate Michael J. Fox’s character on “Family Ties” whether intentionally or unintentionally. Along with this emulation came an almost blind faith in Ronald Reagan. I was never quite sure why. Maybe it was that I was at an impressionable age back then, maybe it was the fact that Reagan as president was just so presidential in his speaking and mannerisms. or maybe on some deeper level I saw the truth in Reagan’s views on the role of government versus the rights of the individual. I know that my belief in a smaller federal government with less interference in the lives of individual Americans is at the heart of my political ideals.

I see the way things are going now on both sides, from the fairness doctrine and health care reform, to the pro-life movement and a constitutional amendment defining marriage, as attempts at giving the government greater control and taking control away from us. We, as Americans, need to let both sides know that enough is enough. Our rights and our freedoms are just that, ours, and we are not going to tolerate either side trying to take them away from us. We need to remind them that non-interference should be the prime directive.

Another time Reagan said that “Government exists to protect us from one another, Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” This, along with the other quote, shows that government is needed to protect the individual, not control the individual. I am all for protecting our rights, but when any side of the government sees fit to limit our rights then they truly have gone beyond their limits and the limits we should be willing to tolerate.

Another president once mentioned a “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Notice he made no mention of over the people.