Rowdyism in parliaments is not a uncommon sight. Japan, India, UK…they all have had their share of parliaments disrupted by lawmakers - the very people who have been given the duty to ensure that the country runs right. Am I the only one but does it make sense for lawmakers to protest or the government to protest? After all they themselves control the nation’s laws. Causing a ruckus in Parliament is not the solution. Moreover they are the wrong people to ask for rights. They should be ensuring that the people who elected get their rights. But in this democratic process, anything goes as long as its fair so does our law making processes?

It’s been a while since I’ve been here to spread my insights of great ponderence, but this made me take pause and write.  So, a potentially racist situation goes down that results in a man’s arrest and Barack Obama immediately comes to the defense of his friend…Yale Professor of African Studies, Henry Louis Gates in the midst of the frey.

It has been an unnecessary crap storm if you will, that Obama has backed himself into regarding this incident having not been availed of the proper facts.  I’ve heard it said that there were mostly egos involved that got out of hand.  It is more a case of ONE ego, that of Professor Gates.  As the police reports have stated, Gates became belligerent the moment the white officer (there was also a black and Hispanic officer on the scene, as well) began asking routine questions that one would ask on a B&E (breaking and entering) call (i.e. Is there anyone else in the house? May we look around?, etc.).  These are all standard procedure for a call of this nature.  However, the YALE professor felt it beneath him to be questioned in any manner regarding suspicion of any kind. The “educated” and I believe correct response would have been…”Thank you for coming to my home when called in regard to something this serious. Certainly, you may check around. I’m happy to do whatever I can to help rectify any misunderstanding by the neighbor as well as the police department. In fact, I probably should thank the neighbor for his conscientiousness, as well.”

Instead, he was most likely irritable when the officers arrived, having been absent minded enough to lock himself out of his home. That disgruntled attitude (coupled with a predisposition toward racism as an African Studies Prof.) then manifest itself in the form of indignant arrogance toward an innocent officer who was simply trying to do his job.  In order for this to be even remotely considered racial profiling, Gates would have to have been randomly stopped.  This was a B&E call, plain and simple.  When the officer asked for Gates’ ID, he went ballistic prior to complying with the officer’s request. Then the officer was satisfied and began to leave with the other officers and Gates continued to berate and malign the officer all the way to the front door with racial epithets. The officer warned him to let it go and asked him to stand down.  Gates refused and the officer took out his cuffs and warned him a last time.  Gates, was relentless and as a result was arrested.  The only reason that the charges were dropped, in my opinion, is because not only was race introduced (by Gates) but also, because he is a high profile individual. It’s bad press for the department any way you look at it and the higher ups don’t need Obama’s camp looking down at their fair city.  They had no choice, even though it would have been a simple misdemeanor.

Adding insult to injury, Obama proceeded to call the officer “stupid” without having read even so much as a newsclipping on the incident.  The educated and proper response here, in my opinion, should have been…”I have not read the police report on the incident so, I won’t speculate and will reserve my comments until such time.”  His arrogance wouldn’t let him do that.  Instead, he chose to get out ahead of the situation and make it about defense of a friend over defense of the facts.

In closing, what this said to me is that both Gates and his buddy Barack arrogantly overstated their cases.  It continues to be revealed that Obama has some pretty outspoken friends (Rev. Wright, communist party devotees, etc.).  Being outspoken is not a bad thing in and of itself, mind you.  However, the destructive words of an outspoken person who is not intent on speaking words that teach, heal or inform for the progression and edification of the whole over self…is quite dangerous.  This further indicates to me that birds of a feather flock together. These “friends” of Obama’s that continue to pop up can only cause one to think…Who is the real man beneath the spit and polished President?  Is there an outspoken radical buried someplace deep down in there who thinks that every irresponsible, harsh and divisive situation can be excused and brushed off by simply sitting down and sharing a beer together?  Great idea, until the beer starts talking…then what?  Seriously, though, Obama and other educated black men such as himself have a huge responsibility to speak intelligently to such issues as racism…not perpetuate its destructiveness themsevles by viewing every given incident from a racially-motivate point of view absent of the facts.      

That’s my take.

Benman out!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/Sl4Y4sr5fGI/AAAAAAAAc04/GcLzEjOYTac/s1600-h/healthcare+map.JPG

Lately there have been an increasing number of stories about same-sex marriage in the news. Considering all the coverage about our tanking economy, our screwed foreign policy, dead and dying celebrities, and how perfectly good airplanes are crashing left and right, it wouldn’t be too surprising if a person missed it. But at a time when our country’s divorce rate is hovering around the 50% mark, the fight for gay marriage seems a bit like the ultimate love story. There is a segment of the population that believes so strongly in marriage that they are actually fighting for the right to join the ranks of married people. Given what I have seen of married people lately, I can’t say that I would be fighting for that, er, honor, but to each his own.

I never would have imagined that something like a gay couple who love each other so much that they want to get hitched would unleash such a socio-political brouhaha. And yet, that is exactly what the same-sex marriage debate has become. Legislatures are under pressure to formally declare that marriage is defined as only being between a man and a woman. Outside state offices and courthouses in places that allow gay marriage crowds have gathered, some trying to get their marriage licenses, others chanting that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

From my standpoint, I believe that the folks against same-sex marriage have every right to ban gay unions in their churches and dislike homosexuals as much as they want to. I don’t like their stance, but, from my understanding of The Bill of Rights, they have the right to think and feel the way they want to about the subject. If they feel there is a solid biblical reason for gays not to marry, fine.

Where I take issue with this, and maybe all my government classes were wrong, is that we in these United States believe in a quirky little thing called the separation of church and state. Oh, and the idea of majority rule while preserving minority rights.

Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why, if the sole stated reasoning against gay marriage is based on a religious interpretation of what a vocal group of Christian supporters believe and understand to be God’s will, our country hasn’t passed an amendment allowing gay marriage on a national level. When did “God says so” become the basis for legislative rulings in a secular nation? Hello, separation of church and state anybody? Anybody?

As I understand it, the national and state governments don’t give a crap about people’s religious beliefs when they get married. That consideration falls to individual denominations and the clerics who represent those denominations if they are asked to officiate a union. All the state (a.k.a. government) cares about is that you are who you say you are, that you are entering this partnership agreement of your own free will, that you are not currently in partnership with anyone else, that you are old enough to enter into a partnership, and that the swearing of this partnership is properly witnessed. You don’t have to be a good person, you don’t have to be caught up on your taxes, you don’t even have to be a citizen, and you certainly don’t have to profess any religious belief to be legally married in the eyes of the state.

Incidentally, if the state didn’t grant clerics the authority to conduct a legally binding contract recognized by said state, then a church marriage ceremony would be nothing more than just that, a religious ceremony. While the religious ceremony may have deep significance on a spiritual, cultural, or social level, without the backing of the state that sanctions the union it is not a legal marriage contract. It would have no more legal clout than a christening ceremony or the Eucharist.

And that is part of this debate that is a major sticking point for me, because it seems like the secular legal decision about who the state will allow to marry is being overwhelmed with religious considerations. I would dearly like to know if there is a non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage because I have yet to hear one. Is there a constitutional reason to ban same-sex unions? Is this being kept secret somewhere with J. Edgar Hoover’s files? Maybe with Hoover’s lingerie? People want to know.

I find it scary to think that my constitutional rights and freedoms as a citizen of the United States of America are only secure so long as I don’t run afoul of how the Religious Right or any religious majority are interpreting their sacred texts that week. And, I think the Religious Right should find it scary too.

At the moment, the United States likes to consider itself, socially and culturally speaking, a predominantly Christian nation. But that could change. I wonder how this nation’s current religious majority would react to being a minority. If say, conservative Islamic beliefs became the majority, how would Christians react to laws passed about women needing to be veiled in public? What if the witches decided everyone had to have a smudge on their houses? My guess is the Christians would be angry that in a supposedly secular nation claiming to value religious liberty, their rights as citizens could be subjugated because they failed to conform to another group’s religious views.

Rules about religious liberty in this country weren’t set up solely to protect people as they practice their religion, but also to protect citizens from those practicing religion. This is why I think it is scary to create legal precedence for using religion and religious beliefs as a basis for determining who has what rights under the law. But then, it probably looks different if you are in the group that gets to do the subjugating.

But that is not my only concern in the gay-marriage debate. There’s also the problem with gay marriage measures failing when they are presented to the voters, sending the message, “Homosexuals don’t deserve to marry because the majority of voters say so. So there. No take backs and no whammies.”

You mean a disinterested group of voters don’t give a rat’s ass about the rights of a minority? Gee, couldn’t see that one coming. When has that ever happened in American history? I mean, other than the peculiar institution of slavery that flourished in the south, the people accused and executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, the gross mistreatment of Native Americans all over the country for a few centuries, the fact that women didn’t have the same voting rights as their male counter parts until the 20th century, the Japanese internment camps of WWII, and the Jim Crow laws in the south that prevented blacks from being able to vote. Yeah, other than those few, isolated cases, when has a majority in America ever failed to do what is right by a minority?

Is denying someone a right under the law permissible if a majority of voters think it is okay? If that is true, then pretty much most of the mob actions throughout the history of the world would be justified with a “might-makes-right” argument. French aristocrats, European Jews, Christians in ancient Rome, sucks to be you, but we took a vote and you don’t get to live. Rest assured, we got a majority.

And there is also all this flap that gay-unions will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Really? Gay folks will do that? Because it seems that heterosexuals were doing a pretty good job of ruining marriage’s sanctity all on their own.

Irrespective of religious beliefs, for the sake of argument let’s say marriage is something sanctioned by God. And let’s assume that He created and sanctioned marriage for the support and mutual happiness of both parties because, as I read it, men and women were created equal before God. So, that begs the question, how have we done?

Under the heterosexual reign marriage has frequently been a tool of patriarchy rather than partnership, marriage has historically been used to cement political alliances (Queen Victoria so successfully pimped out her children that almost all the royal houses in Europe were related by their hemophiliac blood or marriage), and marriage was also used to transfer and procure wealth and titles.

Because I’m sure that’s why God created marriage, so Ferdinand and Isabella could unite Spain, oust the Moors, conduct the Spanish Inquisition, and rape the New World.

But what about the marital miseries of ordinary heterosexuals? Most people know of at least one marriage marred by domestic abuse. How sanctified is it to hit someone after vowing to love, honor, and cherish that person? One friend told me she endured her husband beating her on a regular basis for more than twenty years because she had been taught that divorce went against the Bible.

Then there’s infidelity, plenty of that in the straight world. Really, I think nothing says sanctity like screwing someone else (possibly several someones) after vowing before God, man, and the state to devote yourself to just one person. And, in addition to the massive betrayal of trust and all the deceit, there is also the fact that it can expose a partner to serious risk for contracting STDs.

But even without domestic assault and infidelity, there is still plenty of divorce because of apathy, antagonism, and incompatibility. Seems like you don’t have to look too far to find one of those couples who never should have gotten married and seem to stay together only because it is the most convenient way to make one another miserable. Not too surprising considering how often people marry for reasons other than love, mutual respect, and wanting to build a life together. One guy told me his girlfriend’s great idea for solving their relationship problems was to get married. Yup, “We don’t get along so what we really need to do is get hitched. That will solve everything.”

Oh, and then there are the people who kill their spouses. That may be for a variety of reasons like abuse, anger over cheating or betrayal, not wanting to give the other person a divorce, life insurance money, and pregnancy. Yeah it is kind of creepy that the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder, frequently at the hands of the baby’s father—and some of these victims are married women (like Lacy Peterson), not just baby-mamas.

It is sad that some of the most crushing betrayals, callous abuses, and apathetic treatment of a person’s life may be perpetrated by the person who vowed to love, honor, and cherish them, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health as long as they both shall live. How much less sanctified could marriage get? It begs the question, What could gay people possibly do to taint marriage that straight people haven’t already done?

I’m not claiming that there aren’t good marriages out there, the sort that live up to all the hype about love and respect and partnership and don’t leave people miserable, betrayed, battered, or dead. I’m simply illustrating that marriage is not a perfect, pristine institution that is going to get its first blemish if homosexuals get to marry.

Now, if I found some willing guy we could head off to Vegas and be married before midnight and that would be completely legal (regardless of our blood alcohol levels or how long we’d known each other or our religious beliefs) and, according to the religious arguments I’ve heard, blessed by God—even if it was officiated by Elvis. But I’d like to imagine that if things were different and that my right to marry was in the hands of the voting public and a twitchy legislature more concerned with re-election than doing the right thing, that my rights as a citizen would be more important than caving to the prevailing religious belief. And, I would hope that other citizens could acknowledge my rights without having to approve of my lifestyle, like me, or even know me. But I guess that’s the problem with being a daydream believer. Who knew the Constitution was the impossible dream?

Conservative Republican, Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, recently told his staff he needed to clear his head and then disappeared for 7 days. Today, Sanford admitted he secretly flew to Argentina to visit a women he’d been having an extramarital affair with. During a press conference, Sanford resigned as President of the Republican Governor’s Association. Should Sanford also resign from being governor like Eliot Spitzer of New York did when he got caught cheating on his wife with a prostitute? Which is a worse offense to a marriage…Having a lengthy affair or having sex with a prostitute? Normally, I would say, “Sanford’s affair is between him and his wife, so leave them the hell alone.” But what bothers me most about Sanford is his hypocrisy. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Sanford voted for 3 of 4 articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton citing the need for “moral legitimacy.” Now that Sanford has been caught cheating, he suddenly seems to have a lower standard for himself.

I vacationed in Argentina recently and I can tell you first hand, the women down there really know how to tango. I even photographed some of the many great dance performances I was impressed with. Since I’m not married, I’m glad I don’t need to try and keep my trip a secret.  In fact, I had such a good time, I’m tempted to snow bird down there for a few months next winter. The American dollar currently goes very far in Argentina and exchanges for almost 4 pesos to 1. For example, It was easy to get a complete steak dinner at a restaurant for 12 pesos which is only about 3 dollars in American money.  Cab rides to most places in Buenos Aires are only about $2. As far as getting by with English goes, I had no problem. Most of the people I wanted to talk to spoke enough basic English for us to communicate. If I was married, I would definitely take my wife with me. With the great exchange rate, it would be easy to spoil her with nice hotels and amazing shopping opportunities.

Getting back to politics, while Mark Sanford was being romantic with his mistress, he probably kissed his shot at winning the next republican nomination for the presidency goodbye. I don’t think anyone wants a republican version of John Edwards running around. I guess the remaining contenders are Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. While Huckabee and Romney have many admirable qualities, I think Gingrich has the best chance of winning. Sorry to Sarah Palin fans- I’m glad she’s governor of Alaska because of her efforts to increase energy production (while the democrats aren’t doing enough to free us from Middle East oil), but even though Palin is charismatic and can do a great job delivering a speech, I think the presidency is out of her league.  Unlike Palin, Gingrich has vast depth of knowledge about complicated issues our country has to deal with and he constantly works on finding solutions.

As of this date, which republican politician would you prefer to see leading the ticket in 2012?

You can see more photos by Mountain Dude at www.dporterdvd.com

Yet another pearl of wisdom from the Obama Nation:

He proposed a plan to save the US Taxpayer 540 million dollars a year by making our Enlisted Men and Women carry PRIVATE health coverage! Then the dumb fuck is surprised that the outcry from Vets and people who actually LOVE this country and respect those who put their lives on the line so that we have the RIGHT to bitch about him being a fucking Douchebag.

I mean its a Voluntary Force after all, Right Barry? I know, Lets see if they can pony up for their own Tanks and Ammunition while you embrace the motherfuckers who want to see Americans burning in Hell?

Am I the ONLY person in the country that is ALREADY fed up with this Arabic Alfred E Newman knock off running a cheap Flea Market Circus in the White House?

Are you fuckers happy yet?

The Democratic National Committee and the media Propped a lying Novelty in front of the American public and they jumped on it like it was going to help get their sheets and colored laundry brighter and more shiney than EVER before.

You, as in the American Public, are the stupidest set of fucking retards on the planet because you fall for this shit over and over again. You were promised that 5 million people that were about to lose their homes would be helped by Novelty Presidential Candidate Obama.

In MAY 464,983 foreclosures occurred out of 3.2 million possible. 19,041were modified and saved from foreclosure. That is 15% foreclosed upon and a WHPPING 6% that weren’t. One quarter of those 19,000 actually had their payments GO UP!!

Literally for every ONE dollar saved by modifications, there are One hundred and Fifty Dollars lost to foreclosure because the parameters of the modifications that the Government will allow are not condusive to the reasons that people are behind in the mortgage to begin with.

You cannot get a loan modification if:
• You have lost your job
• You owe more than 5% above what your house is worth
• You are already in default
• You have not yet missed at least one payment
• Your lender does not want to participate
• Your mortgage is not one of the half of all mortgages insured or owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
• The reworked mortgage payment would come to more than 31% of your income
• Your mortgage is over $759,000
• The home is not your primary residence

Sweden’s Government actually BOUGHT the mortgages of their citizens that were in distress and reworked the payments to reflect what the owner COULD pay them. The people will have to pay the government back once the economy is mended or sell the house. If they do neither then of course the government would then foreclose of course. The Democrats will NEVER entertain this type of program since it would actually SOLVE the problem without any COST to the taxpayers or throwing money at their friends. THEY would be the ones foreclosing on the houses eventually instead of being able to blame the banks and proliferate the EVIL Corporations lie.

*Hint* have you heard another word from the Obama Nation about mortgages? I doubt that you will either.

Is this the kind of Change YOU can believe in?

Jokes made by David Letterman about Sarah Palin’s recent trip to New York have caused heated responses from Palin, her husband and her supporters.

In case you didn’t watch Letterman’s “Late Show,” here are the “Top 10 Highlights of Sara Palin’s Trip To New York City.”  10. Visited New York landmarks she normally sees from Alaska.  9. Laughed at all the crazy looking foreigners entering the U.N.  8. Made moose jerky on Rachael Ray.  7. Keyed Tina Fey’s car.  6. After a wink and a nod, ended up with a kilo of crack.  5. Made a coat out of New York city rat pelts.  4. Sat in for Kelly Ripa. Regis couldn’t tell the difference.  3. Finally met one of those Jewish people Mel Gibson’s always talking about. 2. Bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her slutty flight attendant look.  1. Especially enjoyed not appearing on Letterman.

Letterman also told jokes about Palin’s daughter. During his monologue, Letterman referred to Palin’s appearance at a Yankees game and joked, “There was an awkward moment in the 7th inning when Palin’s daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”

Letterman ended up apologizing to Palin. He also invited Palin and her husband to appear on his show. Do you think an apology was necessary?

I only thought 3 of Letterman’s jokes were funny and some of them were downright lame. But what really bothers me is the hypocrisy of the criticism by conservative media. On Fox T.V. today, conservative Republican, Laura Ingraham appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show and criticized Letterman for mocking and making fun of Palin. It seems to me, it wasn’t that long ago, when Ingraham was criticized for mocking and making fun of John McCain’s daughter. Conservative comedian Dennis Miller regularly appears on the O’Reilly show where he often mocks and makes fun of Democrat, Nancy Pelosi. And O’Reilly always cheers Miller on.

I must admit, I’m not a big fan of Sarah Palin. She’s way too conservative for me. I’m not a big fan of Nancy Pelosi either. She’s way too liberal. I’m glad the percentage of us independents is getting bigger. Perhaps if we had three political parties instead of the two lousy ones which have been ruining the country, we would be better off.

As far as political humor goes, newspaper cartoonists have been making fun of politicians for hundreds of years. What’s the big deal. We’re supposed to have freedom of speech. Humor about politicians often contains valid criticism and reveals certain truths an informed public should know about.

As long as politicians in both parties get roasted, I don’t see any threat to democracy. Letterman doesn’t just make jokes about Sarah Palin. I don’t watch him very often - But I’m sure I’ve heard him make jokes about Vice President Biden and other democrats. I prefer to watch Leno and he always makes jokes about the president, no matter what party is in the White House.

In fact, Leno still makes lots of jokes about Bill Clinton’s infidelity and George Bush’s lack of intelligence. And they are usually pretty funny… Nice try Dave.

You can see more photos by Mountain Dude at:  www.dporterdvd.com

With the stunning defeat of the Republican Party in the recent presidential and legislative elections, the party is yet to reshape itself into the party of the people. Republicans are a minority in both houses of congress and their numbers are likely to shrink once more with upcoming elections in 2010.

Every country needs a strong opposition party. The prowess of any country could be discerned from the strength of its opposition party. The government needs a strong opposition to keep it constantly on its toes and so the confusion within the beleaguered Republican Party should not be a cause for laughter-though the freely given source of laughter is an economic stress reliever.

In an era where partisan politics has hijacked the course of events, reward for loyalty the key to political success and where personal gain is the traceable footprint of many elected officials, voters can no longer afford to dice away the opposition party.

In one of the most historical campaign blunders, the Republican Party chose to fight unity with fear even with the voter’s obvious preference of unity over fear. The Republican Party has shown continued intransigence and disharmony on what policies to articulate, when to articulate them and how to navigate the political subtleties that have often backfired on the party. The party has ceased to be the party of NOW, but remains ever eager to announce it is still the party of YESTERDAY.

Unlike opposition parties in developing countries that suffer from government oppression, the Republican Party suffers from an identity complex. Policy articulation still baffles the GOP. For example, the party fails to distinguish small government from smart government. A small government strives to be small while the goal of a smart government is to stay smart.

This dissonance in articulation is reflected in the GOP’s stand on a host of issues including small tax and smart tax. Although the world rolls round and changes, the GOP still drags its feet and is yet to match the fast and changing dynamics of evolving social principles.

During recessions when many businesses are looking up to the government for mitigating policies, the Republican Party obstinately articulates limited government activity which is in contrast with public expectation.

The Republican Party has taken delight in highlighting terrorism over economic recovery. In times of economic prosperity, terrorism could become a decisive factor as people become more worried of losing anticipated pleasures. During hard economic times, people worry that their livelihood is gliding away.

As one of its peculiarities that it is yet to match the changing pace of time, the Republican Party still has a less than ideally defined role for women in the society. Within the party, equal pay for equal work is a silent taboo. While the treatment of women in other parts of the world or religions are viewed as abhorrent, the reference to women rights within the Republican Party is apparently a reference to better but limited rights-indicating that social evolution is still to attain an optimum progress.

Politics is a clash of ideologies. Ideological clashes often gives rise to a more resilient, dynamic and flexible political process. It is this clash that makes politics fascinating and the exclusion of moderate views prevents the occurrence of any clash and hence any fascination.

No one would dispute the fact that even the Republican platform might not have gone far enough for some people and that it might have gone too far for others. This is a tacit implication of the moderation of ideas and to deny this truth is to deny that politics is not a clash of ideologies. With some Republicans saying the Republican Party has only Republicans and no moderates, it makes one wonder if the party is engaged in a political process or religious adherence.

Conservatives are yet to define for themselves who makes a good representative. When Mike Huckabee a former Baptist Pastor was asked what Jesus would do about the death penalty, he said “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office.” In a sense, Mr. Huckabee was insinuating that religious faith is not a barometer for smart governance.

Quite ironically during his presidential campaign, Huckabee outfoxed his opponent Mitt Romney in Iowa because of his association with the Mormon faith. Despite dodging the question on death penalty which his faith, Christianity, literally condemns, the religious right still rallied behind him as their candidate in Iowa. To be a party of religious faith today and cease from it tomorrow makes the party look incoherent.

Today, the GOP does more to dig its internal problems than stress how the party’s platform and ideals are starkly different from those the democrats posit. Party discordance is a natural phenomenon which sometimes breeds formidable strategies. Unfortunately, the current disagreement within the Republican Party has not been confined to the party.

With little coordination of internal debates in the GOP, the media has adeptly filled up that vacuum by moving internal debates to acrimonious media sensations leaving the Democrats smiling ear to ear. The media has taken the role of providing the latest round of debates, stirring one controversy over another, and tossing the GOP around like a game of ping-pong.

Winning requires team work and team work comes from studious deliberations. The recent media outbursts portray a party that is inept and incapable of resolving conflicting ideologies through robust discussions. The party only comes across as quick to blame, but lacking the understanding to repair.

To be a sounding cymbal about anything going wrong only works if you do not make cries your main platform. The GOP is increasingly seen as the party to call attention and not the party to offer real solutions even to heal internal wounds.

As conservatives struggle to resurrect themselves and begin to broaden their conservative appeal they would have to accept the bitter truth that as time changes and with the world growing smaller, political ideologies can not afford to be indifferent. It is not the GOP’s message that seems to be the problem, but the GOP’s stubborn adherence to an ineffective way of conveyance, an articulation from several quarters so virulent that the GOP’s message is rendered disagreeable in every sense.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/NationalSecurity.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303824.html?hpid=topnews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_wo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyxWCNh-_FE

I live in Michigan, which I used to say proudly, and I am watching our elected officials tear this state apart. I will state up front that I have no respect for our governor, Jennifer Granholm, yet we as voters share the responsibility for re-electing her again. If you haven’t heard, she plans to make Michigan the next Hollywood. Which may be a good thing for all the unemployed people (over 12% now) who are thinking of changing their career path to include “movie extra.” But I digress. This is not the subject of this posting, but they are related.

Over the past several weeks, our newscasts have repeatedly covered stories about government layoffs; specifically teacher layoffs. This is not a new strategy for local governments looking to tighten the fiscal belt. In fact it’s a stragtegy that I think most people have accepted as “business as usual.” It bothers me that our children suffer the cost of our elected officials’ lack of fiscal responsibility. Can you think of a worst way to do business? That makes about as much sense as beating your child because you wrecked the car on the way to work. One has nothing to do with the other. If private enterprises were as fiscally irresponsible they would be in the same state of finacial ruin as…I don’t know…Gm and Chrysler maybe? We need to get government out of the education business.

It seems to me that the programs that suffer the greatest losses when the money gets tight are those that hit us the hardest. The cuts in this state usually start with the police force and teachers. Two of the most underpaid, thankless, yet undeniably crucial positions on the government payroll. If you want to understand why our education systems are failing, just look at the way government values its teachers. Why would any sane, educated person want to become a teacher, or police officer for that matter? The fact is, the good teachers are in it for the “love of the game.” Hats off to those that have chosen the profession for reasons nobler than a government paycheck. Our education system would be in worse shape if it wasn’t for dedicated teachers.

Our government would like you to believe there is no alternative to public education; that private schools and home schooling are too expensive for the average Joe. It’s kind of ironic that the same government has no problem strapping over one trillion dollars of taxes to our back. The same government that tells us our school systems can’t afford new books, gives GM and Chrysler $15 billion combined to keep them afloat not knowing if they can sustain themselves. During the election campaign all we heard about was better education for our kids and affordable tuition. How many scholarships could have been paid for by the $16 billion tax dollars that Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan-Chase sent overseas for new loans and investments. By comparison, figuring an average teacher’s salary at $32,000, one billion dollars will pay the salary of 31,250 teachers for a year. Our government has given away 31 years worth of teacher’s salaries to businesses that might fail. I guess our leadership must have gone to government schools if they can find logic in that. Here in Michigan, the Detroit School District has been struggling for years. Partially due to the fact that the tax base is leaving Detroit, but mostly due to the corruption within the system. Schools are sorely in need of repair, several will be shuttered, and again the students will be punished for the sins of the few. They will pay with over-crowded classrooms and over-worked teachers. What a great way to insure the education of this, and future, generations.

People will argue that the government owes their children a “free education.” There is nothing free about it. Besides taxes, Michigan’s lottery system has generated over 3.5 billion dollars for the School Aid Fund in the last 5 years alone. Don’t forget the Bingo nights, candy sales, and booster clubs to name a few more. All payed by the taxpayer. And who do we have to complain to when we don’t get our money’s worth? The government. What a great business model. The same authority that mandates the taxes to go to their schools, creates the guidelines to measure the success of the schools. I’m going to try that. From this day forward, compared to myself, I am a genius. I like it! What this does in reality, however, is create a no-win situation for students. Let’s face it. Unless students are motivated, goal-oriented self-starters, they will receive nothing more than the bare minimum to pass. If students can’t handle that, the school system doesn’t have the time or resources to help; unless, of course, you conveniently fall into one of the “special needs” categories that the government can tax us for.

I believe the government wants schools to fail. If they truly didn’t they would not be in their current state of dishevelment. To put it bluntly, the less educated our students become, the easier it will be to grow nosensical ideas and create a more dependent society. The government has created its own captive audience. Better schools, home schooling, and inteligence are the are the bane of dependency. If we become smarter, pesky little critters like constitutionality, free speech, and individualism will end up cluttering the tracks of the Collective Express. You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you desire, but I think of myself more as a common sense theorist.

The bottom line is this. I truly believe that education is key. Good education, not so-called free (or affordable) education. Education that inspires, rather than enslaves them. Education founded on integrity rather than agendas.  Our kids deserve more.