Misinformation... BOO!

Happy Halloween everyone! I hope you are all able to go out and enjoy some spooks and scares. I debated with myself about whether to share some musings about past Halloween's and some nice anecdotes about the holiday, or if I should address something truly scary!

Misleading Information (Dum dum duhhhhmmmm...)

Partisan Politics (Dah Daaaahhhhhh....)

and, Election Surprises (Eeeeeeeekkkkk!!!!)

Just a couple days ago the good people at Politicususa.com posted an article sharing irrefutable evidence that the economy is always awesome under Democratic presidents, and that it (almost) always stinks under the rule of Republicans.

Of course anyone who has paid a sliver of attention to the economy for more then 5 years can look at their primary graphic and know that there is something fishy going on. Take a look at the Bureau of Labor statistics for private job growth and you will find out that shock! The numbers don't say that. Going from inauguration to inauguration their creation rates should be Bush (-80K/year) and Obama (+1100K/year). Far from the rates implied in the graphic.

Now don't get me wrong, these still aren't numbers that I would brag about, but it does lead you read the fine print on the graphic. They are measuring based on their budget years, not the time they are actually in office, creating a lag of several months from a presidents inaguaration (February) to the end of the budget year (October). For the Bush v. Obama example, things were not good those first several months of the Obama presidency, the debate will go on for years about how quickly and positively President Obama's policies impacted our recovery from that recession.

This specific manipulation of data isn't totally unjustified, though. It takes some time for an entering administration to get their house in order and begin to make changes, and then for those changes to have some effect.

While political economy models can get quite sophisticated and complicated and may entail a wide variety of not so obvious 'tweaks' and not so realistic assumptions to massage data to make a point (exactly what I am arguing here, btw) the idea of economic inheritance can be boiled down to adding together two major yet simple points. The first, already noted, is that there is a lag in the economy. There is an inertia or continuity in the economy that carries forward from one fiscal year to the next and that does not get disrupted so suddenly by a change in administration.

Some of you may be rolling your eyes right now, "Blame Bush!" I appear to be saying. I said there was some inertia, but I think the discussion has to be in the frame of months, not years. When the Obama administration declared 'Recovery Summer!' in 2010 and proceeded to create a few hundred thousand jobs after we had lost millions and spent trillions to get them back. That is the definition of a failed plan.

There is a clear break, however, in the argument of blaming someone for a downturn and blaming someone for how they responded to it. It is this second point that holds the key to voters perception of how Presidents handle the economy that allows for close elections when all the massaged numbers in presented show that Democrats are such clear champions of jobs and economic growth.

I'm getting a little long winded, feel free to take a break and grab a soda... You good? Okay, because here is the crux of my argument

*official onset of a recession as defined by the National. Bureau of Economic Research

The economies inherited by each of the new Republican presidents from their Democratic predecessors in this post World War 2 era had gone into recession within the year leading up to the parties’ change in stewardship. Don't believe me? Well here is my not so pretty graph to prove my point. Provided by the University of Buffalo Political Science department.

For those of you familiar with concepts like Okin's Law, recessions typically lead to job loss. If we accept the data from PoliticusUSA that there is a lag, then is it such a stretch to point out that what happens during that lag can be factored into our conclusions as well?

What is the main point you can gleam off this data? The 2 second sound bite would be "Democratic Presidencies lead to recessions". I'm going to try and be a little more polite in my assessment and say that the criteria for a Republican to get elected president is different then it is for a Democrat to be elected president. This truth extends well beyond how the economy is doing from one quarter to the next. If it were simply a numbers game then it would be a matter of who can dump the most money into an economy that would lead to jobs. 

It's a bait statistic to say Democrats create more jobs, because to say that no they don't is 1). In the most direct interpretation inaccurate, 2). because Republicans are more about creating free and fair economic opportunity. They promote low debts, low taxes, and removing the barriers that may prevent people from creating a new enterprise, and 3). a concession against the old argument that government does not create jobs. 

One can also look at the above data and say Democrats care more about how they can prop you up. Typically, when these types stimulus, jobs programs, and short term infrastructure programs end, such as the case may be during an administrative change, there is a hole left that only continued government 'tinkering' with economic factors such as investment can sustain. This line of reasoning also ties in greatly with ideas of dependency that frequently is brought up in election year debates.

Jobs for the sake of jobs is not a fair benchmark to measure such approaches, if you don't care how a job is being funded or how that job came about. Sure, Democratic administrations appear to have an edge, if you care about sustainability and not having government be a requirement for your economic prosperity, the data above helps with that argument. 

And of course, there are other factors, who controls congress, how much debt is involved, what was the unemployment rate going in. If I asked who had lower unemployment on average during their presidency, George W. Bush or John F. Kennedy, who would you guess? What about Clinton v. Nixon? (The republican in both cases, but again, these numbers are horribly misleading)

I've exhausted enough of the limited internet space and most readers attention span, The final conclusion I want you to be able to draw from this is no conundrum to begin with as to why Democrats aren't considered the champions of job creation. Republicans fare about as well as Democrats in presidential elections over a long enough span because the economic records of Republican presidents were about equal to those of Democratic presidents once short term inherited economic conditions are taken into account. It's the methodology and principles behind the numbers that drive most voters as the observable results, at least in the short term, tend to be the same.

You can omit key factors or twist facts all day long, but if the outcome of such contorted data seems to make you wonder why there isn't a clearer result come election time, there is a pretty fair chance that there is something frighteningly misleading about that data.

That's it, I'm off my soap box for the day, now gimme some candy!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN EVERYONE!!

Why We Don't Have a Surgeon General

What do you do when you can't even get your own party to support you? Well, if you are on the left in todays political climate, the answer is you blame the other guys.

Almost a year ago, Harry Reid called for a vote to repeal the Senate rule of needing a 60 vote majority to break a filibuster, the dreaded nuclear option. Since then, the senate has only needed 50 votes with Vice President Biden casting a tie breaker in order to get just about any nomination confirmed in the senate.

Sure, there was a small flood of nominees that began to get confirmed in the immediate wake of this historic move, but you knew it would only be a matter of time before Democrats would start needing excuses again as to why nothing is getting done.

Enter Ebola, the lethal disease that is presently trying to get a foothold on the U.S. soil. With levels of paranoia being high the attacks rooted in the lack of leadership and clarity coming out of the White House in addressing yet another global crisis have started anew. And just as predictably as Manning calling an 'Omaha' play for the Broncos, the Democrats have done everything they can to blame anyone but themselves.

This meme from Daily KOS is an example of how they reflect their failures back onto Republicans.

The meme is correct, with a potential health threat staring us down, we could use a surgeon generals office that has more then a 'vacancy' sign on the door. But, if reading this meme makes you think back to the second paragraph of this post, congratulations, you have a better memory then most politicians.

Harry Reid does not need permission from republicans or the NRA to bring this vote to the floor, all he needs is 50 of his 55 (including 2 independents caucusing with) democrat senators to vote for the President's nomination.

Take a look at the example of Debo Adegbile. A nominee to head the Justice Departments Civil Rights division. He was lambasted as an extremist by conservative groups by noting his long history with the NAACP and dredging up stories from a trial in which he represented a cop killer in Philadelphia. Harry called for a vote thinking that a behind the doors campaign directed at his own party would keep the democratic detractors low enough to get the nominee through. 

It didn't work, and Democrats felt an embarrassing blow that not has turned into an fumbling attempt to still blame republicans for something that had bi-partisan opposition. 

Harry now knows better, he knows the President, for becoming more and more obvious reasons, chose a nominee that can not get confirmed, nuclear option or not. That reason is to keep the best attack line democrats have going for them intact. That it is republicans in congress that are impeding the hope and change that was promised 6 years ago. That it's republicans that are the reason the administration is fumbling and bumbling responses with indecisiveness and a 'wait and see'  mentality to almost every event that occurs. 

To summarize, this is one of the scariest times, justifiable or not, that we have faced when it comes to public health. The position of power that should be leading a response both in action and public perception is currently filled by nobody. The reason that there is nobody there is because the one and only person who has been nominated for the position in the past year can not get enough DEMOCRAT support to get approved. The reason why the democrats have not changed nominees or called for a vote, both actions within their power, is specifically so they can continue to blame republicans.

Think about this logically and you almost laugh at how stupid it is, see more memes about blaming republicans and you realize how gullible some people can be into believing these lies.

The New Way A Bill Becomes A Law

Gone are the days of a Bill simply standing there on Capitol Hill. Please use the following chart as a reference on how law is made now. Thank you.

Someone Should Call the Cops

Syria is using chemical weapons, Russia is re-establishing the USSR, China is disputing Japanese claims to waters in the South China Sea, and even Iran has warships en route to our shores.

It reads like the introduction to a superhero movie, or an episode of 24, or a summary of the entire plot of Team America: World Police.

There is only one small problem, Team America does't appear to want to be the World Police anymore.

Since World War II, the United States has assumed the position 'guarantor of world order' and the 'enforcer of global rules'. Whenever a threat to world peace or stability has emerged such as in 1991 Kuwait or 1998 Kosovo or 2002 Afghanistan or even the 'lead from behind' route taken in 2011 Libya. In any of these instances, if the U.S. had not acted, nothing would have been done to combat tyrants and terrorists.

That argument that it is the responsibility for the United States to take action has hit a roadblock. The American people are not interested in playing that role any more. In truth, Americans have never been enthusiastic about assuming the burden of global leadership. We didn't get into World War I until the final year of war. We entered World War II only after we were bombed by the Japanese two years after the war started. And especially after the Vietnam conflict, it is hard for the American people to take an interest in the affairs of other nations.

This is reflected in the political standings of our politicians too. Democrats are quicker to abdicate this responsibility to international groups such as the UN. Where as the Republican party has been historically up to the task of being the muscle in foreign policies. Now, the political landscape is shifting on the Republican's side, where ever louder subsets of libertarians and tea party members promote policies that include limited government and non-intervention all the way to reducing our global military presence. 

In all of this we are trying to answer one fundamental question; Is it in our best interests to expend our resources to promote our agenda in other countries? The resolve of one who believes in the blanketing 'You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone' is tested greatly when we see a democratic republic like the Ukraine invaded by an embolden President Putin. The fear of the such a large portion of the globe falling into a limited number of ruling countries is a valid fear that has lead America into almost every prior war. The person who wants to accept the duty of being the worlds police and draw a line in the sand must be prepared to defend that line with capital of money and blood. 

For years we enjoyed the relative peace of a world that did not question the U.S.'s resolve to stand up for democracy and against tyranny in all forms, so long as certain criteria are met. We paid it forward in World War II and other battles, but our copiousness of respect appears to be running on empty.

  

What is, then, the correct answer? The current establishment's stance is easy enough to figure out. Cut the military, take no action in Syria, and threaten to not attend a G8 shin dig if Russia doesn't stop expanding their empire. Until the next election cycle we are not going to answer the 911 calls of the world anymore. In my opinion, this is one of the stupidest things we could allow to happen. The unfortunate thing about the Ukraine take over is that it is too late. Ukraine is not in the EU, they are not a member of NATO, we have no direct ties that would allow us to take a any tangible stance to stop Russia from doing exactly what it is that they are doing. Foreign policy is a chess match and Putin just placed us in check. Chalk this one up to failing to see this coming, despite the warnings of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney during the last 2 presidential election cycles. This was nothing more then a brazen lack of foresight, and a weak foreign policy stance from our President.

America's roll for the next generation may be decided in the next few weeks. Our next move needs to be one that is proactive that places Russia back on the defensive. Establish new and public trade partnerships with former block countries that are practicing democracy and promote more policies that allow countries like Georgia, Belarus, and Romania to become independently wealthy and more appealing to EU or NATO membership. Then, we need to start promoting non-American-centric alliances, such as the African Union. Despite it's flaws, that union provides the avenue for regions to be more self policing and will, over time, alleviate the burden that we currently bear too much of. But, the most important policy change that we can implement that would prevent such an emboldened move from occurring again? Stop punting on enforcement of items that we have already stated our stance on. Case and point, Syria. He stated clearly that the use of chemical weapons was not to be tolerated, he stated clearly that we have proof that Syria was in fact using chemical weapons. Our response to date? Nothing, we allow ourselves to be stone walled and played for fools. No doubt to the chagrin of allies like Japan, South Korea, and Israel, who are largely dependent on us to deter action from countries like China, North Korea, or Iran. 

That is my conclusion, the end game needs to be a world that relies much less on us to take direct action, but we are making wrong move after wrong move to achieve anything even close to such a world. We can neither make one single sweeping move to suddenly become spectators in the world and abdicate our duties that we have already signed onto, nor can we continue in perpetuity the ever increasing cost of becoming a formidable fighting force for not only ourselves but scores of other countries.

Is it a thin line to follow? Yes. It will require some scale ups and scale downs periods of our military forces by region over time, a couple decades to get to a point where we have a powerful central force located within our borders and several quick response teams designed to work in conjuncture with a pacific alliance groups and European alliance groups. At this time, however, we have established that we are dangerously far off that line to the side of spectator, it is time to swing back to the side of being the worlds police until we can get the international structure needed to allow the proper winding down of our duties as a nation who has taken on too many responsibilities in the world.

The NSA makes me as mad as...

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

We aren't talking about dips into the grey area of the law either, these are violations that fly in the face of both the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Courts very lenient interpretation of current law, and breaking rules that where established specifically through Executive Orders. They range from blatant violations of citizens legal rights to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls that in several instances where never reported to congress. 

Couple these infractions with FISA officials stating that these programs are near impossible to grant appropriate oversight to and you have an underbelly part of this government that is so dark that even Al Sharpton won't march for it.

This story, as appalling as it is, is nothing new. I could rant here for pages and pages, but you can already guess what I would say, most of you only read this for my delightful euphemisms, so let's just skip straight to the chase.

The NSA makes me as mad as...

• Waking up on the wrong side of a bed that over looks a cliff.
• Reboot movies that come out 5 years after the franchise 'ended'.
• Being charged for uneaten food on my plate at the all you can eat sushi buffet after you realize that it's day old day.
• Giving Pepsi Max a try, only to realize that it tastes exactly the same as Diet Pepsi.
• The Alanis Morissette song 'Ironic'. Cause it's not that ironic.
• People who where slacks to work on Friday irregardless of casual Friday dress codes.
• People who correct people for using the word 'irregardless'.
• Ray Lewis, he knows why.
• Unrated DVD releases that have no nudity.
• Calling a missile shield a shield when it's really just a bunch of missiles going the other way.

...and of course...

• Getting spied on by your government, then being told that I'm not getting spied on, then finding out that indeed I have been spied on, then being told that it's not that bad, then being told it's actually much worse then what I was told, then being told to trust them, then being told nothing cause apparently I'm overreacting and am supposed to move on to other things that are supposed to upset me like Rodeo Clowns. 

Which reminds me...

• Rodeo Clowns, they know why.

Superhero Solutions to Today's Problems

Here is a fun exercise that at best could be called a fun activity for hard core comic book geeks and at worst be called a sick exploitation of human suffering. Choose the best hero to solve the problems and the crisis' that have befallen the people of the United States and the World over the past few months. Let's say 'lighten up' to the harsh critics while including a little extra element to make things interesting, choose the best Marvel and DC character and then have them slug it out for the title of BEST COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE TO SOLVE ALL OF OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS:


Nightmare 1: Boston Bombing
The Flash(DC) - One of the most coveted races on the planet, of course the fastest man alive is going to take some time out of his day to partake. But, given that the Flash travels at several times the speed of light, you figure that he will be kicked back in a lawn chair sipping mai-tais by the four hour point that marked the beginning of the devastation. So, when the first bomb goes off, you figure Barry Allen wouldn't even have had time to react. Perhaps assisting in getting the most harmed to medical care quickly, but little to prevent the catastrophe.
Wolverine(Marvel) - Circumstances that would result in both Logan strolling down a heavily populated metro area and that the pressure cooker bombs weren't made in completely sterile environment withstanding, you'd have to envision that Wolverine would sniff out something smelling funny, and potentially leaping on one of the bombs just before it exploded saving many from the terrible real life fate while causing him and his adamantium body only brief damage. Or at the very least tracing the residue on the Tsarnaev brothers, bringing them to justice without the need of a city lockdown.


Winner: Wolverine - Marvel 1, DC 0

Nightmare 2: West, Texas fertilizer explosion
Bishop(Marvel) - On sight moments before a huge fireball engulfs the small Texas town, Bishop absorbs the energy of the blast and redirects it in a fantastic light display with a beam of energy that shoots into the heavens.
Starfire(DC) - Seeing her Marvel counterpart so effortlessly absorb and dissipate the force of the blast, Starfire prepares to do the same. Only when it's too late does she realize that her ability to absorb energy is limited to the sun, causing her to be engulfed in the explosion, only slightly lessening the devastation of West.

Winner: Bishop - Marvel 2, DC 0

Nightmare 3: Benghazi Attacks

Batman(DC) - Safely tucked away in his Bat-Cave, Bruce Wayne would see the scenario play out and find a way to over ride any orders to stand down coming from Washington. All the while leaving his role as puppet master a mystery to those on the ground in either location.
Iron Man(Marvel) - Throwing caution to the wind, Tony Stark would dawn his armor and violate several sovereign nations airspace to save his fellow man. Credited with saving several lives at the expense of destroying what little good will is lent his way from the administration, a new era of bureaucratic warfare would commence between Stark Industries and the White House that even Col. Rhodes won't touch with a ten foot poll.

Winner: Batman - Marvel 2, DC 1

Nightmare 4: Super Storm Sandy
Storm(Marvel) - Ascending to the heavens with blazing white eyes, Storm calms the waters and stems the tides with a simple thought and the Jersey Shore goes on as though nothing had happened.
Red Tornado(DC) - Seeing the massive storm approach New England, Red Tornado summons an ever BIGGER storm, ripping buildings off of their foundation before pushing super storm Ted ('T' following 'S') off of the coast and consuming Sandy. Three days later, Italy, Syria and Iran and all countries to our east that were in the wake of Mondo Storm Ted try and figure out how they came to be drenched with 40 feet of rain and gale force winds.

Winner: Storm  - Marvel 3, DC 1

Nightmare 5: Syrian Chemical Warfare
Superman(DC) - Meeting the requirements of a being that would not be effected by chemical warfare, the last son of Krypton, with with loving sternness of a parent catching their child's hand in the cookie jar, ends the violence, gets both parties to the negotiating table, and grabs all the stockpiled chemical weapons, including Iran's and North Korea's Nukes for good measure, and hurls them into the sun.
Thor(Marvel) - His Asgardian blood also proving immune to the effects of sarin gas, Thor proceeds to smite those who would do harm. Though for some reason a white European invading their land claiming to be God only infuriates and causes typically peaceful Syrians to take to arms. Several other middle eastern countries soon join the hoard and begin targeting other nations just as Thor is called back home by Odin.

Winner: Superman  - Marvel 3, DC 2

Nightmare 6: Killing Bin Laden
Captain America(Marvel) - Being charged with bringing justice to America's #1 most wanted, Captain America valiantly charges the secret compound, systematically taking out Bin Laden's goons and grasps the so called 'man' himself just as he cracks his suicide pill, thwarting the All-American hero's efforts to bring him to justice alive. Though America and the world rejoices, the pain of failing to present him to officials to answer to war crimes is forever perceived by Steve Rogers as a defeat.
Lobo(DC) - Awakened by the sound of gun fire and maniacal laughter, Bin Laden runs to the window to see the universes most hardened bounty hunter crashing through his compound. Quickly realizing that he has little time, he reaches for his vial of suicide pills, but before his panicked fingers can open the child proof lid, Lobo crashes through his door, grabbing Bin Laden like a rag doll, snapping his arm instantly before any easy way out is obtained. Months later, the severed head of the Al Queda leader is delivered by courier to the Presidents office with instructions on where to send his payment.

Winner: Lobo  - Marvel 3, DC 3

TIE BREAKER ROUND!

Nightmare 7: Financial Cliff
Lex Luthor(DC) - The Country is at peace after a mysterious plane explosion causes the death of the sitting President and several prominent senators known for their outspokenness. Immediately followed by the elected Vice President appointing businessman Lex Luthor as his new Vice President moments before keeling over from a heart attack of unknown origins. Congress quickly relinquishes control of all fiscal policy to the executive branch. Trillions of dollars are quickly reallocated to a top secret program simply called 'Doomsday'. Running the national deficit to 50 Trillion dollars by the end of Lex's first of eight presidential terms.
Magneto(Marvel) - In a demonstration of superiority over man kind, Ian McKellin, I mean Max Eisenhardt, raises an eyebrow and draws out millions of tons of gold and precious metals that was buried deep in the earth. Allowing America to return to a gold standard backed by tangible assets that quickly normalizes money markets, pays off all debt held in America, and preserves the power of the dollar for generations to come. Ron Paul salutes Ian, I mean Magneto, and returns to his home planet.

Winner: Magneto - Marvel 4, DC 3

Marvel Wins! Just like the comics of the early 90's, Marvel proves to be a much more practical and peaceful universe to be a part of. Keep your kids, Krypton. Stay in your cave, Batman. When it comes to saving the real world, I'll take anything that is concocted in Stan Lee's brain any day!

What Studying A College Can Teach Us

Bowdoin College, an elite university located in Maine that has an acceptance rate of only 16% of its applicants, has recently found itself the nexus of a massive influx of controversy.

…And it’s all because its president talked down the wrong person.

The pre-bought face-off came in the form of a friendly game of golf between Bowdoin's President Barry Mills and a philanthropist/investor named Thomas Klingenstein, though it is unclear precisely how heated the driver wielding dialogue got, it evidently distressed Mills enough that he delivered the first real swing when he decided to mention a particularly unpleasant golfing partner who’d interrupted his backswing to spout racist platitudes.

Shockingly, Klingenstein found this response galling. As part of his repose and counter punch, Klingenstein decided to commission researchers to do an academic report on Bowdoin’s culture, both academically and on campus, to see just what the college was teaching its students. The result was a 355 page report by the group National Association of Scholars that systematically broke down Bowdoin’s entire culture and worldview with extreme candor.

Plenty of information and insight can be gleaned from this reports, from bizarre and horribly slanted seminars to op-eds written by the school presidents suggesting how students should vote in elections. Reading through the report makes one thing pretty apparent. Academics at this school is about lecturing, not engaging.

Shock and horror about this report will be on display in the conservative circles, and plenty of dismissals will occur on the opposing side. The irony that some people will undoubtedly use this as a reason to attack their political foes is not lost on me. Also, the fact that I'm writing an opinion piece on this whole topic makes me chuckle a little. But, what is the typical person who didn't go to this school, or, such as myself, someone who went to a different school that had some, but not overwhelming biases, take from this story? My take is that discourse in school is threatened.

Society is becoming polarized, duh, so it only makes sense that some of that spill over into our education system. Perhaps that is even the source of some of our public discourse. I'm sure a great essay could be written about the man who learned everything about life from school having a conversation about the man who learned everything about life from church, perhaps another day. For now, I'm stating that the education is becoming defined as the imparting of knowledge. That sounds reasonable, right? Keep reading.

Take a moment, close your eyes, and picture the perfect college lecture setting. Is the professor behind a podium going on and on about a topic, fielding few if any questions, laughing at his own jokes about dissenters and how foolish they are? I hope not, I've had classes like that, I referred to them as snooze times. Or, do you see a professor walking out in front of their podium, asking an open-ended question, waiting for a response, then engaging and challenging a student? Playing the eternal protagonist to whatever position is brought up first, until another student assumes that role and the professor can become little more than a moderator, infusing facts into the conversation and making sure it stays on topic and civil. I've had classes like that as well, luckily I was well rested for them.

In a time where opinions are everywhere and facts fall to the wayside, the true charge of a college isn't to spill knowledge into one's brain, we have Google for that, it's not to make a student to absorb an abundance of perspective, we have Fox News and MSNBC for that. The challenge for our colleges, and our education system as a whole is to get our young people to think for themselves. The definition of education is, and should always be, learning how to learn.

What Do They Have in Common?

Remember all the fun late night comics had over the Senator from Idaho who did a little toe tap in a Twin City restroom and was laughed out of office. Well get this, he's back in hot water for using campaign funds to cover his more then $200,000 defense fee. His lawyers argued that using campaign money for a legal defense over his 2007 arrest was proper because, wait for it, he was arrested while on official business. Not to be confused with getting his business done, officially.

Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho, was arrested during a sting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Craig used a bathroom there during a layover, when an undercover officer said Craig sexually solicited him by tapping his foot. Craig had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor but after his case became public he tried to renege. Now, the Federal Elections Commission is suing him for using more than $216,000 in campaign money for that legal fight.

The Judge overseeing the suit, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, reminded Craig of his prior guilty plea. Referring to his statement 'That had no connection to his duties, other than being in an airport,' and citing a letter that was written by Craig and his lawyers to the Senate Ethics Committee in 2007 describing Craig's arrest and conviction as 'purely personal conduct unrelated to the performance of official Senate duties.'

Compare this case to others like former Democratic California Rep. Gary Condit, who used more than $100,000 in campaign funds for attorneys during a 2001 police investigation into missing intern Chandra Levy. New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel used more than $300,000 from his political action committee to pay attorneys during a 2009-2010 House ethics investigation. Former Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney used more than $100,000 in campaign funds to pay attorneys during a 2007 ethics investigation.

Republicans soliciting sex? Democrats skipping out on paying taxes? The only thing these politicians seem to be able to agree on is that they hate paying lawyers out of their own pocket. A sentiment that I can wholly get behind, especially when you consider that there are far more lawyers then any other profession in congress.  

You Can't Spend Your Way Out of This

This past Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that says that the budget deficit will grow through 2023 and it states that it will eventually require the government to raise taxes, reduce benefits and services, or undertake some sort of combination of the two. Here is the kicker, these steps will be needed just to cover the interest payments.

You know that point when you have a mortgage or student loans, you've been making your payments, painful as they may be from month to month, then look at your end of the year statement and realize the principal isn't going down. That all the money you've put into these payments are just for the interest. The country is starting to get that way.

The CBO projects that interest rates on the Ten-Year Treasury Note will rise from 2.1 percent currently, to 5.2 percent in 2017. A mix of every bond ratings declining and the fed continuing to eat most of the free market action on bonds has helped keep this rate artificially low for some time, but the CBO is projecting that these rates will not stand over the next 5 years. Since the government usually pays no more then the interest in it's debt anyway, and is still borrowing at ridiculous levels, our payments to service the debt, a topic getting not nearly enough explanation during the fiscal cliff crisis, will go up... by a lot.

In December, the Treasury Department reported that total interest bearing debt owed by the government carried an interest rate of 2.5 percent. FY2012’s interest payments on our debt was in the neighborhood of $360 billion. If interest rates overall reflect the CBO’s forecast for the benchmark, these interest payments alone will clear the $1 Trillion mark by 2017. At which point we will be spending more on debt then on education, or welfare, or even national defense. It would also equal about the amount of money we have to borrow now to just make it though a fiscal year.

What an odd coincidence that Obama will be out of office at the end of 2016. But, like a first divorcee of a gold digger, we get stuck paying off the bill for this multi-year shopping spree. Leaving us with the choice of paying our obligations to our debt, or spending money on frivolous things like Social Security or Medicare. 

Couple this very predictable crisis with the possibility of dipping into another recession if the can-kicked sequester on defense spending proceeds and the economy doesn't see a turn around in the next, oh, lets say, three to five hours. Another recession and more spending could also push us into more bond rating trouble, which could push the 5.2 percent guesstimation of the CBO even higher, causing even higher payments, well, you can see how this can go from horrible to downright cataclysmic if everything doesn't go according to plan.

Or, the more likely route, the fed will continue to buy up bonds with this magical invisible stockpile of money they have. Shoring up Social Security and Medicare as they start to pay out more then they take in in the trillions. All the while this is used as an excuse to raise tax rates and come up with new things to pay tax on, (Internet Tax?) while never addressing the real problem, that this government (note that I'm not singling out the president) has a significant spending problem.

Secretary of State Candidates

With all the news of Newtown, Benghazi, and the fiscal cliff flooding the news, who has time to research the candidates to fill in for outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Now that Ambassador Rice has bowed out of the competition, who has the time to look into who may be stepping up to replace her? I'll tell you who has the time! I DO! Here is a list of the front runners for the job, along with some dark horses.

The Candidates for Secretary of State:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Acceptance Response - "I'm just a scared little boy from out of town, and I'll do anything to be in the national spotlight"

Favorite Color -Ohio Blue
Favorite Hobby - Voting for bills, and then voting against them
Best Qualification - Met with several foreign dignitaries over lunch back in '04, but he can't tell you their names. But man, where they ever impressed by him.
Resume - Senior Senator from Massachusetts. The Home state of Scott Brown, senate hopeful in 2013.



National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon
Acceptance Response - "Let me guess, you couldn't find anyone better?"
Favorite Color - Pink Slip Pink
Favorite Hobby - Eliminating Competition
Best Qualification - Recommended Amb. Rice be appointed World Bank President and removed from Secretary of State competition way before she was ran out of the running, now he backs Samantha Power for Secretary of something-something not the job he wants.
Resume - Graduated from the Catholic University of America, yes, this place exists... , currently on Review Team for new Secretary of State.


NSC official Samantha Power
Acceptance Response - "Free Tibet!"
Favorite Color - Luck of the Irish Green
Favorite Hobby - Protesting
Best Qualification - Has been with Obama since nearly the beginning of his National career, that's right, 7 long years.
Resume - Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs. Yeah, we have no idea what that means either.



Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
Acceptance Response - "I think I can squeeze that in."
Favorite Color - Dark Horse Candidate Black
Favorite Hobby - Skirting around his tax bill
Best Qualification - A Black, Muslim, politician who doesn't pay his taxes. What more do you want?
Resume - See above.




Fmr. President Bill Clinton
Acceptance Response - "Hot Digidy!"
Favorite Color -Stained Dress White
Favorite Hobby - Turning off the Air Conditioner and seeing how long it takes for a bead of sweat to run from your neck to your butt crack
Best Qualification - That Slick Willy Charm
Resume - Too loaded to be brought down to the level of Secretary of State.





ObamaBot
Acceptance Response - "Yes, I can"
Favorite Color -Black and White, but never Grey
Favorite Hobby - None
Best Qualification - $347 Billion worth of stimulus funds went in to Obama-Bots design, construction was outsourced.
Resume - About the same as Obama's back in '08

Perfect Republican Candidate

One last 'hurrah' post about the election, then I promise to go back to my hilarious critics of politics as is, instead of politics as they could have been.

Last Month, the country rejected a candidate with an impeccable business resume, citing that he was out of touch and un-charismatic. They also looked down the bench of candidates, from Donald Trump to Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann to Rick Santorum. While many would regale us with stories of their poetic upbringings, none could convince the masses that they encompassed the America dream of opportunity.

Let's take a step back, the Republicans speak of a country where anyone can make it if they work hard, that to persevere in this country you have to be tough and humble, but lack a candidate that has actually lived it. They need someone who has a great "Only in America" story, an organic charm about them, and not just a pretty face. Heck, loose the pretty face all together, look where that got John McCain.

The question is, who will rise into the Republican nomination that can appeal to minorities, a true rag to riches story, one who is charismatic in front of a camera, can deliver a line that captures the attention of a nation, and preferably is from a major swing state... I got it! <Mouse Over Image to Find out Who It Is!>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Cooler Quiz

Election Results - Stage 4: Depression

Time to bust out the Hagen-Daiz and other all American foods that people gorge on to drown their sorrows.

STAGE 4: DEPRESSION

"If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." -Jay Leno

The most recognizable of all the grief stricken. You mock those in denial, you avoid those in anger, you judge those who try and bargain there way out of a situation, but most people have a spot in their hearts for their fellow men and woman who are truly depressed.

It's best to just let them be. If you confront them, the reaction will go something like, "What are you people doing here? Shouldn't you be out celebrating, because... evidently... you don't listen to anything I say!". If you must confront one, perhaps to ask for a cup a sugar from your neighbor who has a fading Romney/Ryan sign in their yard, don't back them into a corner. Offer them a way out. Perhaps a low lying window out the side of the house. Unless you want to see some waterfalls, it's best to just let them be.

Should you come across one of these voters that bleed 'red state' red and they are already sobbing, try offering them one of the flyers you got in the mail to help them wipe their tears, or one of the millions of fake ballots cast for Obama to blow their nose. Lend a sympathetic ear as they dribble on about how Obama-Care will destroy us all, or how the Deficit will crush our economy, simply nod and smile, because, deep down you all know it's true! Sorry, sorry, I need a minute...

While I wallow back and forth within the early stages of my personal grief, feel free to wallow with me. If you are one of the lucky ones that have finished shaking your head in disbelief, shaking your fist in anger, writing your petitions to get out of the whole deal, and shedding your tears, feel free to move on to the final stage; Acceptance.

Stage 1: Denial
Stage 2: Anger
Stage 3: Bargaining

$5.7 Trillion Timebomb

The Republicans have sworn to never raise taxes, the Democrats believe in a balanced approach and asking the rich a little bit more. What is a compromise that finally makes both sides buckle? The very one that they already passed into law.

Nobody Wins...

Nobody wanted it, most people agree it could bring our already sluggish economy to a screeching halt, yet there is little in the way of stopping it from taking full effect. Picture this, a double barreled shotgun, in the right chamber you have a bill that was passed in August that concentrates cuts on the Pentagon while exempting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries. It was considered a victory by republicans at the time, putting additional pressure on the Democrats to bend to demands made for more across the board budget cuts, while still preserving the wide spread pledge made to Grover Norquist of no tax increases.

But, 12 years earlier, the left chamber of this proverbial shotgun was loaded by George W. Bush by a republican congress. In order to pass his tax cuts using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, he had agreed to let them sunset in 2010. At the time, a victory by Democrats who declared these tax cuts a payout to the rich that would ultimately hurt the lower classes  A last-minute deal extended them until the end of 2012 as part of a deal to avoid tax hicks so early in a recession recovery.

Let's fast forward to the far off time of January 1st, 2013. The elections are over, a decent chunk of congress is already packing up their bags having lost their seats, the White House lease may be up and an eviction notice on the door at a time when Congress would have to act to avoid both of these barrels from being fired at the same time. Resulting in a recoil of both a $3.8 Trillion dollar tax increase, and a $1.9 Trillion dollar defense spending cut. Most of that will effect the contract defense industry.

Some have speculated that this has backfired and is playing right into the Presidents hand, that now Republicans will have to agree to a deal, less they have to explain why there are both tax hikes and defense cuts occurring as they stand by, two staple issues for conservatives. While playing into a narrative that the right is doing nothing but obstructing and delaying.

What's at stakes for the Democrats  Well, as in 2010, they don't want to he seen as allowing taxes to go up on the working and middle class during a recovery that most people are laying at the feet of the donkies. Which could change dramatically should republicans win big next month. They may feel that there is a window that they could successfully pass the buck to the right.

Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.), possible feeling this scenario playing out, pressed  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday to lay out a precise timeline for when the government expects to near the debt ceiling and what "extraordinary measures" can be taken to prolong the deadline. But, even this action is little more then an attempt to understand how bad of a situation the government is finding itself in.

You may be asking; Almost $6 Trillion in revenues and tax cuts over the next 10 years? Wouldn't that make a huge impact on the deficit and debt, couldn't this be a welcome reform? Prehaps, if it didn't spiral us into another recession, how much debt would we eliminate of our current $16 trillion. A trillion? Two trillion? maybe five Trillion? Well, the CBO projects we will still add almost $4 Trillion of debt even if all these things occur in the wake of a healthy recovery. I can think of no better case that we need reform, not more taxation.

Then why is this gut check being avoiding during our election cycle? Why is nothing trying to be done to avoid this time-bomb before it's too late? We are expected to hit our $16.4 Trillion dollar debt limit right about the same time as these 'triggers', all these factors together could be devastating to the economy and our defense. Where are the republicans? Well, wouldn't it be interesting that the party that has cried foul at excessive debt and running with the mantra "Government Doesn't Create Jobs!" would be the ones fighting for jobs paid for with government contracts and against triggers that are specifically designed to eat away at the deficit. Or perhaps our friends on the left. Allowing a raise on taxes to the 98% that they caved in to save two years ago, and having to be held accountable for the tens of thousands of people getting blindsided by layoffs after Obama's administration tried so hard to postpone the news until after the election. Would more be gained from saving jobs and tax rates, or by letting the right look all the worse for letting these events happening.


It's the worst of the game of politics we've seen in some time. Nobody truly want's these cuts and hikes.

Mark my words, something will be done, a deal will be struck. It will cut billions in new spending that will be labeled as cuts, the tax cuts will be extended for a year or two, that will not benefit any new growth. Let me ask you, if you knew you where getting a pay cut next year would you spend spend spend, or save save save? Temporary tax cuts don't work. And now ten years into this tax cut, people would have to go through a transition that would impact the economy negatively if these cuts expired. These rates or the old higher rates, we need to remove this storm cloud hanging over us.

These looming landmines and these conditions are not conducive to a growing economy, and these types of issues probably aren't going to be solved on day one of any new administration or congress. I am disappointed that these questions are not being brought up at the Presidential debates and wish the media would make up for this fact by asking what the respective plans would be to stop pushing these issues down to the next election and to the next generation. 

Making Sense of Bengazi Slaying

I had to log several hours of piecing this together, but here is a timeline of the events, hopefully this can be referenced for conversations pertaining to timing of events and making a bit of sense of what happened.

Benghazi Aftermath

5:11 a.m. CDT, 9/11/12. A statement is published online from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. The header reads; "US Embassy condemns religious incitement" The post since appears to have taken down from here. The statement has since been re-posted in about a zillion sites.

Late Morning, CDT 9/11/12. Or around 5 p.m. local time in Cairo, demonstrators began to assemble outside of the U.S. Embassy. Reasoning behind this gathering appear to be the subject of some investigations, still, a Salafist leader and president of Egypt's Hekma television channel, Wesam Abdel-Wareth, was one such voice that called for Muslim's to protest the very low budget movie 'Muhammad's Trial', a US-made film which, critics say, insults the Islamist Prophet Mohammed.

3:47 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. The Cairo Embassy, via twitter, states: "As Spokesperson Nuland said, protesters breached our wall and took down flag. Thanks for your concern and kind wishes." There is little indication of outright violence, but a crowd with estimations of roughly 2,000 demonstrators are loud and angry at this time.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens

5:00 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. Additional tweets from the Embssy in Cairo "Thank you for your thoughts and prayers.", "Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we're the ones actually living through this.", "Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."

5:01 p.m. CDT 9/11/12. A Footnote, but this is the point where Stand Up America Now begins a livestream of Jones' anti-Muslim presentation online. Though I question how many people in Egypt follow this website, it has been presented by many media outlets as a channel that added fuel to the fire of anger.

5:30 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. Cairo Embassy Tweets: "This morning's condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy."

6:51 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. First reports of an American staff member of the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi has died following an outbreak of violence. Investigations continue as to the level of protests here compared to the reports of a small team of well equipped militants intent on doing harm.

9:09 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. Romney submits a statement to the Media. It was supposed to be held until Midnight in respect out of keeping foreign policy discourse off of the anniversary of 9/11. The campaign allowed it to be released within an hour of submission.

9:10 p.m. CDT 9/11/12 News breaks that the statement issued from Cairo was not cleared by Washington and that it does not reflect the views of the United States government.

9:38 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. An statement from the State Department, specifically Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, stating, "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today... We have confirmed one State Dept officer was killed in Libya. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss." Full statement here.

10:51 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo deletes its earlier tweets, statements eventually removed from website.

11:01 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12.: Other policical figures begin to weigh in now that (per New York Time) the embargo on foreign affairs has ended, led off with RNC chairman Priebus stating "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt.Sad and pathetic."

11:09 p.m. CDT, 9/11/12. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt issues a response to Romney's statement: "We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack."

6:21 a.m. CDT, 9/12/12. President Obama issues statement condemns the attacks in Libya, and confirms that the U.S. ambassador was slain.

8:57 a.m. CDT, 9/12/12. Clinton hosts a press conference condemning violence in Syria. (Video)

9:16 a.m. CDT, 9/12/12. Gov. Mitt Romney holds a press conference while in Jacksonville, FL. (Video)

9:43 a.m. CDT, 9/12/12. President Barrack Obama holds a press conference with Hillary Clinton in the Rose Garden. (Video)

Now begins the narrative of if Mitt's comments where appropriately timed or not, or it the Presidents' response was adequate. But, you don't check in here for a simple list of facts and links, did you? Well, ok, maybe you did, but here is my two cents;

What Mitt Romney said last night was spot on, all though I'm on the fence as far as not waiting for 9/11 to be over before making such an aggressive statement. I don't see an issue with challenging the foreign policy of a President who doesn't seem to have a well established set of principals during the election cycle. When people are storming the gates of your embassy, you can not sit idly by with a 'wait and see' approach such as this President seems to be doing. Then when some of the first things that are said are just to correct and contradict what was said by someone else. Right now there is a serious issue that no one understands one thing, what America is planning in a time like this. It was appropriate for the White House to condemn these actions and make a call for justice against those individuals who killed our delegates. 

This is a big deal. It's a clear indication that things in Egypt, Syria, and several other Arab Spring countries are not going as swimmingly as perhaps we had hoped, and with the way our President appears to prioritize both waiting until a half dozen other people from the Embassy, the State Department, his opponent, and the media all get hours of play time before making a pretty Mad Libs type reply. Then a couple hours later he was in the air on his way to campaign in Colorado, only to return in time for the Hispanic Caucus Anniversary Gala. 

Are we going to withdrawl other embassy staff? Are we going to offer military or intelligence support to hunt these murderers down? Will we withhold our financial support for some of these young, new governments? It's a huge difference when a country is rioting against their own government and when those riots appear on our front door and U.S. citizens are being harmed. It demands something of a response, be it supportive of the local government in keeping the peace, or throwing down the gauntlet and militarizing our embassies. My vote would be to withdraw our consulate staff and families from these countries and suspend any payments of aide until peace is restored. Offer any assistance for peacekeeping or in tracking down these militants that appear to have stormed us in Benghazi. Our President seems more interested in campaigning in swing states and getting ready to appear on Letterman and meeting up with Beyonce.

The Surrender of Civility

I hereby declare, with no mincing of words, the complete and absolute surrender of any meaningful debate for the 2012 election. Let us move on to discussions of Romney’s murder trail, to what Obama wrote in a book 20 years ago, to what state Romney lived in, in 2001, and not least of all what Michelle Obama whispered in her husband’s ear last year. 

The concept of Civility is a punchline in and of itself

Politics has gotten personal, and for the first time in this young Americans life, the general acknowledgement is that there is nothing wrong with that. For all the talk of America as a nation divided, the talk that Americans themselves are somehow concerned that negative campaign ads, fiery campaign speeches, personal attacks and distortion of what is fact and what can be expounded away as ‘near fact’, we sure do seem to lap up a good argument over stuff that effects absolutely nothing.

Poll after poll will tell us that Americans are fed up, they’ve had enough, they don’t want anymore, the brunt of these people are lying, You can just as quickly point out source after source that can answer the question of ‘why do they keep doing it if people are sick and tired of it’. You’ve heard the saying before, say it with me, "They do it because it works". Now, people don’t even waste their breath trying to answer the question of what these arguments have to do with anything. What effect will Obama's grades in college affect his approach on education? What will the tax rate Romney paid in 2003 affect his tax policy? Heck, I'd even take those questions being asked, over the current "He must be hiding something, he won't release his college Theseus", or "He must be hiding something, he won't release 12 years of tax returns". Politics is ugly, and anyone wasting our time to convince us otherwise will probably end up losing in the end. Be it in ratings or an election itself.

Americans deserve better, no one doubts this, and with such a quiet consensus in favor of a more civil political discourse, you would think that by now the American people would be crying out to those who seek to represent us. But, unless you constitute answering a poll question as a form of protest, the outrage is gone, or at best feigned, from this year’s election cycle.

On one hand, you have the foreign born, pot smoking, dog eating, Muslim incumbent, and on the other, the tax cheating, wife killing, beholden to the Mormon Church felon who is challenging him. The issue I am trying to address is, that many people will be reading this nodding in agreement at one half of that statement, and then shaking it in a type of feverish anger at the other half. Civility is preached, hypocrisy is exercised.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m probably not helping the cause out much, I’ve posted before trying to poke fun at the mud that is being slung, trying to steer clear of issues that I would think don’t matter (Romney has money in the Kaman islands, Obama saying “Polish Death Camps” instead of “Nazi Death Camps”. I ultimately fail, I even started writing a tenacious response to the new ad that tries to pass responsibility to Romney for the passing of a man's wife. This is because if you don’t bring up at least of a few of these ridiculous, usually improbable, largely irrelevant topics, people stop being interested. You know it and I know it. Sadly, I will probably dismiss most of what I say here in the coming days and weeks, after all, a wise blogger once said, Civility is preached, hypocrisy is exercised.

Put my supposition to the test, ask a friend or colleague what they would like to see happen to the tax code, at best you would get a snarky one or two word response, such as “simplify it!” or “cut it in half!”, any attempt to engage in more discussion then that will probably be met with disinterest or vehemence.  The more likely scenario will play out with just a general level of disgust against one group or another, “The rich need to pay more”, “I need to pay less”. Then ask them what they think about Mitt closing down a paper mill in Indiana, and you could get a lecture about either how there is a smear campaign going on by those rotten liberals or how one candidate is so out of touch we would be fools to elect him into office. The alternative would be someone who has already surrendered, who has already stopped caring.

If I had an answer, if I knew a way to bring the conversation back to fiscal policy, austerity, our troops serving overseas, and things that may actually have an impact on the country past election night, I would be doing it right now. I've always considered myself one to make concise, fact backed arguments to express my views, and to an extent rambling about it here is my attempt, but this is not a call to action, this is a concession speech. Goodbye civility, hello new era of politics, goodbye to a kinder old era where your choice was between an AWOL soldier or a flip flopper, and a new era where you are left between a choice of a candidate that can’t run because he is a felon, and another candidate because he wasn’t born in the US, the time to make an informed, thoughtful choice for the future of this country has been fully morphed into a choice between what disgusts you more, eating dog, or strapping one onto the roof of your car. The choice is yours America; I hope you realize the consequences of your vote more then the circus of conjecture that it is premised on.