Monday, March 26, 2012

Goose and Gander

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments against the health care law that was passed by the Obama administration. The right wing labeled it Obamacare from the get go and every candidate running for President in the GOP primary has vowed to repeal the law the first day they win the presidency. The main crux in the law for the "conservatives" is the individual mandate.

Back in the early 90's President Bill Clinton was taking on the issue of health care. One of the big issues the Republicans didn't like about Clinton's health care ideas was the fact he wanted employers to pay for their employees health care. They objected to this idea and actually came up with their own plan.

Bill Clinton introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) on November 20, 1993. Here is the main portion of the bill:
"Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums."

Three days later the Republicans countered and introduced a bill by Senator John Chafee and Senator Chuck Grassley. It was called Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770). Here is the main portion of the bill:
"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone."

Here are what some of the Republican congressman had to say about the individual mandate, a better alternative to the Democratic plan of having employers pay the premium, back in the early 90's.

"I and the majority of Republicans...strongly believe the route to go with is an individual mandate." ~ Bill sponsor, Senator John Chafee (R)

"Well, we have an individual mandate in our plan. We have an individual mandate as opposed to the employer mandate." ~ Senator Bob Dole (R)

"Well, there's a big difference. What we do, the plan that I'm looking at and really going to be pushing, we do have an individual mandate. We do say everybody in America has to provide insurance for themselves." ~ Senator Don Nickles (R)

At the Atlantic Information Services Inc. Conference a reporter asked: "You have an individual mandate where all persons would have the responsibility to coverage? Is that correct?"
"That's correct." ~ Senator Kit Bond (R)

"I believe there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates." ~ Co-sponsor of the Republican bill, Senator Rick Grassley (R)


This behavior, beyond being hypocritical, is down right dangerous. We have peoples lives at stake and these guys, and the people that chant their rhetoric without one ounce of thought, play games. They understand their constituents are so ignorant and only filled with hate and fear that they can lie to them and completely do a one hundred and eighty degree spin on their position and no one will know any better.

At what point is it no longer a game? When someone you know dies? At what point do we demand reason and logic and honesty and integrity when addressing our nation's problems? If we allow these politicians to act this way, to get away with lying and changing their stance simply because the "other" guy is in charge, then we are to blame, not them.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Gaseous Product of Burning Materials and Smooth Surfaces That Form Images by Reflection

There are things that happen in life that leave me completely bewildered from time to time. The buzz behind the Trayvon Martin death has me puzzled at so many levels.

If you really haven't heard of the Martin incident then you must live in a box. Maybe Martin doesn't sound familiar. George Zimmerman ring a bell? Zimmerman was a Florida man that shot and killed a seventeen year old boy last month and claimed it was self defense. The police department responded and came to the conclusion there was no evidence to go against Zimmerman's claim and he walked away a free man. I'm really going on the basis most people have knowledge of the details of this case moving forward so if you don't I recommend Googling it and getting up to speed.

The discussions that are taking place surrounding this sad event are completely mind boggling to me. The first thing I read on Facebook about the incident was a post that was fascinated with the race issue of the story. One person insisted race couldn't be a factor because Zimmerman is Mexican and not white. I'm not trying to sound to cliche-ish but what the fuck? There is absolutely no sound reasoning in that argument at all. I've listened to many of the 911 calls and it seems to me (and many others I might add) that Zimmerman says "fucking coons". I don't care what race Zimmerman happens to be, if he went after another person because of the other person's race that's what makes it racially motivated. The race of the person committing the assault is a non factor. Even if Zimmerman were black it would still be racially motivated if he was motivated because he didn't like "coons". The absurdity of this argument is embarrassing to intelligence.

Secondly, this entire ordeal has spawned an attack against the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida which seems to be "lighter" on the self defense claim. This perplexes me. The law, in essence, makes it legal for people to claim self defense without first trying to flee from the danger. Over 60% of our States have some form of Stand Your Ground already. The courts, for many decades, have been distancing themselves from the idea that one must retreat prior to defending himself. The precedent of retreating began before the public started carrying guns. Over time most people have gravitated toward the thinking that it seems reasonable to defend your life whenever you feel it is threatened without check offs (running away) being mandated.

Critics of this law label it a "shoot first ask questions later law". That's like calling the insanity defense the "eat twinkies ask questions later law". If I went out and hunted a seventeen year old boy and shot him and then claimed insanity would you be worried I would go unpunished? The insanity defense almost never works, even when the person is actually crazy. Who cares what the defense tactic is called? But that's exactly what we're focused on, the self defense law. Eating a box Twinkies and claiming I went crazy doesn't mean the insanity defense will work for me. Just like if I instigated a confrontation and then shot the other person and claimed self defense. Why would my defense matter? What matters is the facts of the case. What I say I did isn't really evidence. If I say I defended myself that's not a fact. I could say I didn't rob a bank, that doesn't mean it's true. If a bank got robbed and there are things that show I did rob it, me saying I didn't doesn't matter at all. That Zimmerman claims self defense and then we focus on the Stand Your Ground law is absurd.

The most maddening thing of all is what we fail to actually focus on: how we make sure to execute justice. There are many definitions of justice but I think the word "fairness" seems adequate for this essay. We, society, hold the idea of fairness in high regard. We've made it a fundamental right that everyone receives this fairness in many facets of life, and even death. We give authority to government agencies to make sure everyone is playing by the fairness rule. We just assume the agency granted this tremendous power operates using the fairness guidelines as their own standard for carrying out their various procedures and investigations.

I was a deputy for eight years. I patrolled the streets and responded to numerous and various calls for service. I was dispatched to shootings, stabbings, cut them up in pieces and put them in the trash can calls. I'm not knocking Tulare County at all when I talk about our rank among the other state law enforcement agencies. We were one of the poorest counties in California. We struggled to hire quality deputies simply because we were broke and couldn't afford it. We had dead air spots in the county where I would be dispatched to a call and know I couldn't communicate with any of my back up (radio towers are really expensive and Alpaugh isn't that important). Again, I'm not setting this up to rip on my former employer. I'm mentioning this to demonstrate we weren't solving crimes CSI fashion. We were a bunch of hicks that just tried to put all the pieces together and make the best decision based on the law.

I mention my former job so I could tell you from experience I just can't imagine a scenario where I (or any of my partners) respond to the Zimmerman call and he walks away free. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming he is guilty. I'm simply saying I can't comprehend how I could respond to a call where a seventeen year old kid, weaponless, lay dead on the ground and I decide he was the perpetrator and tell the guy that shot him, "have a good evening". I (most likely detectives would take the case over) would listen to the 911 calls. I would interview witnesses. I would take a blood sample from both people. The Sanford Police took a sample from only the kid that was shot. That's just wrong. There is no way this decision to let Zimmerman go free would rest in my hands, it's simply inconceivable that would be the case. It would surely go up the chain of command. I would be derelict in my duties and my commanding officer and his commanding officer would be negligent and liable if they didn't pass this on. They certainly know there are ramifications to follow from letting this man walk away free and they don't want to be the one to "make the call" if they don't have to. That's why they pass it up the line.

A month later Zimmerman is still free and Martin is still dead. The Chief of Police for Sanford "temporarily" and "voluntarily" stepped aside today. After a month of the story gaining traction on the internet the national media (that really liberal group that constantly searches for things to show the evils of conservative thinking and publicly ridicule their positions) finally picked up coverage of Martin's death. It's mind numbing how we aren't outraged at how the system has failed us.

I challenge you to perform one simple task. Truly try to become a blank slate for a brief moment. Imagine you have no position on guns, self defense, political party, you're just blank and all of those ideas are foreign to you. Take a moment, get to that point. Now just take what we know in this case and examine it at its most basic of levels. A boy was approached by a man with a gun and was shot and killed. That happened. That's not disputed. Now imagine what it would take to convince you that man shouldn't be in jail. Did you answer "if the man said he feared for his life so he shot the kid"? Truly, would that be enough for you? Would you demand the man's background be looked into? Would you demand the man's blood be taken to be tested for drugs or alcohol? Would you want to know if the man was diagnosed as mentally unstable in the past? Would you want to know what everyone in the neighborhood had to say about it? Wouldn't it take an amazing amount of evidence for you to let that man go free? Seriously, an adult man that confronts one of our youth and shoots him. Wouldn't you have to have an incredibly bizarre circumstance to excuse this man's conduct?

When the people that have the duty to perform these tasks fail to do so then we're all in trouble. Trayvon Martin getting killed is terribly sad, I mean that sincerely. I absolutely feel for his parents whenever I see them. I grieve for them and couldn't imagine what a hell they are living through. But people get shot and killed all of the time and it's not a national story. So when this actually becomes a national story and then we squander away the chance to examine our system, our beliefs, our ideas about how we should coexist, only to gravitate toward our side, our camp, our right all of the time company, then I can't help but wonder why I see things so differently.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Senator, You're No Jack Handy

Conversations In My Head


"Where are my keys? Where would I have put them? I only put them in a couple of places and they're not there. When was the last time I had them? Did I lock my truck with them? Did I leave them in my truck? Did I turn my truck off? Dude, you're freaking out. You have never left your truck on accidentally. You're right, but where are my keys? They have to be in my truck. Why would they be in my truck? I don't know but I at least have to go check to make sure. They're in your hand. Hah! They are in my hand. That's funny shit. Weren't they in your hand the last time you went through this? Yes. Then why don't you start by looking in your hand? Well, when I get the feeling that I can't find my keys I suppose some internal mechanism just assumes I've already ruled out my keys are in my hand. You should check your hand first next time."

***

"Switch it to channel two and see what song is on. It's One by Metallica. I really like this song. Switch it over to channel four and see if there's a better song on. I really like this song. I think I'm in the mood to hear it. It's coming up to my favorite part ... Landmine has taken my sight, taken my speech, taking my hearing ... Yeah, but just switch over really quick and see if it's a better song, if it's not just switch back. Ok, I switched and it was a commercial, happy? Switch to five. I just switched and it was a commercial. I really like this song and I'm going to listen to it. Common, just switch to five real quick. Oh, it's the Pina Colada song. It's actually called Escape and it's by Rupert Holmes. No one ever knows the name of that song and they've never even heard of Rupert Holmes. I always share this information with anyone standing near when this song comes on. It makes me feel smart. Leave it on this channel and let's listen to this song. I really think I like One better than Escape so I'm leaning toward switching back. Yeah, but you hear One more often than the Pina Colada song so you should stay on this channel and just listen to it. I think I'm going to switch back and at least listen to the good part of the song ... Taken my arms, taken my legs, taken my soul ... Ok, do that and then switch back to the Pina Colada song when that part is over. Sounds good, I'll do that. Real quick, before you do that switch to six. No way. Just do it. It's TOOL. Good call. Damn, I missed almost all of this song."

***

"You need to find an atm and get some cash. There's one over there. I don't like that one. Why not? It's hard to reach, I have to open my door to get to it. Just go over there and use it to save time. See how I have to open my door? This is bullshit. Do they not test for stuff like this when installing these things? Four dollar transaction fee! Fuck that. No way. Two bucks is fucking nuts but I'm used to it. Four bucks is ridiculous. I can't pay four bucks. Fuck them. If you don't make a stand now then this shit will never stop. Cancel this transaction. Flip off the camera. Keep on keepin' on."

***

"Man I'm tired. I'm almost asleep. Don't think anymore thoughts. That was the last thought to go through your head. Shut it down. Sleep. (LOUD, HUGE, BANGING, BLAST SOUND) What the fuck was that? I don't know, did you imagine it? Imagine a huge bang noise that jarred me out of the early stages of sleep? Yeah, did you imagine it? I don't think so. Well then what was it? I don't know. Well what could have made that noise? A huge piece of metal falling on top of an aluminum surface. Maybe a very large firecracker. Exactly, none of that just happened. You imagined it. I imagined a noise. Yeah, I think so. Kind of like when you're just falling asleep and your body does that jerky move like your chair tilted back too far and it wakes you up. Yeah, but everyone does that, not everyone wakes themselves up with imaginary noises. Deal with it."

***

"What did that guy just say? I don't know, I didn't catch that last part. Rewind it. Life doesn't have TiVo dude. Oh yeah, I forgot."

***

"How in the world could that kid want to wear his pants like that? I know it's in fashion and it makes him cool and it makes him fit in. But, seriously, how could he wear them like that? Well, you're paranoid about your crack showing so that's probably why you feel like that. That has nothing to do with it. I think it does, it's your shadow talking to you. You hate thinking about the idea of your ass crack showing so you despise the fact these kids wear their pants below their ass. Totally not it at all. Then what is it? It's the fact their pants are drooping below their ass, they have to hold them up with one of their hands when they're walking around. How in the world could they want to do that? Shadow, dude."

Monday, March 5, 2012

I Wonder, Did I Blunder?

Super Tuesday is nearly upon us and it would seem that things should be fairly clear as to who will win the GOP nomination to challenge Obama in November once this event takes place. There are really only two possibilities, at least in my mind, about how we will view the results come Wednesday morning. More than likely (and I'll be the first to admit this cycle is very nontraditional and hard to predict at the micro level, not so much at the macro level) Romney will continue to do what he has done, rack up the majority of the delegates. This Tuesday a huge amount of delegates are at stake, way more than any event thus far. That's what makes it Super. Santorum will have to perform amazingly well to make any of us feel like he really has a chance to beat Romney. I'm not ruling it out, just saying it doesn't seem like he can realistically do what he needs to do to change the mathematics of it all. If Santorum manages to pull it off then things will be more clear, we would know we seriously have ourselves a two man race, something we've longed for all along but something that never really materialized. However, if Santorum doesn't make these huge gains after Tuesday then most people will be able to accept Romney as the inevitable candidate at that point. There will be dissenters, there have been all along, but it won't matter as much.

Seems like a good time to go over some of the biggest strategery errors in the Republican race.


The first mistake was made by Tim Pawlenty and his team. They played by the old, proverbial "book" and this wasn't the year to do that. They completed in Iowa, didn't do well, and bowed out way too early. He certainly would have gotten his fifteen minutes of fame if he would have just hung around, everyone else did. It seems apparent there is a large chunk of the Republican party, in fact the majority of them, that really don't want Romney. However, they honestly weren't given any alternative. Maybe he would have faded just like the rest, it's very possible, but he definitely got out of the race too early. Blunder number one of the race for me.


A lot went on as far as jockeying for the positions, excluding Romney at number one, for several months. However, there were no huge blunders that affected the course of the race. Naturally, the field dwindled but that's just how it has to go. It's crazy it is still four large at this point in the game. But once it started to narrow the race heated up to try to be the "not Romney" guy. The first real guy to emerge, after everyone's fifteen minutes faded, was Newt. It seemed Romney had won the first two contests and was on a roll. Then Newt stepped up in South Carolina and said, "I'm you're man", to a large group that wants to vote for someone they believe might be able to beat Obama but not be Mitt Romney.

It was always a long shot for Gingrich to really pull it off but it is undeniable he got himself in a position to control his own destiny. That's considered an achievement in my book. Newt's inevitable mistake was his ego. He believed people were flocking to him because of some "fundamental" message he was delivering. That's just not the reality of it. Simply using the principles of Occam's Razor, it would seem more likely it was just good timing for Newt when his opportunity surfaced. Just prior to the South Carolina primary, a Southern state that favors Gingrich, Iowa told us Santorum actually won their earlier contest. Gingrich probably wins South Carolina without this news, but it really makes it easier to rally people to come out and support his non Romney campaign.

Then the ego just took over. He believed we were at a place in time where his voting base was looking for "grand" ideas and "deep thinking" people with knowledge of history and ties to Ronald Reagan. He was so wrong. They just wanted him to not say dumb things that would make them believe he could possibly defeat our current President. They liked that he was bucking the system by not running attack ads. They liked that he was "smarter" than Obama. Then he started changing their minds. He railed on Romney for running negative ads and then did just that when he got his hands on some money. He had a moment, where he was in the lead, where he had serious financial backing, where he had momentum, and he employed the wrong tactic. He took that moment and did nothing with it, in fact his planned worked against him and he lost Florida, the next contest, convincingly. He's never been a serious contender since. And if he sincerely wanted someone to beat Romney, someone that is closer to his views and way of approaching the world, then he should have bowed out and let his supporters gravitate toward Santorum. Again, his ego prevents all of this.


Next, chronologically, comes Romney. For quite some time I have said how impressed I was with his campaign team. They have handled the grueling process pretty well. If this were any other "ordinary" election cycle they would have had this thing wrapped up months ago. It's not their fault it isn't and they've done remarkably well adapting to a very tumultuous race and always been at, or very very near, the top. And more than likely come Wednesday morning they will finally sow some seeds of their disciplined and lengthy harvest. At some point the numbers will actually mean something (this is the Republican primary, they think college is for snobs, deny climate change, vote to take away their own entitlements they use more than anyone else in the country, think the federal government should control states water rights, and creationism should be taught equally with evolution) even to this bunch.

Having given Romney and his team that praise, I still find fault in his inability to seem normal. This certainly isn't the first time we've seen this: Gore, Kerry, McCain to name some recent ones. At some point the weight of the entire ordeal, the pressure from all angles, the advice about what and what not to say coming in twenty four hours a day, seven days a week changes these people, it must. W. Bush and Clinton were performers, people liked them when they were around them. They charmed people. They had the ability to seem like they were cool dudes we could hang out and have a beer with. In reality we aren't anything like these guys. They both were governors. One owned a major league baseball team. These guys were rich and don't lead the lives we do. But it seemed like they could relate, even if it was just an act. Romney doesn't have this talent so perhaps I'm being too hard when I label it a mistake.

The reality of the situation is Mitt Romney is very rich. He has always enjoyed money and we can't envision him ever worrying about paying the bills a day in his life. He has photos of him and a bunch of guys all wearing suits with money draped from him, coming out of his pockets, his belt line, pockets in his suit. I don't know one of my friends or family that have ever taken a picture like this. Most people don't. The problem Romney makes is he is trying too hard to seem like one of the guys and we know he isn't. Just give it up. You can't talk about the size of trees and the color of grass to convince us you're one of us, it's kind of insulting at some point. So this quality isn't on your resume, deal with it. There are a lot of things I'm sure you're good at, there are a lot things on the table that are legitimate issues you could address, there is an amazing climate for the incumbent to lose, yet you have spent months trying to seem down to Earth. Who cares at this point? People have made up their minds about your richness, Mitt. They only hold it against you when you try so hard to convince them you're not rich and you're just like them. If this wasn't even an issue anymore, it should have been dealt with months ago, then things like saying, "I'm not a big fan of NASCAR but I do have friends that own teams," wouldn't be viewed as negative.

Why didn't his team just say to him, "Look, we tried to convince them you're one of them but they just don't believe it. So now we just let you be you. You do have money. You have been successful at many things. You have a good family. You have been a successful governor. Just be who you are." This would have been settled months ago with some good advice. Then when he makes that exact same comment amount having friends that own NASCAR teams it could actually work for him, people like rich people if they're cool. Knowing people that own NASCAR teams is pretty cool to most people. Instead, because he and his team insist on playing this no win game of trying to be "normal", these comments work against them. I genuinely think Romney's campaign shot callers have been impressive over the long haul, they are disciplined and don't make unnecessary mistakes for the most part. That's why this long continual mistake about trying to fit this square peg into a round hole theater is puzzling, it's just out of character for this group that rarely makes blunders.


Doesn't the above picture explain a lot?


The next huge gaffe to occur during the GOP primary race belongs to Rick Santorum. As I mentioned earlier about Gingrich, obtaining a position of controlling your own destiny is a worthy feat. Santorum achieved this pinnacle. It is hard to deny that Rick had everything going his way and had picked up huge momentum at a very crucial time. He managed to win three primary contests in one night when no one saw it coming. If Santorum would have actually sustained his position at the top after winning this surprise trifecta then I certainly would have called that moment, the moment where Romney's team got a little sloppy and didn't invest enough time and money to at least win one of those primaries on that night, the most critical and costly mistake made by anyone during the cycle. However, it appears Romney overcame that setback and managed to get the train back on the rails. Not because of anything he did, but mostly because of what Rick Santorum decided to do.

Instead of just assuring the 40 to 50 percent of the Republican primary voters that want to vote for someone that can beat Obama and not be named Mitt, Rick decided to make social issues his top stumping priority and it, most likely, lead to his demise. Santorum had a legitimate chance to win Michigan (Romney's "real" home state - that it's described that way in the media is absolutely hilarious - a guy that can't shake the deserved label of a flip flopper has five home states and Michigan is the "real" one - that says it all). I can't say for certain that would have been a death blow to Romney's hopes but it would have been damaging and would have catapulted Rick going into Super Tuesday. It would have given him a real possibility to cut into Romney's delegate lead.

However, Santorum decided he would double down and try to get "more" Tea Party backing. The guy is pretty much an ideal candidate for the Tea Party and he doesn't need to prove it any further. But he thought he did, obviously. Instead of talking about relevant issues when he arrived on the national scene, leading most reputable polls, he opted to talk about issues that were important forty years ago. He didn't choose to boast of hope and a brighter future, he preached doom and literally said America would lose its "essence" if Obama were to be reelected. He said in a nationally televised debate in 2012, while he was the favorite to win the nomination, sex should only occur for the purposes of procreation. Just like Newt, Rick only needed to not freak out. In the end the scorpion is just a scorpion.


I don't really think Dr. Paul ever had a chance of winning the nomination but with a different strategy it might have been different. Paul's current strategy is the gather up all the "unbound" votes and show up at the convention and have David Copperfield announce him as the magical winner of the Republican race. If I were on the Paul campaign squad I would have offered a dissimilar tactic. Paul's biggest Achilles with the "conservatives" is his foreign policy approach. The other three grapefruits want to bomb Iran and Paul is the banana of the bunch. He believes we should disengage in our occupancy approach and shut down military bases all around the globe, bringing our troops home and saving us trillions of dollars. Ironically, this message resonates with the soldiers and young people. But it is sacrilege to make such comments and win a Republican primary.

This is where I would have advised Paul to not make those remarks at the debates. I would have told him to say he would bomb Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at the same time. And while everyone was looking at the mushroom cloud hovering over the Middle East we would bomb North Korea. Lastly we would infiltrate Kenya and expose the secret plan to take over America. Then I would have Paul wink at the camera (the secret code to the troops and youth that he is just saying what the "base" wants to hear to win and he really has no intention of upholding any of his promises, like the other candidates do) and smile.


Lastly, I would like to point toward the moderates in the Republican Party for their mistake in this election: apathy. They have allowed their party to be hijacked by an extreme fringe. Romney will more than likely prevail (nothing is certain in this race) and the apathetic will believe "it all worked out". Not the case. That apathy wounded their candidate. Not because tough primaries harm a contenders chances, Obama is very recent proof they don't, but because they never rallied around "their guy". They left him out there hanging and he was forced to try to break through his ceiling and gain more support. Instead of picking up those numbers from independents and moderates he finally had to try to steal them from the far right. The Tea Party crowd is anything but apathetic. They are energized, motivated by fear. They are active, motivated by incompetence. They are demanding, motivated by misinformation. To allow them to continue to guide this vessel is reckless, irresponsible, and lazy.

Tomorrow is a huge day is you have an interest in politics. It's very similar, ironically, to the beginning of the NASCAR season. Super Tuesday is The Daytona 500 of races. There are many more to follow but this one is special, it's huge, it's super. The winner wins more in this collective contest than in any other. The race will shift gears after tomorrow and the crew that made the best pits, the most timely passes, and ran the best line will prevail.