With all the ridiculous punditry going on within the "news" networks, I thought I had become immune to the stupid, silly, or hateful remarks that come out of the angry red faced people trying to scare me straight.  I was wrong. 

My employer keeps CNN Headline News on 24-hours a day in the breakroom, and a show called "Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell" is on.  This show is basically a spin-off of "Nancy Grace" and covers the same topics.  The topic for the day was the tragic death of 5-year-old Nevaeh Buchanan.  Jane Velez-Mitchell breaks out her panel of guests to get their take on the issue.

This is all expected.

What one of the guests (I did not get her name) said next, however, was certainly not what I was expecting.

The guest started by yelling that the killer needs to be found.  Understandable, right?
She then asked, "Where's Obama?"  And said that Obama should be doing something about finding the killer.  She then finished by loudly exclaiming that if it were two Muslim girls who were murdered, that Obama would most certainly be involved in helping.

My wife and I (we work together) just stared for a bit with our mouths dropped open.

Why even bring Obama into this conversation?  What does the President have to do with murder investigations?  Why would you even suggest that Obama would take no interest in a white girl, but would jump to help on the death of two Muslim girls?  Did I miss something?  Seriously, WTF?

I guess tragic death is a great vehicle to use for political grandstanding.   

That guest's words gnawed at me the rest of my night at work.

Yesterday I posted this blog, and today Time.com releases this article on the CNN website by Hilary Hylton.

What does this mean? Absolutely nothing other than my new title is Texas Political Insider.

It was the shout-out heard around the world: Texas' Republican Gov. Rick Perry's praise for his state's tea party protestors, accompanied by not-so-veiled references to a potential Lone Star State secession. The remarks prompted glaring red website headlines and instant fodder for cable TV pundits. But for Texas political insiders, Perry's waving of the flag of secession was just the latest volley in a Texas-sized Republican civil war -- a face-off between Perry and his potential rival for the 2010 Republican gubernatorial nomination, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. (See pictures of tea party tax protests across the country.)

Governor Rick Perry, it seems, is getting votes anyway he can.  Some might back away from inciting a crowd of pro-gun tax protesters to turn against their own country, but not good ol' Rick. 

Rick Perry's message to his fellow teabaggers was crystal clear.  If you vote for me, I will consider seceding from the union in the future.  Of course, in reality,  Perry plans no such thing.

What Perry is doing is simply gathering votes. You see, Perry is going to run for a third term in 2010.  Of course, no Democrat is going to rival him, but if Senator Kay Baily Hutchison decides to run against him, she will likely be the favorite to win.  What is the best way for Perry to defeat a very popular US Senator? Separate himself from Washington. He wants Texans to view him as the small man against big government now so that later he can pin all of America's ills on Hutchison.

Also running for Texas Governor in 2010 is Larry Kilgore, who is an open secessionist.  Perry, with his remarks, can save votes from going to Kilgore by appearing to consider a future secession.

I just wish he'd think about the consequences of his words.  American lives could be lost in the result of a Texas secession. 

Now if Perry wins the election, what will he do next to stay in power? Perhaps then he really WOULD seriously consider secession, but for now, he is just pandering to the wing nuts.

On a side note, this whole TEA Party business seems a little ironic. There was a local TEA Party in our county, and I watched some of the footage on the news.  I got a good laugh at the signs saying "No More Taxes!" and "Secede Now!". The people holding the signs are the same ones with the little yellow ribbons on the back of their trucks that say "Support Our Troops".  You support our troops AND don't want to pay taxes? Interesting.  When I expressed my opposition to the war in Iraq years ago, I was made to feel unpatriotic and that I should support the "Best Nation on Earth!" Now, in just a few months, a lot of the same people are saying that we should secede? I have to laugh to keep from crying.

Our reason is failing us in politics.  We constantly rehash stale theories and defend dubious platforms.  We have Republicans spouting Republican nonsense just so they can justify being Republican, with seemingly little thought on what they are really saying.  We have the same thing going on with the Democrats.  This has been the way of things for quite some time now.  To many, that justifies continuing the shouting matches. Because that's just the way "it is".  It doesn't have to be.  If you are a fan of President Obama, you may have heard him mention breaking away from the same old tired arguments.

I'm in the middle of reading The Great Influenza by John Barry, and the book talks considerably about how ancient ideas caused little to no growth in the field of medical science in America until the late 1800's.  This is because physicians were taught to observe passively, then use reason and logic to make sense of what they observed.  Most early medical schools did not require any previous schooling or even any work with actual patients.  You just had to attend a few lectures, test over the content, and you were on your way to a promising career!  It was thought that by  just applying a little logic and reason that ANYONE could be a doctor.  "Bleeding" patients made sense because if someone was flushed, draining some blood made them pale.  Logical, right?

Great strides in medicine did not come until people quit strictly observing and started experimenting.  Physicians started thinking, "Hey, lets cut up a few cadavers and see what is going on inside!  Lets document treatments that work and treatments that don't work, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a patient comes in!"  You would have thought that some of these ideas would have caught on during the first 2000 years of medicine.  The notions were there, but they were not popular.  Because that's just not the way things were done.

I know policy is difficult to experiment with, especially economic policy because of all its odd quirks, not the least of which is consumer confidence.  But could we not be more scientific about what works and doesn't work?  Perhaps throw out a lot of what we "know" out the window, have both sides sit and actually review the same unbiased statistical information, based on what we've done and studying the results and agree that one way provides much more favorable answers?  At least use that as a starting point.  Maybe introduce ideas on a smaller scale to see what we can learn?  And keep observing through the changing of administrations to note long-term results?  Could we see if we can't keep from lying to ourselves when we don't know something, and instead try and get the answer?

I guess the problem here is that what "works" for some doesn't "work" for others .  I guess it would be too much to hope for finding solutions that work for the MAJORITY.  Instead I think we end up with solutions that work for those who come up with ways to fix the solution.  And then they get their fat heads on the 24-hour "news" networks and yell about how their way helps them more.

When I was writing this, I envisioned a large dry erase board in an office at the White House, with things on it such as "Top-down economics-- seemed to increase the wealth of those who were wealthy, while not significantly benefiting those who were not wealthy.  Not a good policy for the majority of Americans."

*sigh*

I guess I should have more interesting fantasies 

Today, in an early morning press conference, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he has legally changed his name to Abraham Lincoln.  "It is no secret that I am a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln.  I have implemented his "Team of Rivals", I have followed his train route, and I am to be sworn in on his Bible.  Naming myself Abraham Lincoln was the next logical step in the transition," stated Obama.

 Obama continued, "In the next few days, my administration will lay forth a plan to further my transformation, including my monthly projected beard growth.  I have reached my hand across the aisle, and now I shall reach my hand back in time."

 David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, says, "There can now be no doubt that Barack Obama will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.  All Americans can be a part of this historical transformation by sending a donation of $100.00 or more."

 Critics of the name change say that Obama has gone too far.

 "Abraham Lincoln? Are you kidding me?" responded radio host Rush Limbaugh. "I mean, come on! I enjoy snacks, but you don't see me changing my name to Hostess Twinkie!"

 The Inauguration Swearing-in Ceremony for the politician formerly known as Barack Obama begins tomorrow at 11:30a.m. EST.

Joe the Plumber has a new gig.

I guess now that he is famous, plumbing just doesn't get his blood pumping. I'm sure he will be able to find plenty of thrills in Israel.

"Hey! Come here! This is hilarious!"

Ever the dutiful son, I walked to my parent's computer room to where my dad was doing the only other thing besides solitaire he knows how to do on the computer:  Reading emails forwarded to him by other family members.  I brace myself for a hokey, off-color joke and try to keep a pleasant look on my face.   My dad opens his email and then it begins.

The "Eyes Yo New Prezident" knock knock joke.

I walked away, about to boil over in anger, conflicted between being respectful to my father in his own house and my disgust over what I had just seen. Not long afterwards, but still infuriated, I leave for my own house.  As I drive home, I calm down a bit and start thinking about my reaction and why I got so angry.  At first I thought that I was offended because I have supported Obama for a couple of years now, and my dad is well aware of this.  It seemed almost like a slap in the face.  Maybe it was.  But then I started reflecting on my childhood and recalled more than a few instances of racist jokes and remarks.

Like when my father, visibly angry, was complaining about the black family that moved in the house down the street, exclaiming, "There goes the property value of my house!"

Or when I was told that for my 11^th birthday I could invite any five friends to the house that I wanted, but I felt I had to whisper on the side to my mom, "Mom, one of my friends is black. Will dad let me invite him?"

And while my mother has never said anything remotely racist, she grew up with extremely racist brothers and sisters, and always laughed at my dad's jokes and never gave any indication of her disapproval. In fact, her brothers were the reason my brother and I grew up thinking watermelons were called "n****rapples."  At our family Christmas, the uncles would grab their guitars and play holiday classics like "She Ran Off with a N****r."

Remembering these childhood moments made me realize that my adult sensibilities were pointing out flaws in the people whom I grew up adoring, and that was what was making me so angry. I was mad that my parents, who I held in such high esteem, could believe something that went against my sense of what was appropriate.  I overreacted. My parents are just like everyone. They have their flaws, just as I have mine.  I am lucky to have them both.

 I do, however, believe that racism is an ugly side of conservatism.  My parents were brought up in racist homes, and raised my brother and me the same way.  They believe that their parents were good people, so the jokes and jibes and remarks must be ok too. For them to believe otherwise is to disrespect the memory they have of their parents.  Or so the conservative parts of their brains tell them.  And I can understand that, having myself just gone through a wild range of emotions.  I take comfort in that, by breaking that conservative chain, I can end a cycle of hatred.  My son may well struggle with some of my shortcomings, but being racist won't be one of them.

It looks like Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to run against Gov. Rick Perry in the primaries in 2010.  Kay Bailey is well liked around these parts, but I think her support of Roe v Wade will certainly hurt her chances with the conservatives, while her terrible record on environmental issues may hurt her with independents. Being pro-choice definitely didn't help Rudy Giuliani, who was supported by Gov. Rick Perry, in the presidential primaries. Abortion is a hot-button in Texas, and while it probably shouldn't be much of a factor in a gubernatorial race, I'm sure the attack ads will get pretty nasty.

I can't help but think that Hutchison may have her eye on something bigger than being governor.  Palin's nomination for vice-president may be having Kay seeing new possibilities.  It's hard to ignore the sensation that Palin created and Kay Bailey may believe that the time is right to make her move.  It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

We all seem to have a million things to get done in our lives, and I am just like everyone else, but occasionally I try to take a time out and look at a big problem and analyze it to see if I can make anything of it. Recently, in my brief moments of clarity, I've been trying to discern what exactly is the the most detrimental flaw of mankind.  Since I have limited brain capacity, this will most likely be an ongoing process as my mind spits and sputters and pretends to be doing something productive.

 

What is a trait that all or most of us have that is a cause of most or all of the worlds troubles? I guess the best place to start is by looking at the problems the world is facing.  The first problem that comes to mind is the sticky situation in the Middle East, which I mostly attribute to religious intolerance. We have Muslim against Jew, Muslim against Christian, Muslim against Muslim. Certainly the idea of slaughtering people under the pretense of religious reasons is nothing new to history.  "If you can't convert 'em, kill 'em." seems like it could have been an appropriate slogan to most major religions at one time or another. Why do religions do this? In order to understand the workings of religion, lets start one ourselves and see what happens!

-

I believe that when I die my soul will ascend to the heavens and be surrounded by cute cuddly kittens for all eternity. Now, while I am the sanest person I know, and I KNOW that I am a good person and the world would be better off if there were more people like me, my belief in Holy Kittens is only held by me.  This is troubling. I mean, if all these people think differently than me, either I am wrong, or they are wrong. Since I know I'm not stupid, it must be them. But how do I remedy this? I convince others to believe the same thing I do! If I can get a group that all believes the same thing, then we are super right! After all, we can't all be bonkers, can we?

 

So the Holy Order of Kittens is very pleased with itself and its beliefs.. that is until it meets the First Church of Dog. Dogs? Give me a break. Who the heck worships dogs? That is just idiotic. How the heck can they have so many members? They must all be insane.  Because we are good-hearted, righteous people, we must convince these canine lovers of their wicked ways so that they may come to the light. You see, by these people believing differently than us and being allowed to exist, it creates a conflict to us being right. Moreover, if Cat clergy strays to the Dog cultist side, what will that do to the Cat reputation? How do we convert Dog lovers to our side? Threatening them with eternal damnation has a certain appeal. If that doesn't work? I guess we have to kill them. Violence is nasty, but really, what else do you do with people who are wrong?

-

 

Could it be that religious intolerance is really just based on the fact that we all believe that we are good people?  By believing we are good people, we look down on others who don't think the way we do, because its easier to condemn than to put forth the effort to understand.  Why is this? We all do it.  How many times have you told someone, "I told you so?" It feels good to be right. Especially when someone else is wrong. At what point in our evolutionary chain did we develop the need to feel right? Am I over simplifying things? Please send your comments! I am hoping to get some discussion on this.

 

~my thoughts on religion~

I have nothing against people believing what they want. As a matter of fact, I think its great to have your beliefs! It gives your life structure and meaning. It provides something to turn to when nothing else is available. The problem lies with thinking that your way is the ONLY way. Exploring your own beliefs and finding what you can be comfortable with instead of just believing what was pounded into your head as a child can help you. Once you are comfortable and at ease with your beliefs, you can appreciate that other people will come with different conclusions. What you believe is right for YOU. Everyone has a little different idea of how things work. None of us will know for sure what the truth is (not while we are alive anyway). No need to be silly over it. But then again, that is just my way of thinking.

~end thoughts~