Origins of OWS not the same as Tea Party

There have been thoughts on TV recently that the Tea Party has the same origin as Occupy Wall Street. I couldn't disagree any less. The origins of the Tea Party came from the idea that government was mis-spending taxes. Maybe a better way of saying it is that the Tea Party didn't believe their taxes was used in ways in that didn't represent their beliefs. Out of this idea came the political will to block all legislation from the Democratic Party. After all, if government couldn't be trusted to use taxes in ways that were acceptable to them, why trust it at all? So no ideas that they didn't some up with on their own were to be voted down. And everyone who disagreed with their views were to be ousted, or if not in office, voted down by any means necessary. Now Occupy Wall Street started as a way to protest the money and the power being in the hands of a few people. It protests the middle class' loss of wealth and money. Since in a truly free money market society this is impossible, Occupy Wall Street must look to government to help equalize the system. Not with hand-outs, but in laws fairly and equally distributed. To ensure that all are created and treated equal and not just some get the break, it is only a government that can level the field. So what will the political will be of this group? What will they require to keep government running? But 2 things when looking at the situations this way become very clear. One is that the 2 groups have very different agendas, and therefore different goals and means to get there. And the second thing is that only one group believes in the founding principle of this country, that all men are created equal and should be given equal chances to succeed. And it isn't the Tea party. Which side are you on?        

If women ruled the world

A friend of mine on facebook posted this saying: If women ruled the world, there'd be no wars. Now this is a saying I have heard before, but in this politically-charged time, it got me thinking. Now as a divorced man, and a guy with 4 sisters, I can tell you that idea a woman wouldn't go to war is at best, ludicrous. Heck any man that's ever been married or lived with a woman knows there are times she'd go to war (And I don't mean time of month). Everyone knows, or should know, that if someone threatens to or actually harms a woman's family, she will do whatever it takes it protect, or at worst, get revenge for anything done to her family. But a woman wouldn't go to war for stupid reasons that have nothing to do with the safety and protection of her family. And a woman at the head of a country will feel the same way about the country. Think Golda Meir of Israel or Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain. They would and did go to war to protect their country, their family as it was. Now, to put it in today's context, when bin-Laden attacked and took down the towers, a woman would have no problem going after him and his group with all the fury at her disposal. But she wouldn't have gone to war and invaded Iraq. If women ruled the world, there'd be wars, but there'd be few if any stupid, petty wars.   

If women ruled the world

A friend of mine on facebook posted a saying: If women ruled the world there'd be no wars. As a man with 4 sisters, can I tell you that the idea of women not making war is ludicrous at best. Heck, any man that has ever been married or even lived with a woman knows there are times that a woman will go to war (And I don't mean time of month). Everyone knows, or at least should know, that if someone harms a woman's family, she will do whatever she can to get even. But a woman wouldn't go to war for stupid reasons.

Did America try to build an empire?

Throughout the weekend, with the news that our troops were leaving Iraq and that Libya's Khaddafi was dead, there was a lot of talk on the liberal shows about how many thought we wouldn't actually leave Iraq. The pundits, most of them came  from either Africa or the Middle East, were talking about how since we were a nation that had built an empire, we weren't very likely to give it up. So this got me asking the question: Did America really try to build an empire?
Now if you go back 65 years to the beginning of the cold war, there is no doubt that America propped up dictators that would stand against the Soviet Union. And if you think of this as trying to build an empire, then I guess America did do that. And since almost all those dictators, by their very nature
 

Where's the middle ground? Not in foreign policy

Just when I think that nobody could take one side or the other, both the Tea Party and the Democratic Party have decided that since they can't stand each other when it comes to domestic policy, they'll extend it to foreign policy, too. Now where I can almost understand why the Tea Party hates what happened in Libya (This was all President Obama's doing, and his actions have been proven to be correct. So much for a Democrat mismanaging a crisis.), the actions taken to bring home all military from Iraq has both sides rattling their sabers. (Sorry about the war analogy.) On the left, everyone is hailing the President's actions as one of the greatest feats he could ever take. Now, whoa Nellie! President Bush had signed an agreement to get all but a few thousand troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Now, instead of a few troops that could get easily sucked into any civil war, and would be in the eye of the tiger, so to speak, now if there is any problems in Iraq, it will be Iraq's problem to solve, which is the way it should be. So the President's actions were simply prudent actions taken by him. Now for those on the right that believe this shows his lack of foresight (And I can't say the Tea Party, because a lot of Tea Party members want all troops brought home from everywhere, not just Iraq), remember that this was basically the agreement that President Bush signed. How long would you keep troops there? What should their mission be? Do you know? Do you even care? All military missions should cease whenever the mission has succeeded or when there is no chance to accomplish the mission. The mission has been accomplished, and so the troops are coming home. And I will be glad to say to them, Welcome Home for the Holidays, troops. Mission Accomplished.    

Senate Rules Helps Tea Party Lie.

Watching Kevin McCarthy, Tea Party Representative from California and , I believe, the 3rd ranking Tea Party member of the House, I was reminded how much the Tea Party will take a fact and then use it to tell a lie. Or tell a lie and prove with information that they see one way while the facts are the other. Rep.McCarthy stated that the Tea Party was not obstructing President Obama and would work with him if he'd let them. To prove this point, he stated how President Obama jobs bill wasn't acceptable to either Tea Party or Democrats, since the Democratic controlled Senate couldn't get the votes to get it passed. Now, while it is true that the bills didn't pass, it isn't because the bills didn't get a majority of the votes. Both bills got enough votes to pass a straight up/down vote, but due to the arcane rules of the Senate, both bills needed 60 votes to pass. So yes, Rep. McCarthy, your minority in the Senate obstructed the majority in trying to pass a bill. So in this case, you took information and stated it in a way which was a lie. Now your original statement about not obstructing the President is also a lie, or every paper in the country got information about the $4 billion compromise to cut programs and eliminate tax loopholes was wrong. Rep. Boehner and the President had an agreement but Boehner was told by the hard-core members of the Tea Party that they wouldn't vote for it, so the compromise was shot down. Do you not call this obstruction, or do you think that every paper in the country lies? Oh, that's right, you're the Tea Party, and when someone disagrees with you, they lie and are un-American. I guess to you, the papers all lied, and polls that say how unpopular you are lies too.     

And Libya is in Africa, too.

So now Qaddafi is dead and the people of Libya are free from his rule and thankful for the help of the U.S., I'm wondering how the Tea Party will make this an utter defeat for the Obama Administration. Of course, since most of them would need an atlas to find the country, I don't know why people would listen to their opinion anyway.

Commander-in-Chief

At last tally, President Obama has found and killed almost all the high-ranking people of Al-Qaeda, taken the right actions in the Arab Spring Uprisings, is getting troops out of Iraq faster than the Iraqi government has requested, and now has helped NATO take actions that has helped the Lybian r 

And the winner is---

Well, for once the debates got rather heated, and I was so proud of the candidates acting like 5th grade schoolboys at recess. After I wrote down all the half-truths, lies, and contradicting their own statements, I had almost 2 pages of info that was wrong. And the second hour hadn't started. Immigration, taxes, foreign policy, government departments, the military budget, and even their own backgrounds was lied about by the candidate themselves ( Yes, Santorum, you lost the Senate seat.). And for those who were happy to hear the audience boo at the statements about LDS (Mormons) being a cult, remember that Nevada has a large LDS population, so that was no bonus point for audience. They still applauded every sound bite that restricted rights and restricted government oversight. So in my mind, there was only 1 winner in the debate last night, well 2 actually. The first one is Jon Huntsman, who by not showing up was missed by those that wanted the truth to be uttered. And the 2nd winner was all those that didn't watch. After all, who wants to watch a bunch of schoolboys during recess yell at each other.

Knock Knock. Who's there? The truth

After the debate last night, several people on a couple of channels wondered why Romney hasn't locked up the GOP nomination yet. He's been head and shoulders better than everyone else in every debate. But they can't understand why he can't get more than 30% of the votes from perspective voters. So what don't they get? Yes, just like the knock knock joke, the truth. You see, they don't understand the truth. The truth is that Romney is getting all the votes of the non-Tea Party wing of the GOP. Okay, maybe Jon Huntsman is getting 1%, but other than that, Romney is getting all non-Tea Party votes. So what's the truth that they don't see? That now, 70% of the GOP is affiliated with the Tea Party. And that 70% don't believe, like, or even care about Romney. And they will never vote for someone who doesn't follow lock-step with the Tea Party. And again, that is why I put a (T) instead of an (R) after anyone in the GOP. Knock knock. Who's there? The Tea Party and we're the GOP now, and, unfortunately, that's no joke.

A grown man walks into a frat house

Yes, it sounds like a joke, and in at least some ways it was. So what was Gov. Perry doing at a frat house after the economic debate Tuesday night? Well, one of the things he was saying that the American Revolution was in the 16th century. Well that meant you were only off by 200 years. And then you said that debates aren't your strong suit. Well, at least that's true. But don't you think that as President, you'd have to talk and debate things with leaders of other countries? So, it might be important if you're President that debate is one of your stronger suits. So a grown man walking into a frat house does sound like a joke. but what he said wasn't funny at all.

The Economy Debate and fact checking

Well, after almost sleeping through another debate ( Is it a debate when everyone takes the same side? Everyone there agrees: No regulations for businesses, get rid of the Fed  chief or the Fed totally, President Obama is to blame if the sun doesn't shine through the clouds), I just want to add one thing that would make the debates more exciting; Instant Fact Check. When a candidate or most of the candidates makes a statement that's a lie, a buzzer goes off and they are confronted with their lie. The Dodd-Frank Act was to blame for the Collapse of 2008? Someone who was on that stage last night explain to me how a collapse that happened in 2008 can be caused by a piece of legislation that was enacted in 2010, and wasn't even debated or brought up in Congress until December 2009. Is there a time machine the government has that I don't know about? You can have different ideas about what you want the country to look like and how it runs, but when you lie so easily about something so easy to check, I don't question your ability to be President, I know you don't have the ability to be President.

A veteran's view of war

As a person who spent 20 years in the military, I have a view of war that not many my age or younger have. But it may be my view of a war's end that is strange to most, both those that served that those that never have. I believe that there are good reasons to go to war, and there are wars that have no reason at all. But in this day and age of wars being declared not against a country, but a regime or terrorists, I think it is imperative to know when to call a war a win and leave. But we as a country have not learned this, or so it seems. Now let's take a few places that we have military now, see how they got there, and let's see if they are still needed there. Korea, where we still have a large contingent of military, was due to the Korean war. And North Korea still would like to overthrow the government of South Korea, so military is needed there. Western Europe, where we fought WW II and defended against the USSR. Well, now there is no USSR, and does anyone in Europe worry about a Russian conquest? If not, which I highly suspect, then bring them home. We definitely won that war. If a base or two is need there for forward-deploying of forces, then that's fine. But do we need to be at all the bases in Europe we're at? Now for the tough ones. Iraq? Now that is a question that is just about answered. We went there under false pretenses, but over-threw an evil dictator, and have helped build a country. And it looks like we are leaving. And we should leave completely. And now, Afghanistan. We went there to find bin-Laden, kill him and dismantle Al-Quida in that country. Mission accomplished. And we have stayed to help build a government. But now, if we stayed another 10, 20, or even 30 years, would the government be stronger, the situation any different than it is now? Since the answer is no, we must bring those troops home now, too. So what do we do with these troops? Now that's a question for another blog.    

Occupy Wall Street and The Rule of Law

In the local paper (The Kansas City Star) yesterday, there was a letter to the editor that said The Ten Commandments were the basis of our laws. My thought was: There aren't that many people that can be that stupid, is there? A lot of people in jail for adultery or not honoring their parents? If there was a $10 fine for using the Lord's name in vain, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have a national debt. No, our laws aren't set down from the Ten Commandments. How we want people to act, how we perceive people and their actions, our social mores, they may be based on The Ten Commandments, and in most communities, are based on them. But our laws are based on English justice that goes back to the Magna Carta. Barons forcing the King to codify laws and abide by them. This was later expanded to freemen, and then all men, which we now in America think of as We The People. Now what does this have to do with Occupy Wall Street? Well, this is the people telling the King that codified laws must be abided. Who is King? That would be Wall Street, who has basically run rough-shod over the economy, ruining lives and leading the world to the brink of a world-wide Depression. Occupy Wall Street has simply reminded not only Wall Street but all of America that people have rights, and codified laws must be obeyed. Now Cain, Cantor, Perry, Palin and others have decried this action by the people. Occupy Wall Street  may be non-political and broad-based, but it isn't hard to see where its enemies are.

Hey, Tea Party, are you always wrong?

I have been reading the blogs for the last few days, and I want to make sure I have all this right.
-- Cain, people who aren't rich, is it really all their fault? For 1 thing, in a perfect economic model, the line wouldn't be straight, where everyone made the same amount, it would be a Bell Curve. You remember a Bell Curve, right? Very few would be severely poor or extremely wealthy, and most would fall in the middle. So your basic premise is wrong. And what does our country's economic Bell Curve look like? This gets us to-
--Cantor, ordinary people protesting financial institutions that helped ruin the economy institutes is a mob? How many have broken into those institutions? How many have taken acts of violence? I would say if the number isn't 0, it is in the single digits. What is happening isn't a mob, but a non-violent protest. And when those institutions get regulations trying to insure that what happened in the mid 2000s culminating in the ecpnomic bust in 2008 won't happen again, they ask you and your kind to repeal those laws. You agree to do so. And does the mob go and take action against you and the rest of the Tea Party? No, they are peacefully protesting, not trying to enforce mob rule.
But now we get to the person that the Tea Party doesn't like-
--Romney, we need more military? Where? We need to get out of Iraq, and I don't mean leave a few trainers. Out completely. Why are we still there? And no, I'm no peace-loving nut. I'm a retired military man. Why are we still in Europe, by the way? Is it that horrible Cold War? That was over 20 years ago. We need to defend against the USSR? Oh, that's right, there hasn't been a USSR in nearly the same time. And I haven't even brought up Afghanistan. Why? Because we still do need to be there for a while, not to prop up a corrupt government, but to insure a draw-down that is as bloodless as possible. We went there to ensure Al-Quida (I hope that's the spelling of the day) couldn't attack us from that region, and to eliminate its head people including Bin-Laden. Job done. Now let's go home. And I hate to tell you, but we as a country have made mistakes. We've propped up, and are still propping up, evil dictators who mercilessly brutalized their country. Shouldn't we acknowledge and apologize for those action? Only smug, arrogant groups refuse to do that, but you already belong to a group like that, don't you? Yes, the group is called The Tea Party.  

Yankees lose, but a guide for the Royals?

Well, if you live here in Kansas City and are a certain age, seeing the Yankees lose isn't as good as watching the Royals win, ... ... ... but it's close-LOL!! But seriously, in the loss is a the plan for Royals being a very good if not great team. Is the players here to go toe-to-toe with the Yankees? Pretty much, yes. If Soria has a good year, is the bullpen comparable? Yes. But where did the Yankees lose this series? Clutch hitting, absolutely, was a major reason. But look at the Tigers pitchers vs. the Tigers pitchers. The Tigers had the younger, stronger, fresher pitchers. So, and this is just my opinion, Dayton Moore, please stay with the young arms we have in our minor league system. This should be the guide. This is the lesson the Royals can take from the Yankees losing. Don't go out and get a 30 year-old plus pitcher. Keep the young, strong arms coming. With good health, Duffy can only get better, Telford looks like a fine 3rd or a great 4th starter, Montgomery is on the way, if not here, next year. And more arms are on the way, ready in late 2012 or at the beginning of 2013. So are the Yankees the guide? No, actually the Giants, and in some ways the Diamondbacks are. But they can show teams how not to win a championship.      

MU to the SEC?

The talk around college sports is that the University of Missouri will go from the Big 12 to the SEC. Now I know that there may be many reasons for MU going to SEC, but I have to ask one question? Where do you get your recruits, MU? Now on this, I am only talking football, but since it is football that is driving combining of college football, I think it is a valid question. Right now, outside of the state of Missouri, MU is like all other Big 12 schools, heavily recruiting the state of Texas. If Texas doesn't go to the SEC, why would a kid sign with Missouri and hardly ever be seen in his home state? So this move would hurt recruiting to MU. Most of the kids in Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana won't go to MU. So MU will lose a lot a recruits kids. So where would you get some recruits, MU?

Steve Jobs- Visionary

There are probably millions of people in my generation and older that never used one of his devices,  some still don't know what an i anything is, and even a few that when they hear someone say app, they think the person is stuttering. But if you asked even them if a man lived his life his way, influenced billions and made not only his corner of the world brighter and more fun, but helped almost the entire world in some way, what would you say about that man? They would say that he was an extraordinary man, a lucky man, and a man they would want as a friend. And they would say that that man was a vision of what they want everyone to become. Steve Jobs, visionary, Rest In Peace.

A Third Party? Sarah's right, and wrong.

Well since she brought it up, I will again talk about a third party, but this time be specific. In this election, if Romney gets the GOP (Tea Party) nomination, a third party would come from the far right. This would split the GOP and ensure that President Obama a second term. But let's say that a true Tea Party member like Perry gets the nomination. This would leave a vacuum down the middle. Now let's say that the New York mayor and Jon Huntsman entered as the third party. They have the money to run in all states, and would take votes from moderate GOP people, but would also take votes from conservative Democrats. Now none of the three would get a majority of the votes or the electorial college votes, and the House would elect the President. Not one person would vote for someone outside their party. So now a Tea Party would hand the Presidency to its nominee, in this case Perry. So, Palin, once again you might be somewhat right, while being completely wrong about  what could very easily happen.  

Moderate Americans - A Majority?

I happen to believe that a majority of Americans are basically moderates in most things. Most people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals, should have the same rights. Most people think that having a gun is a right, but there are times and places that guns should be restricted, if not banned. ( If a person goes to a political rally to shoot a member of the government, isn't this an attempt at a violent over-throw of the government? Isn't this treason?) Most people believe that government should be big enough to pass laws to ensure the life is fair for all people, and that corporations don't run rough-shod over the country ( some don't even care about this, and yet they wonder why so many don't like them?). But everyone agrees that government should be as efficient as possible, and as small as possible to achieve these means. I could take just about anything in the news, and say that if there was a middle ground, a way to make both extremes happy and unhappy at the same time, a majority of people would be for that idea. But how big is the majority, and maybe more important, is that majority a minority in a large part of the country? My guess would be that 60% to maybe 75% of Americans would fall into this group, and there are very few places in America that they're not the majority. But tell me how many people in either the Congress or the White House feel that way? Would you get to double digits? Even if you barely get to triple digits, that still means not only that you're in the minority, but that over 80% of the government doesn't feel that way. Washington, does this help you understand why so many dislike you? Unfortunately, probably not.  

General thoughts- busy news day

After watching the MU news conference, I have a few thought about that, and other things that have happened the last few days.
--Everyone is saying that MU is done with the Big 12, and that may be true. But MU may also just be saying to Texas, " Look, either share the revenue equally, or we're gone. And if A&M and we go, what makes you think anyone wants to be in a conference you're in."
--Governor Christie may have views I would hate, but I have to admit, he has a presence, and scruples, and would be a great leader in the right organization. I can understand why a lot of people want him to run after watching the news conference today.
--As bad as the Chiefs looked in their first 2 games, if they win Sunday, a winning season is still possible. It may not be enough to get in the playoffs, but after all the injuries, it would be a very good year.
--I'm ecstatic that the Wall Street protests are going world-wide. We need to peacefully protest things that we disagree with and are bad for our country. And what Wall Street has done to our economy and in countries around the world. CNN is showing the protests in a bad light, which just shows who's pockets they're in.
--Speaking of the Wall Street protesters, there is talk on twitter that some think they will be the left's Tea Party. I can't see where this group would ever hijack the Democratic Party, stopping moderates from getting nominated, and try to get rid of the federal government. But that's exactly what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.
--In a recent poll, over 50% of the people asked didn't know that GOP stood for Grand Old Party. Now, this wouldn't be so bad, but it was asked of only registered Republicans, and it was multiple choice. And still more than half got it wrong. 
--The weather has been so great here recently, so I'm sure when it snaps, it will snap with a vengeance. The next time we get a storm, I'm half expecting a tornado or snow to hit.
--The Royals may actually lose players in the Rule 5 draft instead of picking up 1 or 2. While this may not mean much to most people, it means that the team is now getting so deep, there are players we can't protect that other teams want. And that can't be a bad thing.
--I'm still amazed that Verlander pitched in the 8th inning, and his pitches were averaging over 95mph that inning. He was only pitching in the low to mid 90s early in the game, and was over 100 several times in the 8th.   
  

Protests? What took so long?

Mike Barnacle on Morning Joe today had the right idea: The protesters are on the wrong street. They should be in Washington, in front of Congress and the White House, telling both parties to get off their ass and do something. And where is organized labor in all this? Well, maybe they're finally showing up, but if they had organized tent cities around Washington, leading marches and being in at first instead of after 3 weeks, think of how many people would have noticed. Does anyone think that anyone there after labor's help would ever vote against a shop being part of a union?  Isn't there anyone in unions that can see the big picture? Unemployment is still over 9%, and you haven't organized any protests? Maybe unions really don't deserve to be around anymore if they can't help those that would help them the most.