I'm Conflicted!

Yesterday, in an attempt to get some interest in Piers Morgan, CNN.com ran this story:

Howard Stern Almost Retired Last Year

My immediate thought was doesn't he do that every time his contract is up? He pretends like he is going to retire so he can milk just a few extra bucks (or stock shares I guess) from his employer. I mean, Howard Stern makes Brett Favre look like Joe "Quit saying I'm retiring...I'm not!" Paterno.

While I acknowledge I don't know the details of these types of negotiations - negotiations I do know you ask? Well, let's just say it involves comic books and haggling with a guy who clearly hasn't showered in weeks - but it does seem odd that a guy who claims to have strongly considered retirement would sign on for FIVE more years! That would be like Ben Bernanke thinking of retiring before deciding what the heck? I'll serve another fourteen year term on the Board of Governors of The Fed.

So, anyway, Mr. Stern is coming back. I know I should not care considering I had no idea that his contract was even expiring and I am generally quite content to ignore Mr. Stern.

However, I want to add that in researching this blog post (Yes, I do some research! Unlike my colleague who goes from The Gut a la "Stephen Colbert"), I found this quote from Mr. Stern:

Jay (Leno) is insane. And Jay is a crook. And the world knows exactly what he's up to. He steals a tremendous amount of material...he's not fit to scrub David Letterman's feet. I don't know how he's beaten David Letterman in the ratings. It's beyond my comprehension. America must be filled with morons who at night lay in bed -- the ones who are watching him, they must be in a coma.

Mr. Stern speaketh the truth! I make no bones about being on Team Coco and if Conan gets back on the air, I will definitely watch his show. What's that? Conan is back on TV?!? Hmmmm...I guess I've been too busy to watch... damn you, Angry Birds!

Oh well, I guess congrats on your new contract, Mr. Stern... now go away for five years when you can consider retiring again (wink wink) before signing on to make another half billion dollars doing fart jokes, asking men about the size of their penis, and asking women if they like anal sex.

What a country?

It takes one to know one

Over the years many criminals have been employed by law enforcement based on the belief that it takes a criminal to know a criminal. The idea is that cops don't think like criminals and have trouble understanding their motives or actions so hiring a criminal helps to bridge that gap.

In a related story Rep. Darrell Issa is now the head of the House Oversight Committee. This committee is essentially the congressional police with power to investigate anything they so desire. The Choice of Issa as it's leader makes perfect sense. Say you wanted to investigate false claims by congressional members, well you could point to Issa's statements about his military service in which he claimed to have provided security detail from President Nixon and received the highest ratings possible for his service. Since he never did provide security for President Nixon and was actually transferred due to unsatisfactory ratings he would have an intimate understanding of a congressman making false claims. Perhaps you want to investigate election fraud where one candidate stole an election. Issa again is uniquely qualified to put himself in the shoes of the thief having twice been accused of grand theft auto. Or maybe you really want to examine the Medicare insurance fraud committed by Doctors. Again Darrell Issa is your man since he was accused of insurance fraud TWICE. Once in the arson of a building Mr. Issa owned, housing a failing company of his and the second regarding a plot with his brother where his brother "stole" Darrell Issa's car and sold it to a dealer while Darrell filed a stolen car claim with his insurance company in hopes to collect insurance money on the car his brother had previously sold.

Any way you cut it, if you are looking for insight into the criminal mind as the head of your Oversight Committee, there are few Congressman more qualified than Darrell Issa.

The argument for unions

In America the stereotype seems to be that Democrats support unions and Republicans are against them. While I don't assume this stereotype to be 100% accurate, I have talked with enough people to know that it holds some water.

What I can't figure out is why. The only reason Unions exist is the free market. The other option is that the government gets involved in defending the rights of workers. Obviously government involvement in private industry would be considered infringing on free market principals. Typically government only gets involved when it is seen as being for the common good and no there is no financial incentive for private industry or individuals to get involved. The EPA would be an example of this.

The argument you are making when you suggest that unions are bad is that the free market only applies to the companies and that the rights of the employees are not protected under the free market ideology. Given that the vast majority Americans are not business owners but employees most Americans should support the idea of unions.

I assume the real issue is something similar to the health care reform bill where in general people support it but have issues with specific parts. This is a bit of a throw the baby out with the bath water approach. What is odd however is that American citizens tend to put the blame for the things they don't like about unions solely at the feet of the unions. Unfortunately for this view, unions sign contracts and these contracts are agreed to by both the companies employing the union members and the unions. When you go to buy a house you tend to offer less than you are willing to pay. When the seller accepts your low ball offer is it your fault that you asked for a low price or the sellers fault for accepting it? The answer is both and believing that the contacts reached by unions with private companies are any different show a clear bias.

Do I love everything that unions do? No. They are a free market creation and have free market flaws, but they are as American as apple pie and baseball. Using support of free market as rationale for being against unions suggests you really don't understand the very free market principles that you claim to love.

Sarah Palin in 2012

After this past week I think it is safe to say that the media can stop covering Sarah Palin like she is a potential presidential candidate in 2012. Void of the fact that the polls show her to only be slightly more popular than Congress, she is not presidential. She has not shown the intelligence required to lead the most powerful country in the world and she fails at every turn to show any real political acumen. At this point Sarah Palin is just another Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Given this the media no longer needs to cover her like she has anything important to say. They don't fall all over themselves to show the latest comments by the other conservative talk show hosts so why do it for Palin. If people want to know what Sarah Palin thinks they are free to find her on any of the vast social media outlets that she participates in for her self promotion. If this is not already in the works I think the American people should boycott any media outlet that continues to feature Sarah Palin talking points as news or relevant.

Having said that, I urge all of my Republican friends to vote for Sarah Palin when the primaries start next year. She will be a disaster as a candidate and a disaster for the entire conservative community. As a Liberal I would like nothing more than to see an Obama - Palin debate. That would be the greatest mismatch since Mike Tyson fought Robin Givens.

The private sector problem

With all of the concerns about the TSA there has been some discussion about the airports that are currently contracting private companies to handle the TSA duties. One of the biggest supporters of this change is Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida. He claims that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows a "statistically significantly better". Mica also claims that using private companies gets a "better cost for the taxpayers".

This sounds great right? Except that the opinions that Mr. Mica is presenting as facts are exaggerated at best and out right lies at worst. The GAO suggested that the performance by the private company employees "was equal to or better than that of Transportation Security Officers". Equal to or better than is not nearly as positive of a review as "statistically significantly better". Additionally, if something is actually statistically better in a significant way, the best argument to make is using the statistics that prove your point. Without an actual number as a comparison the statement becomes and arbitrary judgement based on ones opinion. I assume this was done intentionally be Rep Mica given that the facts seem much less compelling than his belief.

As far as the "cost to taxpayers" is concerned, this same GAO report that Rep Mica is happy to quote when the information supports his opinion, shows that the cost of private employees doing the same job as public employees INCREASES costs by 17%.

Facts be damned. Rep. Mica has an agenda and he will say what ever makes his argument stronger regardless of the reality.

This also points to a bigger issue. Republicans believe that without a shadow of a doubt that private industry is cheaper than their public sector counterpoints. This is an obvious example of how wrong they are. And this is certainly not the first. But that won't stop Republicans from lashing out against the best public sector employees in the world to push their agenda. Very patriotic of Republicans, eh?

The Best Argument for Gun Control

Why is it that the best argument for more gun control are the most ardent supports of gun rights? Allowing a person of questionable mental stability unlimited access to guns doesn't seem like a good idea. Giving every day citizens military style semi-automatic weapons and extended clips doesn't seem like a good idea.

The bigger problem seems to be that gun rights activists are so afraid of some sort of slipper slope ending in a complete repeal of the second amendment that they are unwilling to have reasonable discussions limiting rights in a common sense way. There is a 0% chance that the second amendment will be repealed and a 100% chance that a legal gun will fall into the hands of someone that shouldn't own a gun. We should be able to question some forms of gun rights without being labeled a Communist. Failing to do so will result in attacks like that attempted murder of Representative Giffords happening again in the future.

All things are not equal

As a liberal who often has to defend Democrats from the stereotypes such as "tax and spend" or "weak on defense" I find the discourse following attempted murder of Representative Giffords interesting.

With little to no information available about the shooter the conversation immediately focused on the volatile Republican rhetoric pervasive in our society today. This may be because Representative Giffords is a Democrat or thanks to the comments from the sheriff following the incident suggesting a link between conservative radio and the attacker. While I'm not sold that this rhetoric had anything to do with the attack, I can tell you there is a pattern here. When violence occurs by a non-Muslim American the assumption is that the individual is an extreme conservative. This stereotype has developed over time and will continue to exist as long as the right continues their hate filled talk and hold up gun rights as their most sacred symbol of American values.

As a side note to conservatives. If you disavow any possibility of this incident being influenced by the over the top rhetoric from conservative sources, then you no longer get to claim that violent video games, television, or music has caused or can cause people to act out. Violence espoused by a "news" anchor or talk show host has just as much if not more influence over the simple minded as video games, television or music. Ignoring that for political gain is shameful.

Shooting in Arizona should put spotlight on Health Care debate

By all accounts Jared Loughner was mentally ill and his attempt at assassinating Representative Gabrielle Giffords was not politically motivated. In an effort to explain this tragedy or use this incident for political gain, many have pointed to the particularly volatile political climate as the reason behind the attack. While the use of cross hairs as a political tool by Sarah Palin and claims like the one from Jon Kyle that the new Health Care legislation is a "stunning threat to liberty" are at the very least poor choices for political debate, they don't explain this particular incident.

What we should be talking about instead is the state of our health care system. Mr. Loughner may or may not have been treated for his mental illness but that treatment costs money that many mentally ill Americans can not afford. There are government systems in place to help people like Jared Lougher receive the assistance they need. These programs require tax payer money and are for the greater good. As this incident illustrates mental illness left untreated can be deadly.

Similarly, a full repeal of the new Health Care bill will cost lives. Ignoring all of the benefits of the new legislation and whipping up such hate for political gain is an ill-conceived idea. There are plenty of good things in the bill and plenty of things to fix, but starting from scratch helps no one. We need to make sure that Americans get the care they need both physically and mentally and ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans either like the new legislation as is or would like to see it go further is not the way to move forward. This mentality only serves to hold us back.

The worst result of this incident is for our political system to continue to look backwards on important health care needs and for politicians to isolate themselves further from their constituents. What we need now is more discourse not more rhetoric. Discussing ideas to eliminate the cracks that Mr. Loughner fell through not scoring points with your base. Tax money is meant to be used for the common good and hopefully this tragedy underscores how health care fits into that conversation.

Are Government Workers Overpaid?

I have often heard the argument that government employees are overpaid. Typically this is not the case and specially it is not the case for many of the highest wage earners. Larry Summers made 2,919% more money in the private sector than working for President Obama as a public employee. This means if Mr. Summers, as a public employee, brings home the same wage as your standard congressman, $165,200 per year, his equivalent private sector take home was slightly less than $5,000,000 per year.

When I have presented facts like this to my Republican friends they point to free market and suggest that this huge difference doesn't really bother them. The problem seem to be that they view the money that the pay taxes with a different than the money they use to buy stuff. Larry Summers didn't become less valuable when he moved to the private sector. We are just getting a much better deal now. When American Tax payer money went into funds managed by Mr. Summers former employer, American tax payer dollars were being spent on his salary. The only part of that equation that has changed is the wage he earns. Every dollar he earned was still payed for by the American tax payer.

Both the public and private sectors use tax payer money and we should be critical of wasted money regardless. Its all your money and whether it pays for a bridge to no where or a huge bonus, shouldn't matter. We should expect fiscal responsibility either way.

Lou Dobbs on the O'Reilly factor

After watching three minutes of Lou Dobbs on the O'Reilly Factor tonight it became painfully obvious why so many Republicans hate Obama. The disdain and condescending tone with which Mr. Dobbs spoke of the President of the United States was shocking. If Fox News is your only news source be warned, not are you only not getting the whole story but many of the opinions you are being presented with as facts are inaccurate.

As an example Lou Dobbs blamed President Obama and the Health Care reform for the high cost of prescription drugs. Yes, the same bill that Eric Cantor railed against because it taxes for ten years while increasing coverage for six. The only problem is those six years of benefits have not started yet so any costs of drugs are thanks to the free market. Oddly enough there is a government program that is responsible for the high cost of drugs and that is patents. Thanks to patents the company that comes up with the drug can operate competition free which increases costs. Ask any Republican and they will tell you that competition controls costs. When challenged on this point Mr. Dobbs had the audacity to say "They are expensive to make". They are expensive to research and develop but they are NOT expensive to make.

So given that the Health Care reform bill is the reason for the high cost of medicine, what is Lou Dobbs' solution? A Conversation. He wants to repeal the bill and have a conversation between Americans to figure things out. Apparently when Lou was fired, he went into a comma, because in all of my life, there has never been a bill that had more conversation before passage, than the Health Care reform bill.

Also in case you were not aware, according to Lou, the US Government pays more for medical care than private insurance. I've never seen that information. But for the sake of argument lets say Lou is correct, well the Health Care reform bill has cost controls. Republicans acknowledge them, only, when it is Democrats that try to control the costs, Republicans yell "keep the government out of my Medicare" and then turn the cost controls into "rationing", "job killers", and "death panels".

Lou. Do me a favor. Next time you have an idea you would like to share with the class, make sure that you don't completely contradict yourself with each of your talking points.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it

As a student I was made to watch a series of history video that always opened with the statement "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". I find this to a particularly troublesome epidemic in America currently. After the Great Depression we limited the speculative power of banks to prevent another depression. By the end of the nineties we had repealed a good portion of these protections and within a decade we had experienced the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression.

Similarly before 1963 thousands of people died every year of measles. Given the recent fear over vaccinations causing autism, which has been proven false, less parents are getting their kids the vaccinations for measles. Expect an uptick in measles deaths worldwide and eventually the fear of measles will outweigh the unfounded fear of the vaccine to prevent measles and parents will again return to the vaccinations that they should have been doing all along. If people understood the history of disease they would realize that the risk of not vaccinating is far greater than vaccinating. Unfortunately Americans will continue to make the same mistakes because they don't understand history. And the vaccine scare will not be the last example of this.

Hate

I assume everyone has encountered someone in their life that they can say with a clear conscience that they hate. It could be a co-worker, a class mate, or someone you must deal with as part of your job. It could also be a roommate, an in-law, or family member. Who ever it may be your reaction to this person is hate, regardless of the situation. You get angry when you see them and any idea they have, no matter how good, you are against.

With this in mind I have come to hate the rigid right wing nut bags, so when they wrap themselves in the American flag and claim to be a true patriot and anyone who disagrees with them is a Communist, I begin to hate the American flag. My hate is only localized. If some Canada calls into question the American flag I would defend it tooth and nail. And when Republicans trotted out their dog and pony show yesterday of reading the Constitution and implied that it was a document that belonged to them and their ideals, I started to hate the Constitution.

In reality I find no document more important to the American way of life. I read it to contain a separation of Church and State that the Conservative purists fail to recognize and I feel that the freedom of speech is absolute and not rendered moot based on your religion, but that doesn't mean I hold the constitution in lower regard than those who read it differently. It means we both see the document from a different perspective and the true understanding of it can only be determined by the Courts. Republicans may claim it as their own and I will hate them for trying to belittle my position by doing so, but it doesn't change the fact that when I feel a tinge of disdain for the Constitution, it is really my hate for the extreme right and their blind love of the greatest American symbols.

Now if only Republicans would come out and claim their love for crispy cream doughnuts and suggest that no Americans love them more than they do.

The Problem with the Exception to the Rule argument

Over the years I have found that Republicans love to take one example that supports their stance and use that the prove that all other point of views are incorrect. A couple good examples of this is the Global Warming debate and Carbon Dating. Republicans will point out the only 99% of scientist believe that Global Warming exists and rather than discredit the remaining one percent they hold them up as the only bastions of the truth. Not because they can discuss the actual scientific data that proves their point but rather because this is their opinion and if they can find one professional that agrees with them it must be true.

The same is true with Carbon dating. In an effort to protect the Christian belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old, Christians will quote that once a cowboy boot was tested out by carbon dating to be hundreds of thousand of years old when it was really only around 100 year old. Rather than accept that mistakes can be made or that the information may be false they use this as proof that Carbon dating is a sham.

Well, many of these same people believe that autism is caused by vaccines. Regardless of the fact that many studies had shown this to be false, there was one study that confirmed what these people wanted to believe. This gave them someone to blame and another opportunity to do some fear mongering. The problem is that it turns out the study they have based their belief on is fiction. The guy in charge of the study basically made it up. At this point there is 0% proof that vaccines cause autism but that won't stop the fringe from believing it. As a matter of fact they will just claim that the study is true and the claims that it are not is just a cover up.

Republicans need a history lesson when it comes to the Constitution

Republicans are full of symbolic acts so far in 2011. First they will take a symbolic vote on health care repeal meant to appease the Tea Party fanatics. The plan is to do nothing but act like you did everything you could and blame the failures on the Democrats. The idea is that the Tea Party members are too dumb to see through this charade.

Next up is the Constitution. Currently there is a belief by Conservatives that they love the Constitution more than Liberals. To prove it Republicans are going to read the Constitution out loud on the floor of the House. I actually think this is a good thing since it seems after listening to conservative rhetoric that very few of them actually understand the Constitution. It's also odd that they show such reverence for this document and the founding fathers given that this was a document created by Liberals and the amendments that have been added over the years are Liberal amendments.

The problem is not with the Constitution, but rather conservatives understanding of the Constitution. Republicans are going to require that all future House Bills reference how the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact the requirements of that bill. Well, the Constitution gives the congress the express power to tax yet Republican have made it their goal to end taxes. The Constitution gives children born in this country of illegal immigrants, citizenship, yet Republicans are considering the elimination of this amendment. Republicans like what they think the Constitution stands for, not what it actually says.

The point being that Republicans are focusing on a very symbolic view of the Constitution given that they actually have more issues with it than Democrats. Their complaints are with Democratic policy and they are hiding behind the Constitution as the rationale for their objections because the Constitution polls well. Yet more proof that Americans is stupid. They keep falling for the Republican slight of hand without truly understanding what they are supporting.

Is Rams' Bradford the best rookie QB ever?

That is the title of an NBC Sports article by Mike Tainer. After a little bit of analysis Mr. Tainer's statistics show that Bradford is well behind Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco and slightly ahead of Vince Young and Mark Sanchez. Keep in mind Vince Young is being cut by his team and Mark Sanchez is still very much a work in progress.

Given that what little statistical analysis Mr. Taniner actually does, reveals almost the opposite of his claim, he comes up with some excuses for Bradford's lower numbers. The main excuse being that his wide receivers are average at best. While I agree that the names may be unknown I'm not certain that this claim is as valid as it may seem since the Rams' receiving corp ranked 6th in the league in yards after the catch. Another excuse by Mr. Tainer is that Bradford takes few sacks. Part of the explanation for both of the excuses, that Mr. Tainer also fails to mention, is that Sam Bradford throws 1/6th of his passes behind the line of scrimmage. That helps boost his completion percentage. keeps sacks low and increases his total passing yards. Additionally Sam Bradford is second to last in the league in yards per attempt. Ahead of only Jimmy Clausen. Bradford may have good numbers for a rookie but he takes very few chances. That method of quarterbacking does not make for a championship quarterback. Remember Joey Harrington had a fairly promising rookie year too and had a record low sacks taken in his second year, eventually earning the nickname of Joey check down. Well Bradford is closer to the Joey Harrington model at this point than Matt Ryan.

But wait you say. The Rams won 7 games this year, which is a huge improvement over their previous year. While that is true, they also had the second easiest record in the NFL and played defenses, that if averaged, would be the 22nd best defense in the league. As a Lions fan I can tell you your schedule has a huge impact on your final standing and your stats.

I'm not suggesting Bradford is a bust, but one of the best rookie ever? Please. Try starting with some facts and then make an opinion.

Republican impliment new rules in the House

How dedicated are the Republicans to their new rules? They are so dedicated that they plan on completely ignoring their new Cut as you Go rule to lead a symbolic charge against the health care reform bill.

This is like a house burglar being released on parole and his first act is to invade a home. When caught he would say I plan on being above board after this so we're all good. If you are willing to break your own rules once and claim "the will of the people" you are willing to do it again.

To make matters worse the new Cut as you Go rules exclude closing tax loopholes as a means for paying for a program. Yes, rather than make some big donor pay his fair share of taxes like you and I, to help pay for more police on the streets or a better quality of education to preserve our standing as the greatest nation in the world, Republicans would rather cut jobs, because according to their ideology, only cuts in government spending can help the economy.

As referenced here before time and time again, the Republicans are wrong on this. You don't have to look any further than the upcoming jobs report which estimates that we added around 300,000 new jobs to the economy, to realize that the Democrats stimulus plan is working. All Republicans are going to do is add to the unemployment numbers by cutting valuable government jobs. This is a olive branch towards the deficit hawks that does nothing to help the economy.

Republicans just don't get it

Today marks the start of the new Republican domination of our federal government, at least that how the liberal media is making it sound. They are coming in acting like Americans voted for their agenda but the polls show other wise. After months of lamenting how Democrats were forcing their liberal ideas down Americans throats and wasted Americans time the first thing Republican plan on tackling? Repeal of health care reform. Not only do they not have the votes for this to go anywhere (see waste of time), but the number of Americans that would like to see the bill repealed is around 35% and the number of Americans that think the bill is good as is or needs to go further is somewhere around 60%. Does that matter to Republicans? Nope (see forcing down Americans Throats).

To top things off void of the individual mandate, whose constitutionality should be decided by the courts not Congress, the Republicans number one complaint about the bill is that it costs too much. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a collection of some of the greatest economical minds in the country and they determined to be bill to cut the deficit by over $100 billion. Apparently for Republicans having an opinion supersedes having facts. I'm am putting Republicans on the watch list. Either the CBO knows what they are doing or they don't. You don't get to tout CBO stats when they support your position and ignore them when they don't.

I'm guessing soon Republicans will attempt to use the CBO as cover for a bill they like and complain about how Un-American the Democrats use of the filibuster is. And dumb Americans will back them at every turn.

I Call B.S.: Hollywood Edition

I have another first for my second post of 2011...at least, I think so...have I Called Bullshit on a movie before?


Anyway, over holiday break I saw a commercial for a new movie called Just Go With It starring Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston. Holy shit!! The commercial features Sandler deciding he could "see (him)self ending up with this girl". The girl in question is Brooklyn Decker (that is her to the right). She is, needless to say, SUPER HOT! Adam Sandler is an average looking guy who also happens to be 20+ years older than she is. Only in Hollywood is this not a laughable scenario... well, unless of course, the Sandler character is super rich... which may or may not be the case.

Wait! I'm not done with this stupid ass movie. So the plot of the movie apparently has the Sandler character having to convince Ms. Decker's character that he likes kids and could be a good father. Hence, he apparently convinces the Aniston character to allow him to use her kids as a pretend family. Can I make not so bold prediction? If I know dumbass rom-coms, Sandler is going to start to care for Aniston's little brats and is eventually going to conclude that he and Aniston make a good couple. She is going to resist at first but eventually they end up together - happily ever after. Who knows... maybe they even make the very end of the movie being Ms. Aniston's character becoming pregnant with Sandler's kid (or an epilogue with her having had such a baby). I think I am going to cry just thinking about it! (Oh wait, did I say cry? I meant I think I'm going to hurl.)

The only upset with this movie is why it doesn't star the reigning Queen of Horrible RomComs, Katherine Heigl?!? Although, come to think of it, Aniston is really only one rung higher on the dignity ladder than Ms. Heigl. So, Sandler and Aniston... fair enough.

SKIP IT!!!

In Defense Of Chris Christie

I hate to go all Harold Ford, Jr. and argue for Republicans but I am going to make my first post of 2011 a curveball of sorts and do just that.

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) has been taking all kinds of heat for being on vacation during the recent blizzard (Snow-Pocalypse 2010). Even the recently very non-partisan Jon Stewart commenced 2011 by taking a little shot at Governor Christie:

We wouldn't just blow out of town right when important sh!t was going down... we're not the Governor of New Jersey!

All I know is if we had a storm in Michigan and everyone has taking shots at Governor Jennifer Granholm - I absolutely would've defended her. Ever heard of a phone?!?! I might've been inclined to quip. So, unless Gov. Christie was the only one with the keys to the garage where they keep the snow plows, I would more inclined to say Governor Christie is gone? Good! Perhaps we should turn out the lights and pretend we all left so maybe he won't come back?

I mean, seriously, he is the governor dealing with a blizzard. Blizzards happen every year! There has to be a plan in place to deal with this situation and I am fairly certain it doesn't involve the governor single-handedly plowing the roads of Newark or Trenton or Hoboken or Teaneck. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Chris Christie would not even shovel his own friggin' driveway! Now Jennifer Granholm... of course, she does!

The Health of America

There are two very different topics that I'm discussing when talking about the health of America but they are both very similar.

When Democrats talk about health care reform and controlling costs we often refer to the savings that comes from routine check ups. People without insurance don't do the routine maintenance and typically only see a doctor when things are dire. In the end it is much more expensive to wait until your system is failing than to just maintain your health.

This is also true of our nation. Republicans would like to start steeling money from our infrastructure fund to help pay for other programs that are not funded thanks to a huge drop in revenue brought on by the Bush tax cuts. The problem with this is that putting off the routine maintenance now will cost us more money down the road. Fixing small issues with a bridge before it collapses is much cheaper than waiting for it to collapse. Upgrading our railroad tracks before a train derails is much cheaper than letting the system fail. Providing the maintenance and reinforcement necessary before a levee fails, killing hundreds, is much cheaper than waiting.

If the foundation of your house was failing would you wait for your house to collapse and start all over or would you spend a little money now to fix the minor issue, saving hundreds of thousands later? Our infrastructure is the base which our capitalist system rests on. Failing to maintain it now, is increasing our deficit later. If you truly care about future deficits then maintenance spending now is the best investment you can make.