Why you should not take a literal translation...

...of the bible.

I have always been against taking a literal position on the bible because, well, if you know history you know it's been translated a billion times and with each translation the translator may or may not take some "liberties". Well here is a perfect example of that.

Conservative Bible Project.

Is it really a good idea to cling to the words of humans when your intent is to cling to the words of God? In other words, by committing yourself to God you must also commit yourself to education and interpretation based on what you know, not what others would have you believe. If God is within you, listen to him. Not them.

After healthcare can we focus on education?

Do I laugh, cry, scream? I'm just not sure what to say...

Here's the thing, these people all seem like nice people. They are confused, they've been loyal to a party that has repeatedly lied to them and taken advantage of that loyalty. They have been tricked into thinking that politics and their religious beliefs go hand in hand. They now have no idea who to trust, they have no idea what is the truth and what is a lie because they've been on a path that requires any truth to be confirmed by the bible and if it can't be they dismiss it. They have so many holes in what would be their logical thought patterns that they just don't know what to think anymore. So they turn to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to help them know, to help them understand...and what they hear is SCARY. Death panels, commu-facis-socialism. The horror! They have gotten so caught up that they don't seem to realize they are totally wrong. The look on their faces when they are told the truth about Czars, the complete lack of any sort of follow up thoughts to standard talking points they have been taught to spew, the total lack of understanding or desire to understand what is actually happening in this country. It's frightening and it's sad.


75 Percent of Oklahoma High School Students Can't Name the First President of the U.S.

14% of New Jersey Republicans think Obama is the anti-christ

The Opposition in Action:

"Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance."

"Keep the Government out of my Medicaid!"

Free market vs. free market

The free market is a wonderful thing that has brought prosperity to this nation and it works, most of the time. But sometimes it doesn't. There are some things in life that should not be driven by profit. Education, disaster relief, law enforcement, politics, communication and HEALTHCARE. Now, that's not to say that those involved shouldn't be allowed to profit, and might I say that those involved offer the most value to society and therefore should be heavily rewarded. However, the field itself cannot be driven by profit, it must be driven by it's necessity in an orderly, safe and free society.

That is why capitalism at it's core cannot lead all things. I often argue that the best solution never consists of one thing. Capitalism, education, government, individual responsibility--these are all building blocks to a strong society but none are a single solution. It seems as though an intelligent person should be able to understand and I fully believe that if we can put fear, anger and prejudice aside we can all come to the table and figure this out. Is too idealistic of me?

"Fact Free Politics"

That is basically what the "Obama Death Panel" nonsense is, FACT FREE, FACT FREE, FACT FREE, FACT FREE. It has become unconscionable, unintelligent, unproductive and just plain despicable. The health care debate is a serious debate effecting EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. This is not a game, this is people's lives and it requires serious debate from all opinions. I am so beyond sick of these idiots shouting "loud noises" simply because they don't like that Obama won the election. Simply because they are no longer in power to tell us how to live our lives, who to love, what God to worship and why immigration is bad. I have tried to listen to their "arguments" but they no longer have arguments, they now only have hateful, fearful, rhetoric designed to scare those that have no interest in learning for themselves. No interest in thinking for themselves. There is only black and white and there is only good and evil. They have constantly been fooled by corrupt politicians, religious leaders and businessmen. They no longer trust anyone. They no longer believe in compassion. They are huddled in their corner, shaking and praying for the apocalypse so all that they do not understand will go away and they can live in their mindless bubble once more.

Well it's not going to happen. We all share this Earth. We are all human beings and MOST OF US just want to live happy, free lives. Yes government is not the answer to all our problems. Neither is the church. Neither is education. Neither is capitalism. BUT ALL THOSE THINGS bring value to society. All those things, if you care to participate, can contribute to bringing about a better life for everyone. We do not live alone here, we share the same air, we drive on the same socialist roads.

"Keep the government out of my Medicare!". Obamas death panel will decide whether or not old people and disabled people are worthy of treatment? Are you fucking kidding me?! Do these people even listen to their own rhetoric? Do they ever evaluate the statements they are making? No. They do not because it's not about the arguments, it's about the fear. The fear of society passing them by because they refuse to change.

I understand not wanting to change a life you are comfortable with but the truth is that other than the new found anger in their lives, nothing has changed. Their churches are still open, their guns are still legal and they are still straight. The United States still exists and the constitution is still intact.

I know part of their anger is fueled by people like me telling them they're stupid so I have tried to avoid that until now but seriously, Obama death panels?

Maddow seems pretty pissed too.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Added: Frank Schaffer is angrey too

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Healthcare rant...

As much as we want to dismiss Olberman for his overly dramatic soapbox rants, when you listen to what he actually says you just can't. You just can't ignore the facts he presents, even if in a bias manner. It's worth watching.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Where does all that money really go?

One of the best descriptions of Palin's possible intentions I've read. Also a great glimpse of "political action committees" and what they really do.

Sarah Palin, Inc. The Phoenix.

The Scam of the Century!

Summed up beautifully by the MOST TRUSTED JOURNALIST in the country:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

To Summarize...

Go to:

This link

Then this link

Then this link

& finally this link

Then you'll know all you need to know about The Quitta from Wasilla and you can resume your life and move on.

RIP Sarah Palin

Retire in Peace.

She doesn't want to be lame duck.

She thinks sitting around is for quitters so instead, she will quit.

She thinks there should be more downs syndrome babies in the world and her family was hurt to see Trig's iconic photo desecrated.

She won't be one of those governors that end their term traveling around on expensive trade missions (she just got back from Kosovo and Germany).

She is upset that those damn political operatives have bastardized her ethics reform by using them against her, wasting MILLIONS (or hundreds of thousands) of tax payer dollars (mainly investigating the Troopergate complaint she lodged against herself).

She keeps getting caught lying by those liars in the liberal media.

She can't seem to share those emails people nagging her about (emails she didn't release have shown possible reasons) and hopes for justice against that damn teenager that tried to get them (illegally) for FREE!

Oh and she's running out of people to fire for disagreeing with her.

I have this strange feeling that this is about to get even stranger...

RIP Captain EO

Not sure why but Michael Jackson's death makes me very, very sad.


May Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon also RIP.

Is everyone just searching for a reason to be outraged?

I mean seriously I get annoyed all the time but I'm never really outraged by the world...often amused, often confused, often annoyed. But actual outrage? Nah. It just seems these days everyone is pissed about something and if they're not already pissed their poised with the zipper down waiting for something, anything, to help them find that first drop of anger.

Lighten up. Pay attention, watch, discuss, but for crying out loud don't get outraged and start hating things. The world is going bitter.

Freedom of speech is essential.

I think it's kind of great that the Sarah Palin/David Letterman feud is going on during the Iranian elections. For one it really puts Sarah Palin and her insignificance and un-seriousness in perspective. But more importantly it has allowed us to see an illustration of just how crucial freedom of speech is from the most meaningful, life changing, speech to the most trivial, most inappropriate or most offensive speech.

Iranian Elections Update:
"And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed."
- President Obama

"Ahmadinejad called the opposition as a bunch of insignificant dirt who try to make the taste of victory bitter to the nation. He also called the western leaders as a bunch of 'filthy homosexuals'. All these disgusting remarks was today answered by that largest demonstration ever. Older people compared the demonstration of today with the Ashura Demonstration of 1979 which marks the downfall of the Shah regime and even said that it outnumbered that event. The militia burnt a house themselves to find the excuse to commit violence. People neutralized their tactic to a large degree by their solidarity, their wisdom and their denial to enage in any violent act."
-Quoted on Andrew Sullivan's, The Daily Dish

Palin/Letterman Update:
Sarah Palin's acceptance of David Letterman's second apology reads something like this:

"I'd like to thank young women everywhere and our brave troops that make moments like this possible for me. And also, equality, free speech, evolution and respect."

Tobacco.

Whichever your preferred news resource, you've likely heard of the new bill putting tobacco companies under the control of the FDA. Big deal right?

Initial thoughts and maybe/probably stretching:

-Is this to make way for a precedent when medical marijuana goes federal as well as the move toward general use marijuana (over the counter =) becomes legal? Will it help firm up a strong precedent to control it under the FDA (which I think is better than the DEA for this instance). Is this a total stretch?

-Is this the start of a "slippery slope" towards more regulation on food products? Okay, so other than things we eat it's hard to define "food" in this instance but I think it's safe to say things we consume by putting them into our body and attribute them to our physical health are under this category and now, possibly, open to more regulation. After all if you can prove it is HORRIBLY bad for, do you have a case to regulate it for the "public good"? Perhaps.

Some things we can all agree on...

Charlie Lynch is being sentanced tomorrow. Charlie Lynch legally sold medical marijuana to valid medical patients with doctor prescriptions. The DEA raided his dispensary, arrested him and did not allow him to mention state laws or medical marijuana in his defense.

WRONG. No matter which side of the isle.

Who's Debt?

The Daily Dish links to a great New York Times breakout of the current natinal debt and the party responsible. Bush owns most of it, Republicans won't own up to it.

Click through for a great visial:

Can't help it, Palin is just so...so...

This post offers a great comparison of two recent speeches. One given by Sarah Palin and the other by President Obama.

**UPDATE** Apparently the Palin speech was heavily "borrowed" from an article by Newt Gringrich.

Here's an excerpt:

And this closing message:

Sarah Palin:

Friends, we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and of fearful lawmakers being led to believe that big government is the answer to bail out the private sector because then goverment gets to get in there and control it and, mark my words, this is going to happen next I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states, then government gets to get in there and control the people, and watch what happens there. Michael, maybe you want to talk about your home state California. We’ll see what happens there but you know it’s…. aaaaa!…. for the love of God you’ve got to ask yourself where we got off track?

President Obama:

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

Too much government?

Since the election I've been trying to identify my political leanings and usually I fall on the more liberal side of the fence. However, lately I have definitely been seeing some red flags in regards to our government.

1. Medical decisions.

As we jump into the debate regarding the broken healthcare system two court cases have caught my attention. This one and this one. The first one involves a family that refused to get their 13-year old chemotherapy due to their beliefs that alternative medicine was a better choice. The court ordered them to get chemo. The second is in regards to a family that prayed over their dying daughters body as she died from untreated diabetes. The mother was found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide. Both cases have started new discussions regarding parents rights when it comes to medical decisions. While it is clear that for the most part parents do have the ultimate say, it is also clear that it is not always the case and in life-threatening or other severe cases the parents must make a pretty strong case to win.

So what is right? Washington State recently passed a law legalizing certain forms of euthanasia. Should we have a say in how and when we die? Should that be a question for a court or a popular vote or anyone other than the individual? The cases above involved a minor which obviously makes a difference but is this a discussion of parents rights or individual rights? If we want to do something that could kill us do we have the right? I say yes. The strength of individual liberty, in my opinion, is not just the individual rights but the belief that we can make the best choices for ourselves. Not that our choices will always be better than others but that if we do not retain the right to make those choices, someone else will. Who gets to make that call? The courts? Doctors? Politicians? I believe that while the advice of experts should be respected, if you think God will save you and doctor-recommended chemo won't, by all means give it a go. After all it's not like these parents wanted to sue the medcical establishment for not saving their daughter, they placed the sole responsibilty in Gods hands.

That of course could take us down a different path - is one really taking personal responsibility if they are actually placing all responsibility on God? Is personal responsibility something we can dodge if we play the God (or Devil) card? Religious freedom has not proven to trump taking personal responsibility for the consequences of ones actions, even if you personally believe you had nothing to do with it...it was all God.

2. Executive Pay Caps

There has been a lot of outrage over the recent 'revelations' that top executives pay themselves crazy amounts of money. It was never really an issue until those same executives continued to get their multi-million dollar salaries as their companies self destructed and they took millions (sometimes billions) in federal money.

Our law makers have pay caps, our president has a set paycheck. Why would a company being funded by the government NOT have a paycap as well? That makes sense. BUT does it cross over into territory that could be abused. Probably, what government program doesn't. That does not mean it will be but it could. Also, these companies are not owned or entirely funded by the government so should they be subject to the same rules? I have no answers but my gut says that we should make it hard and uncomfortable to accept government money in the private sector. The last bailout fiasco with no accountability, no requirement of disclosure and obvious abuse was a pretty big red flag if you ask me. If you're too big to fail, suck it up and take a pay cut! However, I do feel as though some are being demonized for things far beyond their control.

The moral of the story is that YES government interference in the private sector is cause for concern. It is not always bad, nor is it always good but it is ALWAYS cause for concern or at the very least vibrant debate.

More and more I find myself in the socially liberal, fiscally conservative camp. However that in itself sometimes feels like a contradiction.

Mystery Solved!

If you are a fan of Colbert, you know that he has been hinting at a trip to the middle east for quite some time now. The ongoing joke has been that it's time and location is top secret, allowing the Colbert Nation to speculate about a) if he's really going, b)when and c)where. It's fun and it's Colbert.

Her Tweet today:

Getting ready to tape shout-out for our awesome US troops serving overseas! Will be on ‘Colbert Report’ next month, broadcast from Iraq…

Thanks Sarah! We now know that Colbert will be in IRAQ in JUNE. I'm sure he appreciates not having to complete his build up himself. You're a peach!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Shout Out - The Colbert Report Overseas
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Keyboard Cat

If you care you should read this before the commentary.

The president's speech today regarding national security.

These are extraordinary times for our country. We're confronting a historic economic crisis. We're fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. So there's no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we've begun to make progress. Just this week, we've taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. (Applause.) The -- it's a good bill. (Laughter.) The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we're working towards historic reform on health care and on energy. I want to say to the members of Congress, I welcome all the extraordinary work that has been done over these last four months on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. It's the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

And this responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we've taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we're providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons. And we've launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We're better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We're building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to these shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words -- "to form a more perfect union." I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset -- in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It's the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's Armed Forces than from their own government.

It's the reason why America has benefitted from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp, moral contrast with our adversaries.

It's the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism and outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free peoples everywhere in the common cause and common effort of liberty.

From Europe to the Pacific, we've been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era -- that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach -- one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. And that's why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America. (Applause.)

I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence. I bear the responsibility for keeping this country safe. And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. (Applause.) What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all. (Applause.)

Now, I should add, the arguments against these techniques did not originate from my administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his own administration -- including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community -- that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. That's why we must leave these methods where they belong -- in the past. They are not who we are, and they are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.)

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of military commissions that were in place at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setback after setback, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over 525 detainees were released from Guantanamo under not my administration, under the previous administration. Let me repeat that: Two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law -- a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks here in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release 17 Uighurs -- 17 Uighur detainees took place last fall, when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents -- not wild-eyed liberals. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place. (Applause.)

Now let me be blunt. There are no neat or easy answers here. I wish there were. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. I refuse to pass it on to somebody else. It is my responsibility to solve the problem. Our security interests will not permit us to delay. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we've seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I'm an elected official; I understand these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We're confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending all of our time relitigating the policies of the last eight years. I'll leave that to others. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that, frankly, are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold most dear. And I'll focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; but, second, I also want to discuss issues relating to security and transparency.

Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.

As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following face: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. And as we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield. That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security demands.

Now, going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee, al-Marri, in federal court after years of legal confusion. We're preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District Court of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania -- bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do. (Applause.)

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms that we are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms, among others, will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who have been ordered released by the courts. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there's no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer. And my administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials. You can almost picture the direct mail pieces that emerge from any vote on this issue -- designed to frighten the population. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.

I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- so did each and every member of Congress. And together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

Now, let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security -- for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment -- informed by my national security team -- that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

Now, in the press's mind and in some of the public's mind, these two cases are contradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. And this balance brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested over the last several years. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. And that caused suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst for accountability.

I understand that. I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued -- and I never will -- that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book. I will never abandon -- and will vigorously defend -- the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. Here's the difference though: Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions -- by Congress or by the courts.

We're currently launching a review of current policies by all those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers -- especially when it comes to sensitive administration -- information.

Now, along these same lines, my administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "state secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It's been used by many past Presidents -- Republican and Democrat -- for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits. So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

And we plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.

On all these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why. (Applause.)

Now, in all the areas that I've discussed today, the policies that I've proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we've banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming military commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and we're narrowing our use of the state secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer, and more sustainable footing. Their implementation will take time, but they will get done.

There's a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions. Even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly reevaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from other branches of government, as well as the public. We seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long term -- not to serve immediate politics, but to do what's right over the long term. By doing that we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my administration, my presidency, that endures for the next President and the President after that -- a legacy that protects the American people and enjoys a broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

Now, this is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to actions of the last eight years, passions are high. Some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, in some cases debates that they have lost. I know that these debates lead directly, in some cases, to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an independent commission.

I've opposed the creation of such a commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws or miscarriages of justice.

It's no secret there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And it's no secret that our media culture feeds the impulse that lead to a good fight and good copy. But nothing will contribute more than that than a extended relitigation of the last eight years. Already, we've seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides to laying blame. It can distract us from focusing our time, our efforts, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in the recent debate -- how the recent debate has obscured the truth and sends people into opposite and absolutist ends. On the one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and would almost never put national security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "Anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants -- provided it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That's what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for our core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall. (Applause.)

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last 222 years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. And we hear such voices today. But over the long haul the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we've made our share of mistakes, required some course corrections, ultimately we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength and a beacon to the world.

Now this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. And unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now. Neither I nor anyone can stand here today and say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my administration -- along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security -- will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are, if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals. This must be our common purpose.

I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America -- it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people and as one nation. We've done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Great post on the Daily Dish

I really enjoyed reading this post.

Excerpt:

In that example, I think, is the key to how a liberal arts education ... or any education, for that matter ... should work. First, it should teach the conventional wisdom and rules. Then it should teach that it's okay to question, bend, or even break them, if there's a good reason to. Because if life asks anything of us, I think it's to be both entrepreneur and traditionalist, all wrapped up in one; learning what we should change, what we shouldn't change, and enough wisdom to know the difference between the two.

The escape from "the liberal-conservative paradigm"

I came across this article via The Daily Dish. It makes a wonderful point about the shifts the country is seeing regarding policy opinions. Many would assume that we are moving mostly left, and we are in a lot of ways. But we are also shifting right in others. During the election it became apparent that many people considered themselves, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". If I could describe the ideal America that would be exactly what I would say. This author describes it as the escape from "the liberal-conservative paradigm".

Some excerpts:

"There’s encouraging news in recent polls about two civil liberties issues — marriage equality and marijuana legalization...

...These developments have led Andrew Sullivan and CBS News to speculate about a “tipping point” for change — at last — in marijuana prohibition. Just this week, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said there should be a major study of the possibility of legalization...

...Meanwhile, TPM and AOL’s PoliticsDaily also see a tipping point for marriage equality...

...By the way, that much-discussed ABC/Post poll also showed declining support for gun control...

...Those of us who have escaped the liberal-conservative paradigm recognize that the right to bear arms is also a civil liberty, and it’s entirely consistent to support marriage equality, marijuana legalization, and the Second Amendment.

The “shift to the left” that we seem to observe on economic policy is depressing to libertarians. But that’s mostly crisis-driven. When the results of more spending, more taxes, more regulation, and more money creation begin to be visible, we may see the kind of reaction that led to Proposition 13 and the election of Ronald Reagan at the end of the 1970s. Meanwhile, this cultural “shift to the left” is far more encouraging. And don’t forget, at 90 days into the Obama administration, Americans preferred smaller government to “more active government” by 66 to 25 percent."

Now, I'm all for both the Right and the Left to ditch the extreme and focus on the good ideas each side undeniably has, the socially conservative (because we all have to live together) and the fiscally conservative (because we can't make our own decisions about our social lives if we're not free to make our decisions about our financial ones).

Politicians are the best reality stars.

I admit it, I am a Palin convert. No, not "team" Palin, just the whole Palin saga. It's reality soap opera and it's great, especially if we could get her out of Politics (I like seeing her go closer and closer toward 'special interest group'). I give credit where credit is due, she and her family are fantastic characters to watch get put in, and put themselves in, zany situations!

I give you the [ahem], "the battle of words on the airways this morning between Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, and her former fiancee Levi Johnston."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Watch CBS Videos Online

I could say a lot of snarky, "old men on the balcony" (did you know their names were Statler and Waldorf?) type of things but I bet your own mental-comments are just as good or better!

So sensitive.

I understand that when you care about something it is easy to become over sensitive. But right now some are whining. Flat out whining. They have issued a statement demanding an apology from Pres. Obama for saying that waving tea bags around isn't the way to start a discussion. They're right that he was taking a minor jab at them, but what do they expect? Have you seen some of the signs they had? In case you missed it, I'll post a few (found here, and here):







Yes, they demand that he take them seriously when they liken him to Osama Bin Laden and Chairman Mao and question his birth. Mutual respect requires both sides (i.e. "mutual"). If they want to be taken seriously about spending and policy that is what their discussion needs to be about. I'm pretty sure that is what President Obama was trying to say.

$100 million from the federal budget

Sounds good to me

Miss California

Miss California; the right's new Sarah Palin. She's younger, she's hotter, she says all the right things and she is now a victim of the gay, liberal, media. She also thinks that homosexuals have a 'choice' to marry in this country (she probably meant that they have a 'choice' to be gay, but the question was about marriage) which is odd because she comes from CA, a state that just voted to amend the constitution to deny homosexuals just that. Opposite marriage is better because, in the famous words of Paula Abdul, Opposites Attract.

My take: Back off Perez. You hurt your case by calling someone a bigot for their opinion, especially when probably 60% of the audience agrees. The 'storm' they fear is apparently one of harsh words and condemnation for deep, often religiously held, beliefs.

What will they do after the revolution?

I've been thinking about tea baggers.

Now, I understand that they feel that they somehow work harder and are morally superior than everyone else. Awesome. And that somehow because of this everyone else wants what they have, everyone wants to be them.

BUT. Everyone is too lazy so the hard workers end up having to support the lazy do nothings. Via taxes. Taxes are used to pay the governments tab. Those lazy people now want to be able to order things and add it to the government tab!!

Quick! Close the restaurant, turn off the tea pots, shut the windows! Yell! Revolt! That's it, we want our own tab and we don't want you damn lazy liberals having anything to do with it!

What happens if they win? What then, will happen to all the other Americans that want to use the tab (that they help pay for too, also). Will they be jailed? Will they be silenced by the newly re-activated laser plane? What will happen to them, the majority? Comply or die?

Maybe they'll hold a beerfest protest on 4:20.

Between 1979 and 2006, real after-tax incomes rose by 256 percent — or $863,000 — for the top 1 percent of households...

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities just posted this information from the CBO regarding income gaps over the last thirty years. There is a trend one can see regarding income gaps and major recessions/depressions. Trickle down at it's 'best'.



More notes from the piece:

The CBO data also show that between 1979 and 2006:

-The average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the population more than tripled, from $337,000 to over $1.2 million. As noted, this represented an increase of $863,000, or 256 percent.

-By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose from $42,900 in 1979 to $52,100 in 2006 — a relatively modest gain of $9,200 or 21 percent over a 27-year period.

-The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose only from $14,900 to $16,500, an increase of $1,600 or 11 percent. [3]

Healthcare is complicated...

Which is exactly why we need the discussions going on right now. The Daily Dish has been having a great conversation about this and this reader's response was really interesting.

The problem is that this is one of those issues in which various sides of the argument make a lot of sense. The reader above makes a great case on terms of the rising cost of health care being due to the rising cost of innovation and the notion that all people should have access to the latest and greatest medical technology. Which leads us to another argument that, yes, actually all people are human and have the right to live - health care should not be subject to means. Even if you believe that all people should not have access if they can't afford it, it's very hard to make that case without sounding like, well, a jerk. It's starts out innocently enough -- if you can't afford it, I'm sorry but it's not free it must cost someone something -- I mean, if you walk into a jewelry store with $50 bucks you're not walking out with a diamond. To compare human lives to a jewelry store (or any type of market) is kind of hard when you realize that you just said that some lives are worth more than others.

So, then we find ourselves in another argument relating to the "it must cost someone something" line. In other words, okay fine everyone should have access to health care and it's hard to define degrees of health care so then how do we pay for that? Well then we've come full circle to the original argument. So you look at it another way and if we can define "health care" any differently. If the main cost is innovation or the drastic pace in which treatments gets more advanced and more expensive can we look at that any closer? The cost associated with new techniques is usually related to the costs to develop it (R&D), once that's paid for it becomes one of these "older treatments" because it's not only had the R&D phase paid for (or patent worn out) but it's also been in market for a couple of years with no horrible, unexpected side effects so there is a "tried and tested" appeal that develops. It's now standard. Is there a way to limit access just during the "R&D payment" period? If we ended up with public health care, like a lot of other government programs (and health insurance companies) could we establish tougher guidelines on treatments that were available to those with 'public' health care? Of course, it does seem vital that an alternative private insurance "choice" was still available. Then to eliminate too much push back regarding the class wars and how those without the means would still not have access to 'cutting edge' treatments, grants and assistance programs could be established. Treatments that are just expensive because of the actual materials required would probably still need to remain expensive because no matter how you try you can't limit the rising cost of those because as more treatments become 'standard' the number available will only increase resulting in increases in cost. Damn.

Okay so health care will continue to be a HUGE cost but that's if the requirement for health care remains at it's current level. These days the prohibitive cost is enough to keep most people from seeking treatment until they're pretty far gone. Result? More expensive treatment. So, treatment is expensive, prevention is not. Prevention! There is another side of the argument we haven't looked at yet (other than 'preventing' universal access to cutting edge treatment). Regular doctor visits, dental checkups, etc. are cheap and often help catch ailments before they become a problem allowing for natural or pharmaceutical intervention before expensive treatment is needed. Pharmaceutical? Ugh, now we're back to expense aren't we? As easy as it is to demonize the drug companies, like any innovation or new product there is R&D that must be paid for. Someone has to pay for it so who will do this? The patient? The government? The insurance companies? Surely no one expects pharmaceuticals to develop pro-bono and it seems a no brainer that while government shouldn't' be forbidden from development, private sector will remain a key player.

We could go on and on and people are but as long as we keep the discussion going I know that we will eventually find a solution. It won't be perfect but it will be better than what we have now.

Stepping on the soapbox

I am cool with protesting government spending and all but I am damn sick of hearing "don't take from the hard working conservatives to give to the lazy liberals". Seriously?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost two-thirds (3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months.

5.1 million unemployed Americans = LAZY

That's not including all us lazy mothers that have claimed maternity leave (or fathers claiming paternity), or those jerks that get hurt on the job and claim disability. Or the poor mentally ill that need state assistance, or the abused, or the veterans, or the sickly kids that need health care or all those other "lazy" Americans that claim the government assitance paid for the tax dollars of hard working conservatives that have enough extra money to buy millions of bags of tea to throw on socialism funded public parks everywhere.

Really?

Protest your taxes, protest your loss during the election, protest your strange fear of a communist-socialist-facist-hybrid but don't protest other Americans that need help. Just don't.

The storm is coming...

Palin update:

Nice review of the last few weeks.

Courtesy of Andrew Halcro.

For another great read (and image above), check out Mudflats as well.

Arrr, more important graphs

This Graph



And this one

Slightly inappropriate

But still hilarious!

I was watching this clip and...

...my husband came into the room and said, "I don't agree with anything this guy is saying, who is this?".

Enough said.



(Glenn Beck is political news' answer to Jim Cramer...one used wild-eyed noise making to get people to buy stocks [many of which probably lost a lot based on his encouragement, and earned depending on the timing] and the other is using extreme rantings to get people to hate their government.

By increasing the defense budget, we are really cutting it...

Yes, it's a mad mad world.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
ThreatDown - Robert Gates, Dog Seders & Obama
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest