Glenn Beck: Why does anyone find him credible?

On the occasion I catch Glenn Beck's show, I often wonder to myself, "why would anyone find this guy credible?" I still wonder, but I have a feeling it has to do with his saying what they want to hear, more than actually being accurate. That's one of the fundamental problems: People, too often, look for what they want to hear instead of trying to figure out what is true.

Given the amount of credibility that Republicans give to Glenn Beck, I wondered what politifact thought of his statements. I have seen politifact quoted by both conservatives and liberals as being a good fact checking source. I occasionally question some of their statements, but as a baseline, they are relatively accurate. Here is their history on rating Glenn Beck's statements:

As you can see from the running tally in his PolitiFact file, we've rated 17 statements by the Fox News talk show host. It's fair to say that record skews toward the False end of the Truth-O-Meter.

His record (as of Aug. 27, 2010):

True 1
Mostly True 1
Half True 3
Barely True 4
False 5
Pants on Fire 3

Beck earned a True for his claim about the life expectancy of men and women when Social Security was created (he was trying to make the point that the program was not meant to benefit as many people as it does today) and a Mostly True for his claim about public support for the Arizona immigration law.

They continue:

He's earned more False ratings than any other.

He's earned them for his claim that union president Andy Stern was the most frequent White House visitor; that less than 10 percent of Obama's cabinet has private sector experience; that Mitt Romney's health care plan was bankrupting the state of Massachusetts; that 45 percent of doctors said they would quit if health care reform passes; and that the United States is the only nation with birthright citizenship.

We define Pants on Fire as a statement that is ridiculously false. Beck earned one for his claim that John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Beck also earned a Pants on Fire for his claim that the health care reform bill provided health insurance for dogs.

Today, Beck earned his third for comments he made about the Restoring Honor rally. He claimed that the government was trying to close the Lincoln Memorial for similar rallies in the future, implying that the government was trying to silence his political speech. We found no evidence to support that. Pants on Fire.

Why in the world would anyone believe this guy?

Ron Paul tells Tea Party they are being "taken for a ride"

In private conversations and even some debates on John Cornyn's Facebook page, I have mentioned that the Tea Party won't ever create the change they want working within the Republican or Democratic Party. It appears I am not alone.

Ron Paul wrote that the Tea Party is being "taken for a ride" by the Right by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Paul is correct in his statements that we can't possibly deal with real deficit reduction with 700 military bases in over 120 nations around the world; we can't possibly deal with the deficit while fighting wars overseas that we haven't paid for; we can't possibly deal with deficits while paying for urban projects that belong to local governments to build on the federal budget.

However, Paul doesn't go far enough in his explanation. The GOP, which is where most of the Tea Party resides, has been a party of small government talk for the last forty years, but hasn't done anything to actually cut the budget or reduce deficits at all. The best they can do is lay claim to racing Bill Clinton in the 90s for deficit reduction, but that credit really belongs to Ross Perot for scaring both parties into reducing the deficit. Even in that case, they didn't shrink spending, they raised revenues with a tax increase and slowed the growth of spending.

To think the Republican Party has any hope of shrinking spending is a joke. Listen to the candidates. Not one is running on cutting spending enough to put even a small dent in the deficit, and they aren't willing to raise taxes. Until they are ready to list hundreds of billions of spending cuts in annual spending, not some 10 year projection, they can't possibly be taken seriously for the goals of the Tea Party.

And Ron Paul knows it.

Can Conservatives Self-Reflect?

I was posting on a forum when someone made an observation: They noticed that for examples of racism, examples of hatred, examples of poor behavior, that no "Republicans" could admit the problem, none could apologize for it, none could even talk about it. They simply attacked. It caused me to think about it and write the following. This is my commentary on discussion with conservatives (of course not all, but many) on public forums, and in several cases, in the media and public sphere.

This is nothing more than my observation. It is not scholarly. It is not researched. It is simply my observation from interacting with conservatives as both a libertarian, and a pragmatic voting Democrat at different times over the last decade and a half. Tell me what you think. Does it reflect your experience?

It says they don't self-reflect. They don't care about what they do, as long as they can focus on hating you.

It says they don't think about their impact on the world. All they care about is their daily life. It is all many of us care about, but they don't even glance up to think about things beyond their immediate time and space.

It is a game. To far too many, it is not real. They post, but don't think of their impact other than to say "I win" or "my side won an election." They make up things that are beyond any sort of rational understanding. Heck, back in the day, they called Clinton a communist when he was anything but. It is a broken record repeating itself over and over and over. It is a game, like a 5 year old with his hands on his ears shouting "I can't hear you if you're talking, I can't hear you if you're talking,...".

Notice them. Watch them. My money says their response to this will not be to answer the claims but rather it will be to attack me. That's the strategy. It goes back to the first thing, if they have to answer something, if they have to defend something, if they have to face it, if they have to recognize it, if they have to think about it... it might all fall apart.

Truth be told, the GOP is a group of people that are philosophically contradictory at their foundations... Neocons are about elite empowerment and manipulation of the masses, Christian Cons would love a theocracy as long as it was their Christianity, Paleocons are fundamentally about liberty and limits of govt, and moderates are about some combination of the above but put into a more pragmatic framework. At their foundations, they contradict... govt religion and limited govt can't co-exist, just as govt manipulation of the masses can't co-exist with liberty and justice... it is how Kansas got a 2 term Democrat governor.

They can't reflect. If they did... what explosion might result?

Their only uniting theme is hating a common enemy. The enemy of mine enemy is my friend. That is why they cannot self-reflect. That is why they can only attack.

Diet Breakfasts Just Suck: Can't we do better?

This week, my doctor informed me that my cholesterol levels were too high, and so it was time to make some changes. Like most Americans, I have a few pounds to lose so I figure it is a good time to change the type of foods I eat and exercise. The exercise part is pretty easy for me, I have exercised a lot at various points in my life. But the eating part... that is a different story.

I do like to cook and have lots of recipes. I understand a lot about diet too. So I realize I need a good meal to start the day, and lighter meals to end the day. I realize bacon and eggs just isn't going to cut it. So what's the answer?

I go to various websites from weightwatchers to food network to allrecipes.com and the result is the same: snack food for breakfast.

I am sorry, but the more I read, the more I got this "have a smoothie and wheat toast" and it made me wonder what they were thinking. All of the breakfast foods were light, but nothing seemed to indicate an understanding of how humans eat. When we are trying to diet, we are looking for things that make us feel full. I don't know about you, but a smoothie doesn't keep me full for very long, and toast... pullleeeeze.

One diet plan said to eat a breakfast bar. Have you ever just eaten one breakfast bar? They may have the calories but I am starving within 20 minutes after one. They would have been better off saying "eat an apple an hour."

We may have to re-define breakfast to get something substantial in our stomach for a diet. After all, some diet advice says eat your biggest meals in the morning and for lunch, and go light in the evening. It seems to make sense to me that way the food is burned off instead of stored. The question is how to do it while keeping the cholesterol down.

At this point, the smoothie might be nice on the way to work after eating lemon pepper salmon with rice for breakfast, but that won't last for long. I need some variety. And yes, dinner is a light mango salsa tilapia fillet with 1/3 cup of rice, and watermelon for a snack before bed. Heavier early meals, lighter evening meals, and gym time after work. Hope it works.

But for God's sake, would someone put some thought into a decent breakfast menu that isn't ultra-vegetarian or too light for a normal person? Don't make me return to those high cholesterol and fatty breakfast sandwiches.

Home Energy Efficiency Going Off Grid: What Took So Long?

Over a decade ago, someone engaged me in a discussion about alternative energies and their potential. They insisted that we would build massive power plants for solar and wind power. I insisted, that was such a waste and missed the point of alternative energy. He looked puzzled. I told him the power of alternative energy isn't within the traditional grid systems, but rather through microgeneration.

Today, 750,000 have taken this to heart, taking themselves off the grid for their power to create a more sustainable lifestyle. Contrary to the anti-environmental right of the political spectrum, this doesn't mean giving up modern conveniences.

Of those 750,000 people, the stories (linked above) include things like powering hot tubs, charging cellphones, and watching big screen televisions... all off grid. Alternative energies and energy efficiency would ultimately fail if it meant we had to give up our lifestyles, but it turns out that in many cases, we can have our cake and eat it too.

In the early part of the 21st century, when California was having blackouts; I was left wondering what is taking so long to shift to microgeneration. It turned out that some cities like San Diego started requiring alternative energy generation on new housing starts. Unfortunately, many areas that are generally Republican controlled have opposed this largely to be a good opposition, but hurting themselves for the sake of saying "NO!"

President Obama sees this potential for a market and has acted on it through the 2009 Stimulus Bill which helps to give tax credits for home improvements for alternative energies. Baby boomers would be smart to take advantage of this opportunity.

The best thing anyone retiring can do is to minimize their bills. Why? Their income will not increase in retirement, and will probably be below their pre-retirement income. We also know that energy costs will increase over time. That is the trend throughout American energy history. To minimize the impact of those increases by investing in alternative power sources on their homes is a smart financial decision.

The question still remains... why is America taking so long to either go off grid or to minimize the impact of power companies on their wallets?

A Crisis of Imagination

It is not uncommon to hear the public outcry in response to the automaker bailouts, regardless of where you travel. If one wants to hear it hyped to its potential, one only needs to read a Republican Facebook page or blog. This week, I got to enjoy that conversation about the failings of American automakers on Senator John Cornyn's Facebook page.

The cries about the early reviews of the Volt, an electric car, are mixed. Some have said it is a poor car, others have said it is a good car. Compared to other electric cars, it is priced rather high. The right wing echo chamber has made a point of shouting them as loud as they can to indicate that somehow President Obama is responsible for the micromanaging policies of the automakers. I think this focus has missed the point.

This is the second generation of electric with the first generation ending up in a California desert dust heap. Too often, we fail to understand the first generation of anything. We get caught up in its failure or its possibilities depending on our views of the product ideas, and we attack or boast about it regardless of its own merits.

I remember being told how great the video disk would be for our future. As a teenager, one of my friend's parents had one. The quality was better, but when I looked for one myself, the price was huge. We now know that was the precursor to the DVD and what comes next.

Upon discussing this topic, my father reminds me of the early days of the computer when hard drives were not talked about in terrabytes or gigabytes but rather kilobytes. By today's standards, it wouldn't hold even one picture off my cellphone. A crisis of imagination.

The talk is of its battery shortcomings or of its only 40 mile range before it shifts to being gas powered, or the electricity fueling it coming from coal power plants which doesn't save the environment at all. The talk ignores the breakthroughs coming in battery technology or nanotechnology to miniaturize the battery that is strong enough to power a submarine for a time; or the way technology has always been expensive early until the profits of the extravagant consumers bring down the prices for everyone and fuel further development. A crisis of the imagination.

American automakers have failed America for quite some time. They have tried to stifle innovation resting on their history. We saw President Bush give them $1 billion in funds for researching hydrogen powered cars a year after Japan had been selling them in Japan. Today, one can read all the problems of American hydrogen technology that makes it a decade away as a real possibility, but Japan is already exporting them to Canada and a few in California, and European automakers have found the answers. A crisis of imagination.

There are plenty of questions left on what the future of our automakers will be, but until they address the crisis of imagination, they will continue to fall behind the world. Yes, they will find ways to sell cars and survive but America, the nation that invented the automobile, will no longer lead that field. Maybe the next place for them to think ahead is to ask, if we can put a film on high rise building windows that looks like a window tinting, but acts like a massive solar panel to generate power; why can't we help to power a car with a solar film on our cars? Sure, it won't fuel it alone, but maybe it helps to charge the battery while we are parked at work. A crisis of imagination.

We seem to have a great imagination to start things, but we fall behind because we get stuck in what is, and we don't push what can be. While we marvel at the iPhone, Asia has cellphones that make ours look like child toys. To lead the world for the next century, we will have to move beyond our self-imposed limitations, we will have to move beyond our fear of having to learn new things, we will have to move beyond our "I like it the way it is" mentality. We will have to move beyond our crisis of imagination.

Helen Thomas Resignation and What it Tells us about Ourselves

Helen Thomas, the dean of White House reporters, has resigned amid controversy over her statements about Israel. Thomas has been covering the White House for fifty years. CNN reported the comments like this:

Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent, made the comments to Rabbi David Nesenoff of Rabbilive.com, who told CNN his hand-held camera was in plain sight on May 27 when he asked her for "Any comments on Israel?"

"Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine," she responded.

"Any better comments on Israel?" Nesenoff asked.

Thomas replied, "Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land, it's not German. It's not Poland."

Nesenoff asked where the Jews should go, and Thomas responded, "They should go home," which the White House reporter identified as "Poland, Germany ... and America and everywhere else."

Thomas has had a long and storied career which has now come to an end at the age of 89. However, the situation should give us some pause and highlight some things we might want to think about. Before I start, this is not intended to be a defense of her remarks, but rather an understanding of some things they bring to light in our society.

First, we should remember that Thomas' statements are not factually inaccurate. The lands owned by Israel currently were taken over from Palestine through terrorism and civil conflict. Yes, the conflict has dated back for millenia, but the current conflict is over Israel taking this land and the fight for control of religious sites that both religions find meaning in.

Before you have some knee-jerk reaction, this is how many states are formed. Israel's efforts are not that unusual in terms of history. I have always wondered why people have to believe in some fairytale about the origins of their nation instead of dealing with the truth. I guess it has something to do with their roles in the narratives of good versus evil.

Killing a bunch of people to take over a nation probably doesn't make one feel very "good" when told without the spin of "rising up" or "manifest destiny." Such is the problem when dealing with feelings versus the reality of situations. After all, we celebrate Columbus Day in America, when Columbus was a pretty brutal guy, and the Spaniards were pretty brutal compared to many civilizations.

That history does not undermine the great things that America has done, the greatness of the Hispanic and Latin cultures throughout the Americas and their influence around the world, it simply explains some of our origins.

In the case of Thomas and Israel, it does something else: It exposes a real thread throughout America in regards to the state of Israel. Whether it is World War II guilt, the number of people of Jewish origins in America, or some other factor; in America, it is almost impossible to make an honest and fair assessment of Israel without getting attacked.

Books about Israel or the Israeli lobby in America have been attacked and shunned. Articles and authors who speak critically of Israel, whether right or wrong, have been painted with a broad stroke of "anti-Semite," whether it applied or not. Don't get me wrong, there are some people who are real anti-Semites, just as there are people who are true racists. However, the parallel of overuse of the terms racist and anti-Semites is probably more true than either group would like to admit.

Thomas was Lebanese born, and as a result, she would potentially have strong anti-Israeli feelings. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone anymore than an Israeli born person might have anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim feelings.

In her case, it was not something that was said in her writings and no one has found anything anti-Semitic in her work. I guess that begs a third point: Do people with strong feelings deserve to have a job? Especially if they do it well enough to be thought as highly of as Thomas was for so long?

Conservatives really have a bad taste in their mouths from Thomas' remarks and dealings with President G.W. Bush; and her harsh questioning of President Obama recently over the Iraq war probably didn't give anyone an incentive to step up for her.

Isn't that what a White House reporter is supposed to do? Shouldn't they put the President's feet to the fire for the people a little? In today's age where reporters look to make politicians look good in trade for perceived access, Thomas' "toughness" was a breathe of fresh air.

In an age where partisanship rules the day of pundit journalism, Thomas held both a Democrat and a Republican's feet to the fire over key issues like going to war. That isn't to say Thomas didn't have opinions because reporters are human and have them too. But she wasn't attacking to score political points, she wasn't sucking up to get an interview with the President, and she actually had built up sources to issues outside the "staged" insider "leaks" that most live on today.

Helen Thomas was no saint, but she was no devil either. What she will be is missed, most by those who don't even realize her impact, though her impact probably impacted them most. She was old school. In the end, that may have been what got her pushed out the door.

It should leave us with pause and questions about how we look at history (as Texas tries to re-write history to make it sound "better" and add a partisan spin to it), how we look at our politicians (as we hold up icons like Sarah Palin who is more dog and pony show than substance), and how we look at our assumptions about the world around us (as we refuse to allow questions of our actions, of Israel's actions, and we ignore serious discussion of our assumptions of good and bad).

People like Helen Thomas will be missed because they weren't afraid to ask those questions and to search for those answers. Thank you for fifty good years Helen Thomas, you will be missed.

FREE Three Step Plan to Becoming a "Good Cook"

I spent today experimenting in the kitchen for my wife to see if I could create buffalo wings that she likes. She has found that she likes buffalo wings from Wing Pit, but at close to $7 for ten split wings, it starts to add up. So I wanted to create wings at home where she can get 30 split wings or so for the same $7. After experimenting, we found success.

This isn't the first time we have done this. Usually, when I tell friends about it, they respond with some platitude of "I wish I could do that" or "you are really a talented cook." And while I have to admit the platitudes do make my ego feel good, the reality is I am no great cook. I am not someone who belongs in a culinary arts school or at some fancy restaurant or on Iron Chef.

The biggest difference between me and those people is my willingness to try to find a way to cook what I want to save money. Face it, I am cheap. Fortunately, so is my wife. But it brings me to the point where I want to share my "secret" for being a "good cook" in the eyes of all your friends. And yes, my friends generally think I am a very good cook. So I will share my secret three step plan that made me a good cook.

First, you have to have an idea of what you want to cook. So either you pick something you want to cook, you watch the Food Network for ideas, or you go to the Food Network Website.

Second, go to the Food Network Website and search the recipes for what you want to cook. Read the reviews on the recipes and pick one.

Third, follow the directions and cook the recipe until you get it right. Once you master the recipe, you can tweak it to the taste you are cooking for.

That's it. That is my secret to being a "good cook." You would be shocked at how many people tell me how good a cook I am, and no, the Food Network isn't paying me.

I have used similar approaches to learning how to cook Filipino food, though on other websites of Filipinas sharing their recipes. Sure, cooking is an art for the masters, but for most of the rest of us, it still isn't rocket science to be good, though we may never be a master.

In today's online reality, it isn't hard to become good at a lot of things if you know where to look, if you can follow directions, and if you have the will to try.

Good luck and enjoy the compliments at the next party you cook for.

Interracial Marriages on the Rise: Racism on the Decline?

I have always wondered why interracial dating was such an issue for people. Of all the things that make up a person in this world, race just seemed rather superficial. I remember walking with a friend in 1990 who had moved to California from Houston. He noticed an interracial couple from across the street and said to me, "ya'll allow that here?"

I was thrown back by the question. It never even occurred to me that I would care about an interracial couple, especially if it did not include me. Why would I care what two other people do, as long as they are consenting adults, in terms of their dating? At that point in my life, I had dated a couple of Hispanic females, a Black female, and a couple of Asian females, so I really didn't get why it would be an issue at all.

Today, I am happily married to a wonderful Filipino woman, and the interracial nature of our marriage does lead to some interesting moments, but it also broadens us both. Apparently, we aren't alone in those thoughts. CNN reported that the Pew Center did a study that found interracial marriages are at an all time high (for as long as they have tracked it).

Of course, there are regional and educational differences that aren't surprising. If you live in the Midwest or the South, you are less likely to interracially marry. If you have a college education, you are more likely to interracially marry than someone who doesn't have one. And each of those makes sense, especially when you see where the internet becomes pervasive in life (more educated, more economically prosperous communities).

The Pew study pointed to the internet as one possible explanation because it allows you to get to know someone, many times before you even know their racial background. With more and more people meeting on the internet and building relationships there, they may find their interests match up before they even realize the race.

The 21st century is finding technology is allowing us to broaden what we are exposed to in terms of culture and race in ways that we have never been exposed before. We can walk right into another racial or cultural area without feeling the physical threats we might have felt fifty years ago, and it is exposing how silly some of our old attitudes were.

The result may be the end to much of racism (though it may take time and may never completely be ended) because the only solution to racism may be upon us: Interracial reproduction. As we go through generations of interracial reproduction, someday we may not be able to tell what race someone is because they are heavily mixed. Imagine the day when race becomes irrelevant.

Sure, we will probably find other ways to become biased through different ways to evaluate status or create hierarchies, but at least one may well be on its way out. It is about time.

Conservatives Up in Arms over Google's Slight of D-Day

Apparently, Google has sparked a crisis among Conservatives. They weren't in crisis about the Gulf disaster which cost jobs, food, billions of dollars, and environmental damage. They weren't in crisis over the deficits, the massive government spending, or the state of the economy. They are in crisis about... Google's failure to mention D-Day today.

Last year on June 6th Google celebrated the 25th birthday of Tetris:

On June 6th the year before that, Google recognized the birthday of Spanish painter Diego Velasquez:

But today, June 6, 2010… nothing:

Google is purposefully ignoring a big event, aren’t they? Don’t they know that this is the 77th anniversary of the opening of the first drive-in movie theater? For shame.

*****

Today of course is the 66th anniversary of the D-Day landings, and we don’t need Google to salute all those who helped liberate Europe and keep the Nazis from their goal of global domination. The fight for freedom is ongoing, and we must never waiver so that the sacrifices of these heroes will never have been in vain.

Clearly, it was an obvious attempt by Google to slight the memory of veterans, right? After all, as they wrote, the Great Reagan spoke on this day:

Many websites and blogs you might look at today that mention D-Day will post Ronald Reagan’s 40th anniversary speech in Normandy, and in the spirit of conformity, I’m going to do the same. It was a great speech and from the heart and not the prompter:

Let's nevermind that Reagan used NOTES instead of a teleprompter many times because he had been giving speeches for a living for GE (omg, a professional speaker, but he can't fake it, right?), and they didn't have teleprompters in those days. So like many of us as we get older, we stick to the technology we are most comfortable with. For Reagan, that was note cards. Check the Reagan Library, there are lots of "note cards" from his speeches there.

Back to the point, apparently any company that doesn't tell you that today is D-Day must be unpatriotic and deliberately trying to slight our veterans (Today is D-Day, just to get in my obligatory mention of it so conservatives don't get upset with me).

Could it be that D-Day is not an actual holiday so it didn't get focus, AND that Google's point was to help people learn something they didn't already know?

Now, Conservatives could tell us one of two things: First, that people don't know about D-Day, and thus, this isn't a big deal and they are making much-to-do about nothing; or second, the people generally know about D-Day, thus it wouldn't fit the criteria that Google was using for being put up on its page.

After all, does anyone think Google was marking this day with the 25th birthday of Tetris because its purpose was to announce something everyone already knew?

Government's Role with "New Media": How about Net Neutrality?

I was skimming the media today, going through one of my favorite news sources, the Christian Science Monitor (@CSMNational on Twitter), when I stumbled upon this headline: "As 'new media' proliferate, does government have a role?"

I have to admit, I found myself wondering why anyone would ask this question. I realize the article says the FTC is looking at "information gathering" about what it could do to "help" new emerging medias, but really, what role does the FTC really have in media?

Now that we have eliminated the "fairness doctrine" for public radio waves, it isn't like anyone is focused on the role of journalism in society. Journalists are all but extinct. They have been replaced by i-reporters, pundits, Twitter, blogs, moderators, show producers, etc., all seeking ratings.

By the way, I have to admit this quote in the article made me laugh:

Adds Villanova University media expert, Leonard Shyles, “I’m not interested in having a state board decide who’s accurate. Let the marketplace decide, because I’m going to believe Joe Schmoe after I corroborate his story thru the mosaic of stories that are out there on the Internet now, not because a government agency says I should.”

I am not really sure that anyone really cares about what is accurate. Fox gets its ratings not for accuracy, but for conservativism. MSNBC takes a similar approach only to the left generally. CNN gets its ratings from creating drama and clash, not from accuracy. Let's face it, if we cared about accuracy, pundit journalism wouldn't rule the day. Having a person from the left and the right to define issues wouldn't be how we focused on reporting.

So to say the marketplace will determine journalism... that's just ignoring reality. The marketplace pays the most outspoken pundits the best, not the best journalists.

Maybe the answer is journalism is dead, for now. And what can government do for blogs? They really can't turn America into China, limiting content. Maybe the answer for government is ending Net Neutrality, that way Internet Corporations can insist that we pay to get on their network, and then charge people to get to us so they can get paid on both ends.

Instead of government controlling the "new media," it may well be corporations controlling them even more than they do today. How is that for one reason to support Net Neutrality?

National Director of Intelligence Appointed, Reaction: Do we NEED 16 Intelligence Agencies?

In my efforts to keep up with politics, I noticed the President announced his new Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper Jr. Some lawmakers seem to like him, others don't... but that isn't what struck me. Read the first part of the statement from the White House:

Today, I am proud to announce my choice for the next Director of National Intelligence —- James Clapper. With four decades of service to America, Jim is one of our nation’s most experienced and most respected intelligence professionals.

As Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, he has successfully overseen the military and civilian intelligence personnel and budgets that make up the bulk of our 16-agency intelligence community. He’s improved information sharing, increased intelligence support to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, upheld civil liberties, and he played a key role in our effort to update and reorient our intelligence community to meet the threats of our time.

What strikes you when you read it? What strikes me is "our 16-agency intelligence community." Seriously. This guy was appointed as part of the new position created in the Bush Administration (Thank God they didn't call it a Czar or the right would have gone nuts with the title) "five years ago in response to the intelligence failings leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when the aim was to coordinate often fractious agencies, including the CIA and the White House office of counterterrorism."

It would seem a smart move to have someone to coordinate the information from "our 16-agency intelligence community" but maybe someone should have asked a more obvious question: Why do we need 16 agencies in our intelligence community?

I realize the world is a large place. I realize we use a lot of different means of intelligence. I realize it might be nice to have a back up in case one agency fails. But do we really need 16? Maybe THAT was one of the problems leading up to 9/11 with intelligence confusion... TOO MANY AGENCIES!

Maybe I am overreacting, but if you wonder why our federal budget is so huge... sure, Social Security is big; sure Medicare is big; but it could also be partially due to such amazing redundancy and overreaction to things that we create 16 intelligence agencies to do the job that could be done by 1/4 that number if not 1/8 that number.

How about this: Foreign Intelligence, Domestic Intelligence, Space Intelligence, and Military Intelligence. Do we really need more than those four?

Filming Police Abuse: A Crime or an Obligation?

Three states have made it illegal to film a police officer, and more appear to be starting to follow suit:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

While there are exceptions to the law, they are not being used in practice. Some of these may risk the public safety in various ways.

First, the denial of the ability to mount a defense by denying someone the ability to videotape their defense may well lead to the release of actual criminals who pose a threat to the public by simply creating the loophole. Constitutional rights trump people's desire not to be videotaped in a public place.

Second, given the times that abuse of people have been caught on videotape leading to the prosecution of police, and the deterrent for abuse that it creates, these "protections" for police officers may well give police officers greater license to use force. Especially given the presumption of innocence juries seem to carry for police, and the presumption of guilt juries seem to carry for the accused.

The idea that people cannot record and preserve evidence of a potential crime being committed in a public place ought to outrage both liberals wanting to protect civil liberties and conservatives wanting to protect freedoms of individuals against overbearing governments. The question is, why aren't these politicians living up to their core political beliefs?

GOP, Boehner need help Focusing on Americans instead of McCartney

How out of the public eye must you be to make a big deal out of this:

House Minority Leader John Boehner is demanding an apology from music legend Paul McCartney after the Beatle took a slap at President Bush during a recent White House ceremony.

President Obama on Wednesday awarded McCartney the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song – a lifetime achievement award given by the Library of Congress. Upon receiving the award, McCartney deadpanned, "After the last eight years, it's great to have a president who knows what a library is."

The comments generated laughter and cheers from the audience in the East Room, but Boehner said the remark showed a "lack of grace and respect."

The most pressing thing for the Minority Leader to talk about is a barely noticeable quip about President Bush that almost no one even heard about until Boehner said something about it?

Boehner didn't want to focus on jobs; didn't want to focus on the Gulf oil spill; didn't want to focus on the deficit; didn't want to focus on stopping terrorism or dealing with immigration; but instead thought this remark from Paul McCartney was the most pressing thing to focus his time on?

Maybe Boehner has a problem in that his focus seems to be more on issues than problem solving in a world where there are a lot of problems to address, regardless of how you see the role of government.

Wage Law Balance, Presidential Influence on Media, and Worst Toilets in the World

Quick Hits for April 22, 2010

* I am always puzzled by the debates about wage laws. I hear some on the left talk about a living wage, as if a law could magically create that utopia. The truth is if a living wage is $40,000 today and you mandated everyone have at least that wage, by tomorrow inflation would make it a poverty wage. It is unfortunate, but any capitalist based society will always have rich and poor. However, it is what drives a lot of our advancement. Be happy that America's poor have it far better than 80% of the world's middle class.

The flip side that makes little sense is this notion that there should be no minimum wage and a complete failure to understand the role minimum wage plays in our society. We know that minimum wage increases also tend to increase other wages. So the role minimum wage laws really have isn't mandating some living wage, but rather to create pressure to increase wages when wages aren't keeping up with inflation.

It isn't that wages or profits should dominate each other, but rather that economics is about balance: the balance between profit taking and taxation, the balance between profit taking and re-investment, the balance between costs and affordability, and more. When someone tells you that one factor is the all important factor in any economic discussion, call BS because economics is always about balancing two or more factors, not the domination of a single factor like low tax rates.

* It is interesting but laughable to hear Fox News claim that the Obama Administration "controls the media" as if President Obama was somehow the CEO of each of the news organizations all at once. It is laughable because it assumes some grand conspiracy to keep it secret from the rest of the world, but Fox and the right love a good conspiracy of the left to take over the world.

What makes it interesting is that it is completely and utterly devoid of any understanding of how the White House has historically "controlled" the media over the years. Kristina Borgesson's Into The Buzzsaw detailed the subtle influence of the White House over the years regardless of political party of the President through using access to information, interviews, and "leaks" in modern times and the number of books on government influence on the media through manipulation run rampant.

It isn't some Stalinist-like control as much as the same kind of manipulation that Presidents from Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and many others have used to influence organizations. News organizations live off of access through exclusive interviews, relationships that help "leak" stories, and the perception that they have the "breaking story" that others don't have. Administrations have long used this access or the threat of losing it to limit the questions media asks.

Whether or not President Obama's administration did anything like that for this story has yet to be shown, but this whole notion of a grand White House censorship conspiracy is laughable and indicates Fox journalists simply don't know much or lie about what they do know for political influence.

* Gotta love a ranking of the World's Worst Toilets, yet in viewing it, I have seen far worse toilets in The Philippines, which I am positive are not the worst in the world. Something tells me the toilets here were done by someone with limited travel experience. What are your worst toilets in the world?

CO2: Volcanoes vs. Humans; Palin and Iranian Clerics; Teabaggers and taxation; FDA and Salt; and Why do you Trust or Distrust Govt?

Quick Hits for 4/21/2010

* I have to say I keep hearing anti-environmental ignorance by the right on conservative Facebook pages as they proclaim that more CO2 is created by volcanoes than humans, yet factually speaking we know that we average about 200 Million tons of CO2 by volcanoes per year and about 24 Billion tons of CO2 by humans per year. It isn't even a close comparison yet they keep spouting the lie. I have always thought that if your position rests on lying, you might want to take a better position.

* I am not sure which shocked me more... an Iranian cleric proclaiming promiscuity causes earthquakes or Sarah Palin actually admitting the religious right actually wants a theocracy and believes the Founders wanted one too. Then again, on Glenn Beck's show, she struggled to find the name of a Founder when Beck asked her to name her favorite.

* I wonder just how many Teabaggers realize that they complain about taxes but advocate a flat tax, which would be a tax increase for at least 47% of Americans, if not far more.

* The FDA is talking about regulating salt in processed foods, which has the left saying "good" but the right is calling it a "nanny state" policy. If they were talking about regulating the salt intake of Americans, I would agree with the right. However, they are talking about regulating the salt in processed foods, which few actually realize what is in them. Given the state of health for Americans and how we all get to pay those costs, whether it is through insurance or government, taking the salt intake choices up to Americans and out of the hands of corporations is probably the best choice.

* A recent CNN poll indicated about 26% trust the federal government but about 52% trust their local government. Yet, the level of corruption is often higher in local government. I am guessing one key factor to the poll is the result of media focus on the federal government, whereas local governments are often ignored.

Jamie Oliver's Quest to Improve Eating in America

There is no doubt, Americans are largely obese and our kids aren't getting any better for it. Studies show obesity is linked to many health problems including heart problems, cancers, and much more. There has been a call by some for government action to outlaw certain things like cokes or sugar snacks. Instead of heeding these calls, it might be better to take the approach of the Naked Chef, Jamie Oliver.

His efforts in his new television show attempting to create a "Food Revolution" in America has gained support and shown just how ingrained our bad eating habits are. We have moved from a nation that is the breadbasket of the world with fresh, high quality foods to the processed foods capital of the world. Oliver points out one of the biggest problems comes from that processing and the added ingredients that aren't healthy for us.

One of the problems is the perception that eating well is either bland and boring, or it is too expensive. Much of that is overcome with help, but most don't know where to turn.

For easy recipes for great food, utilize the internet. My favorite website is Food Network because it gives many recipes with reviews from the most simplistic to complex recipes. Sometimes, the reviews show you problems and solutions to those problems with the recipes that make amazing food. Give it a try. You don't have to be a chef to cook, just be able to follow directions.

For saving money, I often recommend strategies I learned at Grocery Game, but I tend to avoid the processed foods and utilized a lot of the price matching and sale price techniques. Pick up some more tips from the $5 Dinner Mom.

In the end, Oliver says one big difference isn't giving up the hamburger but rather making it with fresh ingredients instead of processed. A hamburger should have 4-6 ingredients, not the 40 in a processed burger. Remember, you are what you eat so eat well.

Unthinking Reactionaries or Just Constant Opposition: A Case Study on Facebook

One thing that just seems to get me is watching how silly and overreacting people can be sometimes without any apparent clue of what they are talking about. Here is one such case I found on Senator John Cornyn's Facebook page.

The author of the post got hysterical over an article where the military and Senators said they were looking at setting up guidelines for the military to deal with cyberattacks against the United States. If you read the article, there aren't many details but more significantly it doesn't indicate any actual action being put forth other than "looking" at the situation. To that, the author wrote this:

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!

What the hell is going on at the Hill? Are they smoking crack? Are they drunk? This is flippin ridiculous! Where the hell do they think they get this kind of power? WE did not give them this power. HELL NO!!!

Looking at an issue indicates they must be drunk or smoking crack and abusing power? There was no prescription of action. There was no debate about actions being taken. There was simply a plan to look at the situation.

Before we get too far, let me help people understand for a minute. A cyberattack is essentially an attack using a computer. Some might ask, "what are they going to do, hit me with the computer?" Cyberattacks have been going on for a while and many have very little impact, but they can have a major impact. It is so significant that the Joint Chiefs of Staff do a study every two years to see just how vulnerable America is to cyberattack. Some of the threats cited in the past include:

* The ability to shut down an entire city power grid;
* The ability to re-route orders in the military creating potential chaos;
* The ability to hack the banking system causing monetary chaos;
* The ability to blow up certain types of highly explosive buildings;
* The ability to disrupt the food chain across the nation;

And worse. These could kill millions or lose a war, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine going to the store and not knowing if the food in cans, bottles, and packages are safe or deadly. Imagine not knowing if your money would be in the bank tomorrow or electronically transferred half way across the world. Imagine the oil refinery in a near by bay blown up to shut down the harbor and all commerce that might go through it killing a lot of people.

Now, keep in mind, cyberattacks are often hidden by being routed through computers of users, often without them knowing it. It is possible a cyberattack is going through your computer right now as you read this. Many attacks happen everyday and every year, but most are just testing possibilities, few actually do much. But the potential for disaster is still there. And the military has been dealing with it for more than a decade, often unguided and without any oversight. So if you wonder if the military has seen inside your computer already... they probably have, but not by some analyst, but by some computer program that is harmless unless you are a cyberterrorist.

It is a serious issue and one the military has been dealing with for a long time, so to get upset about the government dealing with it now is a little strange and makes little sense. However, what makes people sound exceptionally silly is that they get upset over people looking at a well known problem that has been published about since the 80s.

The odds are good, these posters simply don't have a clue at what they are looking at but they know they don't like the Obama Administration for being Democrats. That is a fundamental problem: unthinking reactionaries that have no clue what they are looking at but are happy to get upset and shout about it.

America demands better from its citizens. All governments founded on Democratic principles do.

Tea Party "Contract from America" Contradicts itself with Doublespeak

Further illustrating the Tea Party links to the right wing, following the Contract with America and The Ten Commandments, they have created the "Contract From America" to indicate their principles. Their 10 point contract includes the following:

1. Protect the Constitution: "Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does."

I realize protecting the Constitution is important, but our policymakers are just that... policymakers, which is why we have the Supreme Court, to make sure the policies are constitutional. I am not sure exactly what benefit comes from writing the constitutional clause in the bill considering the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of bills already.

2. Reject Cap and Trade: "Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures."

While I believe Cap and Trade is a bad policy too, the way this lays out means that any bill that someone can randomly claim will impact these areas must be rejected by the party; nevermind that teabaggers don't believe global climate change exists which would stop any changes on environmental issues.

3. Demand a Balanced Budget: "Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike."

Need I remind anyone that these are the same people who voted for Reagan's big deficit budgets and GW's tax cuts that took us from an annual surplus to deficits instead of paying off the $5 trillion in debt that existed at the time? Their track record isn't great in what they support.

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: "Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution."

This is an example of the problem as they insist on a 2/3 vote to get a tax hike, and in the next step put forth a flat tax which would be a tax hike on 47% of American households who paid $0 in income taxes last year. Given the consistency of demographics between Americans and teabaggers in terms of economics, it is likely it would increase taxes on about the same number of teabaggers.


5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government: "Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning."

I guess this is a review of bills already passed and applying the first tenant to it, but anytime a politician appoints a taskforce or commission it is generally doublespeak for "give me your vote, I won't do much in the end but you won't be focused on it by then anyway."

6. End Runaway Government Spending: "Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth."

I just have to wonder how this provision would have worked out in World War II or under Reagan's "arms race" to win the Cold War. And if it is statutory, can't each Congress simply waive it?


7. Defund, Repeal, and Replace Government Run Health Care: "Defund, repeal, and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries."

Notice, while many of the teabaggers are on Medicare and Social Security, they only want to repeal "recently passed" health care, not their own government run health care plans. Conservative Scholar Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out the recently passed plan was actually made up of predominantly Republican health care plans of the past as laid out by the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney, and moderate Republicans in the 1990s. It actually creates a framework for competition, not government run health care.

8. Pass an "All of the Above" Energy Policy: "Authorized the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creation competition and jobs."

I am not sure exactly what regulatory barriers there are considering Exxon made $34 billion in profits but only paid somewhere between $0 and $46 million in federal income taxes or less than half of one percent. It seems that energy corporations are already given excessive breaks. Maybe it is time to realize that necessity is the mother of invention and as prices rise, a necessity to adapt to new forms of energy like fourth generation nuclear power and microgeneration will move America to lead the world in energy technology instead of relying on 19th century technologies. And yes, that will require government help, just as oil gets government help to avoid their taxes and write off their development.

9. Stop the Pork: "Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark."

Remember, the Democrats cut "pork" by 15% last year alone but Republicans have led the way to keep it (as have some Democrats) but that is really a small portion of the budget compared to its totality. It is like foreign aid, under $20 billion out of a $3.5 trillion dollar budget. It is like shooting at the guys who clean the toilets in war as a strategy to win a war, it ignores the real problems.

10. Stop the Tax Hikes: "Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to being in 2011."

In other words, make the Bush Tax Cuts that gave us these deficits permanent. But at the same time, create a flat tax (which would be a tax increase for 47% of Americans). It is as if someone tossed darts at ideas on a wall and came up with this list, even if its own items contradict each other.

Next time you decide to put together a list of your core ideas, make sure they actually make sense together.

Exxon Pays 0.3% in Federal Income Taxes in 2009

Apparently, the claims that Exxon had paid nothing in federal income taxes are erroneous as Exxon claims it paid $46 million in federal income taxes in the United States in 2009, a year where it had a profit of about $34 billion.

In a place that conservatives claim is the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Exxon claims it paid $46 million in federal income taxes in the United States but paid over $15 billion to foreign governments in income taxes.

Maybe it is time to re-evaluate how America taxes the oil companies if Exxon can pay 0.3% in taxes while you and I pay considerably more.