Conspiracy?

We are about to be faced with an environmental emergency of large proportions in the Gulf of Mexico. Last week's oil rig explosion has left the well leaking hundreds of thousands of gallons of sweet crude into the Gulf and conditions are rapidly moving the slick toward land and valuable resources.

Currently estimates on the repair of the leak number in terms of months not days which will keep this story on the front burner for at least as long. Twenty years ago the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska and at the current estimated rate of leakage, the Deepwater Horizon spill will eclipse the Exxon Valdez tragedy in 52 days or less.

The oil slick coming from the Deepwater Horizon is already reaching parts of the US shoreline and is also being seen in the Mississippi River. Weather conditions are primed to continue to bring the slick toward the coastline threatening the entire way of life for folks along the coast in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas. Its not just wildlife that is going to be impacted by this oil slick. Yes, the oil will be toxic and deadly for birds, fish and other sea life (the Valdez spill was the cause of the decline of 31 different species) but it will also adversely affect the people whose livelihoods are dependent on fishing the rich Gulf Coast waters. In addition to fishing, the tourism industry of at least FIVE states will be affected and this also has the potential to be even farther reaching if the oil reaches the Mississippi River and the flow of traffic along the nation's busiest and arguably most important waterway is slowed or stopped. No doubt there will be more job losses in areas already affected by the current economy and past hurricanes.

The Obama Administration has already backed off their new position on new offshore drilling and issued a statement that no new drilling will be considered until it is determined what went wrong at the Deepwater Horizon. How convenient that the Administration is able to back off from a position on offshore drilling that they were never really in favor of. The language issued by the President last month in return of the chants of "Drill Baby, Drill" was for the most part an olive branch to Republicans in order to get their support on energy policy. No new wells were even being considered to have begun drilling for years so the idea that they are now backing off and stopping any new wells from moving forward simply because of this tragedy is utterly ridiculous.

The intense scope of this tragedy is going to keep this story on the tips of the lips of newscasters for months. I wonder how many stories we will miss hearing about because we are focusing on the people in the Gulf Coast. Mid-term elections, cap and trade legislation, unemployment numbers, the failing economy, Federal immigration policy and who knows what else might fall through the cracks of coverage.

These deep water oil rigs are supposed to be equipped with something called a blow out preventer. For one reason or another (and not a reason that is currently known) the blow out preventer did not work. One single piece of equipment not working (or not being monitored properly) is the catalyst for what is sure to be an environmental and societal tragedy of colossal proportions that could effect our wildlife and economy for twenty years or more.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. Sometimes they are plausible, sometimes not but in almost all cases they are interesting enough to capture the attention of a lot of people. I wonder if this one will?

Maybe, just maybe

The Daily Caller this morning reported that the Debt Commission that President Obama has assembled will carry a price tag of $500,000. Now I know that sounds like a lot of cold hard cash adding to our debt in order to discuss getting us out of debt but is it really? Let's take a look.

Bruce Reed said that he and a few staffers are collecting a salary. So one would assume that the other seventeen members and some of their staffers will also collect some type of salary. For illustration purposes though, let's just say that the eighteen members of the commission receive a small salary that might equal $500 per weekly session. The commission plans on meeting each week (in person) until their report is due in December, that is approximately 32 weeks. So, again with no intimate knowledge of the exact amount of the salaries, the salary portion of the budget is potentially $280,000 not including any staffers.

Mr. Reed, the executive director of the commission, has also said that the commission will enlist several unpaid staffers as well. Well I certainly hope that they don't ask those unpaid staffers to do any clerical work because that would be in violation of regulations regarding internships wouldn't it and interns of course don't ever do something that someone else could be paid for huh?

Now let's look a the travel and lodging budget. The average priced coach class flight from Raleigh to Washington DC (where I would guess that Erskine Bowles would fly in and out of unless of course he had to travel from elsewhere due to scheduling) is $149 and the average priced coach class flight from Wyoming to DC is $601 (although Alan Simpson has already stated that he prefers to fly first class and take the loss on the difference in price). So allowing for the fact that there is probably a flat fee for each flight instead of a separate amount for each of the eighteen member panel which although the right way to do I doubt that the government works that efficiently, that would put the airfare budget around $288,000. Again for the purposes of this example, let's say that each staffer would stay over in DC one night for each meeting and the average DC hotel is $200 per night. That would mean that the housing budget would be approximately $115,200.

Of course, we don't want anyone to be hungry so I would have to believe that there is also a per diem for food. Let's use a round figure of $100 per meeting, which would add another $57,000 for just the eighteen members of the commission (no staffers).

So even though the commission is meeting in the White House (at least the first time) which alleviates the need for an outside facility rental fee, there is probably at least lunch brought in. One would figure that even if provided by the White House kitchens, the cost is probably at least $20 per person which adds an additional $11,520 to the overall budget. Lest we forget paper and pens, we should add into the budget the cost of at least one legal pad, one ream of copy paper, two pens and two highlighters per panel member per session. That would add another $2384.46 unless of course they don't shop at Staples and instead go to that government warehouse where the toilet seats cost over a thousand dollars.

So without factoring in any money for any staffers that the executive director has already said would be paid, the budget for the above expenses is already$754,104.46. Does this surprise anyone? Are my estimates really out of control?? So once again the people who are tasked with finding a way to get us out of debt are apparently incapable of providing a realistic budget to work within themselves.

Why is it that the Administration continues to think that the American public is too stupid to see the writing on the wall and to do simple math? Why can't these meetings be held over video chat? That idea was squashed according to the Daily Caller's report. I would think that since the Obama Administration thinks that all Americans have a right to broadband Internet then they must have heard of something called video conferencing? Skype is free - use it and some common sense and maybe, just maybe, we'll have a chance!

Klaatu barada nikto

President Obama has created yet another commission to study something. Rather than sitting down with economists himself which would no doubt infringe on his abilities to continue his love affair with his teleprompter on television every other minute, he has created a "bi-partisan"debt commission tasked with finding a way of getting America out of debt. And given the most recent developments (the climate bill) in the realm of bi-partisan politics I am not sure that we should hold our breath.

The heads of this commission are Erskine Bowles, a failed Democratic Senatorial candidate and outgoing president of the University of North Carolina, and Alan Simpson a former Republican Senator from Wyoming. These two will head an eighteen member panel charged with the task of reducing the deficit to $550 BILLION by 2015. The deficit for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2009 was $1.4 Trillion so the commission apparently have their work cut out for them.

As the president of the University of North Carolina system, Bowles was ultimately responsible for the budget and in the current fiscal year had to make cuts totaling $162.5 Million. These cuts included 935 jobs. Ninety percent of the job cuts were administrative positions eliminated "in order to protect the Academic core" of the system. Mr. Bowles has also stated that further cuts will have to be made - namely approximately $100 million from the 2010-2011 operating budget - but that those will no doubt unfortunately have to be stripped from the University's Academic core. Convenient that Mr. Bowles has announced his retirement from the presidency before he is associated with the cuts and with the permanent damage that will lead to a path of mediocrity.

After leaving the Senate, Alan Simpson (once named by a tabloid as an alien) taught at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. In 2001, Senator Simpson became Honorary Chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition (a gay/straight alliance within Republican party that has since disbanded) and then supported a former Democratic candidate (over a much more conservative choice) in the 2002 Wyoming gubernatorial race. So I guess that I shouldn't be surprised at the inclusion a liberal leaning Republican as the Administration's attempt at bi-partisanship.

Is trimming administrative positions, those positions that are usually vital to the day-to-day operations of most of the programs that they will no doubt want to continue to fund, the answer? Once we do that, are we then faced with the trimming of the "Academic core" of America? And will that lead the country down the path of mediocrity - more so than even some say we already are?

I fear that when Alan Simpson this time utters "Klaatu barada nikto" it will be too late to call off the President's destruction of our beautiful country.

Have you seen the pigs?

So if I had to choose just one place in this big beautiful country to move, I think that hands down I would have to choose our 48th state Arizona. A reminder of Old West history, Arizona is home to 28 national parks, the most famous of which is the Grand Canyon. And apparently there are actually residents in Arizona who remember the ones who came before them (like Cochise or Geronimo) who fought for freedom and what was right and among them is the current Governor,who may just be my new hero.

When President Obama nominated Janet Napolitano to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the line of succession elevated Jan Brewer, then the elected Secretary of State, to the office of the Governor. And apparently not afraid of poll numbers, Governor Brewer is now leading the call of the average Arizonan (and quite frankly the average American too) and fighting the fights that the people deem important and necessary. Personally I would love to have a governor (or any representative actually) who actually seems to govern and represent based on the will of the people. She's surrounded by a patriotic bunch of people that include Senator John McCain, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and State Senator Russell Pearce.

Just yesterday, Governor Brewer signed into Arizona law the nations toughest immigration enforcement policy to date. This legislation requires Arizona cops to question a person's residency status (during a stop or detention for just cause) if they have good reason to suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Yesterday's signing comes on the heels of recent legislation that will allow Arizonans to carry concealed weapons without a permit, a bill that gives the Governor the ability to circumvent the state Attorney General and sue over the healthcare overhaul as well as a bill introduced in the state House that would require presidential candidates to provide a copy of their birth certificate to be on the ballot.

Governor Brewer was clear in her statements at the signing ceremony when she said " And it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid - stable and steadfast." President Obama, after the immigration legislation was signed into law this afternoon, called the bill "misguided" and has ordered the Justice Department to see if it it legal. Opponents of the bill (obviously including President Obama) are afraid of potential civil rights violations as well as the idea that hispanics might be afraid to report crime for fear of being deported. So let me get this straight Mr. President. You're a constitutional scholar. Am I to believe that you don't have the ten minutes (that it just took me) to read the seventeen pages of the bill to determine if it is legal or not. Yet it is perfectly sane for you to think that the American people are just going to take your word for it when you tell us that the healthcare bill isn't going to cost us money, raise our taxes or strip us of our liberties when we are forced to purchase health insurance??!?

The new immigration law has the support of 70% of Arizonans, clear language outlining its abilities and its text (which did I mention was 17 pages?) sat on the Governor's desk for 4 days before she signed it. Healthcare reform consists of almost 3000 pages, well over one-half of the country opposed the action and the text (let me reiterate, almost 3000 pages) was signed into law less than 48 hours after it was voted upon. I think that I finally understand how the Obama administration works - analyze the situation and then do the exact opposite of common sense and the will of the people! Oh and if the people don't thank you, well then chastise and laugh at them because that goes over so well.

So I guess that I have been wrong. It is not a good idea to make something that by definition is illegal a crime and we shouldn't salute those who are working tirelessly to protect our borders and our citizens. I am sorry that I have questioned the exalted intellect and infallibility of the Administration and I will right now sit down and write a thank you note so that you know how much I appreciate the higher taxes and loss of liberty that I will experience as we watch healthcare reform grow.

Yeah, that's the plan because I just looked out the window and saw a couple of pigs flying by.

Tax Day. Do you need an extension?

Tax Day. When I was growing up, April 15 meant one thing - my grandfather was going to run to the accountant and request an extension. To this day I still do not know why he just didn't file his return, procrastination I guess, but still it is an image that I won't forget. In today's world, tax day brings a totally different image to mind. Thousands of people gathering on lawns, in parks, and on malls all over the country to display their anger over what the government is doing with regards to not only taxation but to the takeovers of healthcare and private businesses, the excessive spending practices, and to the overall weakening of our country perceived by the attendees.

Opponents of the Tea Party movement will counter today's gatherings as right-winged Republican love fests and the "tea-baggers" are so stupid that they don't even realize that they paid less in taxes this year. Here's the problem with that logic. No one that I met today (at the Tax Day Tea Party in Charlotte NC) was complaining about the taxes paid on returns due today. The folks I met were concerned with liberty and freedom and the futures of their children and grandchildren. They are concerned with things like renegade school boards, success of their businesses, finding or keeping a job and as most parents the idea that their children will have a better life than their own. They are concerned with dangerous legislations that will place unbelievable tax burdens on future generations. They are concerned with liberties and freedoms that are being stripped or limited and they came not to protest but rather to learn and educate themselves so that they can share these ideas with everyone that they meet.

Today I met a gentleman with Campaign for Liberty. David was most hospitable as I asked him to explain why he was at today's event. He explained that his group is focused on gaining support of a bill that would audit the Federal Reserve. He, like others in his group, was gathering signatures in order to present them to Senator Kay Hagan who as of today has not shown her willingness to support Senate bill S604 which has the support in the manner of a co-sponsorship by Senator Burr. (The House of Representatives has a similar bill (HR 1207) that has garnered some bi-partisan support here in the Tarheel state.)

I listened to impassioned speakers as they illustrated the problems, as they see them, that we are facing as a city, county, state and country. Speakers who illustrated solutions to some of the problems and complaints of the thousands on the lawn of the Old Courthouse instead of just recycling rhetoric in hopes of stirring the crowd. A merchant, who calls himself the Free Market Warrior and who was kicked out of a local mall last year (click here for a previous entry on this subject) for selling merchandise showcasing the viewpoints of the right and of the tea-party, spoke to the crowd about his plan of action. Loren Spivack urged the crowd to do something, "Three times in our history we have instituted fundamental change in this country -- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and during the New Deal. Now we have the chance to do so again, if we are willing to DO SOMETHING." His core idea is education - of our children and ourselves. He got the biggest applause of his speech with this, "I don't want my history and values being taught by a government bureaucrat, give me the (tax) money back and I will teach my kids."

The organizer of both last year's and today's Charlotte event, Matthew Ridenhour, is both unassuming and humble but his speech was probably the most well received of the day. Matthew is a Marine who has served two tours of duty in Iraq and who began the organizing of the Tax Day Tea Party in a bar with some friends when none of them would step up to the plate. He shared his story with the crowd, "Its one thing to serve your country in Iraq and shed tears on their soil but to come home and see your country being fractured and Lady Liberty being destroyed from within...... freedom doesn't come without burden" He urged the crowd to carry that burden and to not just attend the Tea Party but to take action and educate.

Tax Day 2010. Maybe an old vision and and a new one have now combined. I think that today I witnessed an extension request from the American people (at least the ones I saw here in Charlotte). They are not willing to give up their country without a fight and they aren't just making noise. They are educating themselves on pending bills and current legislations as well as candidates who agree with them and those who don't. Be careful world, Kate Smith isn't singing yet!

Reading is Fundamental

Before yesterday, I had never heard of the Congressional Research Service. I think I am probably not alone but I am hoping that more and more people will come to know them almost as well as the Congressional Budget Office because if recent leaks of information contained in their reports are true, well they might be my new favorite entity in Washington, D.C. The CRS is a non-partisan think tank of sorts that serves a shared staff to congressional committees and members of Congress. The CRS, created in 1914 during the Wilson administration, provides analytical support in all levels of the legislative process. One of the most intriguing tasks with which they are charged is the preparing of confidential memoranda, briefings and consultations. The content of these "confidential" reports is often hard for the American public to find and access as they do not become a part of the public domain until a member of Congress releases them.

You may be asking yourself why the lesson on the Congressional Research Service - well I just thought that people should be aware that while it appears there is in fact a facet of Washington that continues to be non-partisan in its review of legislations, the reality is that the results of these evaluations are intentionally kept secret so as to allow members of Congress to continue to leave the American public in the dark and manipulate the data for their own purposes.

In August 2009, a CRS report was responsible for illustrating the fact that HR 3200 did not expressly prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under the new healthcare reform bill. President Obama was quoted saying, "Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table." The reality? The CRS report showed that there was no language in the bill that the "Health Insurance Exchange" would have any restrictions on non-citizens (whether legally or illegally present or in the United States temporarily or permanently). There is a subsection within the bill that mentions that no benefits for affordability payments are to be made to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States however since there is no specific language that establishes a verification or enforcement process (as in other Federal programs) it seems that there were gaping holes in the President's logic early on in the process of railroading this bill past the American public's opposition.

Now this week two pieces of information were brought to light through additional CRS reports. The first item is extremely disturbing. The healthcare reform bill passed contains a loophole that would not prevent "a qualified health plan in a health insurance exchange from providing coverage for drugs prescribed to treat ED to a non-incarcerated beneficiary who was previously convicted of rape, child molestation or other sexual offense." Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to the bill in the final days of negotiations but it was summarily struck down by Democrats afraid that changing any portion of the language would delay or even (gasp!) prevent the bill's passage during Reconciliation.

I don't even think that I can begin to wrap my head around that idea. Is there really someone out there who thinks that its a good idea to give child molesters and rapists Viagra? If Congress can summon the heads of major companies before them to testify as to the validity of their accounting procedures that blatantly show that the healthcare sham of a bill will cost them money then why can the American public not require every member of the Senate that had a hand in the blocking of this amendment be brought before a panel and explain why they think that adjusting this language would have prevented the bill's passage. Is there a major lobbying group of child rapists that is funding re-elections? Everyone of their constituents should call their offices immediately and demand an answer as to why this amendment was blocked.

But I have the GREATEST way to combat their answer of "it was for the greater good". The senators who blocked the amendment to prevent sex offenders from receiving prescription medicines to improve their erections may in fact have shot themselves in the foot. In the rush to get this healthcare sham passed, language included in the bill may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. Anyone who isn't laughing hysterically at this moment must not have a funny bone because that is simply priceless! The party line legislators who have been telling us for over a year that if we like our healthcare coverage then we can keep have now, because none of them read the whole bill before passing it, opened the door to losing their own coverage! Wow! I hope that all of these members of the House and Senate are in excellent health and have no pre-exisiting conditions or they might for once have to see what is like for the rest of us minions.

Wait! Is it too late to call for St. Patrick?

The new week brings the President's nuclear summit to Washington, D.C. Forty-seven world leaders are meeting in our nation's capital to discuss the nuclear future of the world. Noticeably absent are the two biggest nuclear threats within the globe - North Korea and Iran.

Is it just me or is anyone else worried about the staying power of these agreements given the President's history on campaigning for other people, places or things? And isn't that what this summit is all about anyway? Asking or campaigning for the other attendees to come around to our (as the host) way of thinking?

President Obama campaigned quite fervently for the Chicago Olympic bid for the 2016 games, even going as far as to fly himself and the First Lady and Oprah over to Copenhagen to plead in person. That worked out famously as we all know. The President then threw his support to some high-profile candidates in a few of off-year races that were held in November and the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat held in January. Those endorsements were held in such high esteem and voters were apparently fired up and ready to go after listening to the President's justifications for elections since they were able to defeat Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley and Creigh Deeds. Yet even with an 0-4 record, there are still those willing to keep the President campaigning on the country's behalf.

Recently the President made a surprise jaunt to Afghanistan so that he could visit with our troops. During his trip. he visited with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That meeting went so well that within a week, Karzai was threatening to resign his Presidency and join the Taliban. That event was on the heels of the announcement (during Vice President Joe Biden's visit) that Israel was going to approve more construction on the West Bank.

Now we have President Obama meeting with the leaders of forty-seven nations trying to hammer out the details on a successful nuclear strategy for the rest of the world. After a productive first day of talks, it was announced that China was on board to maybe possibly think about moving toward the Obama way of thinking on Iran and the Ukraine decided to give up its highly enriched uranium. Given the fact that China could really care less about sanctions on Iran and the President's own spokesperson wasn't sure where the uranium was to be sent (namely to us or to Russia - who might or might not give it to other countries for power generation) I think our not inviting some countries to the summit has allowed us to dodge an onslaught of rats.

I am glad that North Korea and Iran did not attend this summit. We could have been left with the fallout from a boobonic plague of a Presidential campaign that I don't think that we have enough stores of potassium iodide to combat.

I'm firing up the DeLorean

In September 2001, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were lambasted in both the US based main stream media as well in International media outlets for (in the wake of the attacks of September11) stating that Osama bin Laden was "Wanted Dead or Alive" or even that we wanted "his head on a platter". Where is the same outrage now as the current Administration adds an American born Muslim cleric to the "kill or capture" list?

The Bush Administration was admonished over and over for using bellicose and "Texas-style" rhetoric with regards to the terrorist responsible for murdering 2998 Americans. President Bush was accused of stripping Americans of their freedoms with the Patriot Act. The main stream media became firmly entrenched behind those who opposed the policies of President Bush. Groups like Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and the Media Fund were lauded in their vocal protests by the media. Anyone who expressed opposition to these media darlings were charged as trying to quiet the voices of dissent.

In 2003, MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann hailed the anti-Bush protests and stated, "It is political dissent that created this country and sustained it and improved it." A mere six years later, Olbermann showed his Kerry-esque flip-flop ability (in August of 2009) saying that anti-Obama protests were "societal sabotage" and insisted that "the protesters are not interested in hearing any voices other than their own". CBS's Katie Couric was quoted as saying (with regards to the Bush administration) that there was "a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kinds of dissent or any kind of questioning of it" Hello Pot? This is the Kettle!

A little over a year after taking office, we have now seen the Obama Administration make significant changes to National Security language. The words jihad and Islamic radicalism have been removed from a key document outlining the US security strategy. We've seen a policy released that states that we will won't use nuclear weapons on most countries no matter what they use on us. We've seen the Attorney General of the United States say that (another) 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, should be tried in a Federal court in New York City but that Osama bin Laden would "never be tried in a US court" because he would most likely be killed before he was captured and they wouldn't "read Miranda rights to his corpse." We've witnessed Homeland Security (under the Obama Administration in April 2009) issue warnings that there will be rises in terror threats from home grown right-wing extremist organizations because they may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president.

What we have also witnessed however is two very clear attacks on American soil (the first since September 11, 2001). In November 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 American citizens and injured another 30. On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab was apprehended after attempting to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Both of these attacks are now linked to a Muslim cleric who is also an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki and the Obama administration has now authorized the killing of this American citizen.

So can someone please tell me the difference between issuing a "Wanted Dead or Alive" type of statement about a monster who claimed responsibility for killing almost 3000 Americans and the authorization of a "kill or capture" order for an American born Muslim? Why do we issue vast warnings about right-wing extremists when there wasn't a single arrest of a tea party protester at any of the hundreds of tea parties (at least none that the author is aware of since I am sure had there been the main stream media would have been all over the story) across the country over the past year? Why do we remove "Islamic radicalism" from our National Security language when actual attacks on our homeland are attributed to a Muslim cleric? Why do we joke about reading Miranda rights to a dead Saudi man but then turn around and issue a kill order for an American citizen? And why do we vilify a President who uses the Patriot Act to assist in our protection yet we glorify another President who strips us of the right to choose our own (or lack thereof) health insurance and who has lied time and time again in his bid to take over one sixth of the economy?

I am confused and befuddled by this seemingly parallel universe and sometimes wish for a DeLorean so that I can speed down the road at 88 miles per hour so that I can get back to the future where I hope that this mess has been fixed by another trip back in time.

Please feel free to follow me on Facebook

We have a history

Is it right to continue with something just because there is a history behind it? By definition, everything and every situation has a history.

Should we continue to deny women voting rights simply because there is a history that did not allow them to? Or should slavery still be a mainstay in the south because there used to be plantation owners who owned slaves? Both of these statements are as ridiculous as the blanket statment "We have a history."

History cannot be changed that is true but our interpretations and reactions to past events can be changed. We must strive to make informed decisions on future actions based on consequences from previous experiences.

George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. " I think that this (and its many variations) might be my favorite all philosophical quotes because it applies to almost every possible situation in life.

What do you think that we could have avoided repeating if we studied the history (plainly written in an autobiography) and learned that President Barack Obama was the type of man who would find it necessary to surround himself with Marxists and Communists. If we had studied our history would we now be surprised that the President fills the Oval Office with the likes of Van Jones, Ron Bloom and Reverend Jim Wallis.

What do you think that we would learn if we studied the history of any of the politicians that we elect to represent us and write our laws? We would find that there are some who cheat on their wives, their taxes or their business partners. We would also find some who are honest and hard-working individuals who have histories that feature service to our country and their communities . Which history should we use to aid us in the election of lawmakers that will be charged with caring for the future for our children?

The answer is both. So please do your homework. Study your history. Before you enter the ballot box know the history of the people for whom you press the button or pull a lever. The truth is some history should be avoided and some should be revered.

Frankie Says.........

So I think that the folks that run the schools in Florida have finally gone off the deep end. After last fall's debacle in Broward County where students were to be punished for not watching a speech by President Obama we now have a case in the Orlando area where a student is being threatened with suspension for wearing a bracelet to support Breast Cancer Awareness.

At first I thought that this might be an April Fool's Day story but then I realized that the ridiculousness of it had to be true. Apparently a 14-year old boy wore one of those plastic bracelets (thanks Lance Armstrong) printed with the phrases " I love boobies" and "Save a Breast". The school administration says that the bracelet caused a commotion. Really? I seriously doubt that the student wearing the bracelet was walking around chanting the phrases on his wrist.

The only conceivable commotion I can think of would be from other students (most likely other 14-year old boys) making comments about breasts and boobies. And if a teacher or administrator can't handle fourteen year old boys talking about breasts and various other female body parts than you probably are teaching the wrong aged students because that's all they are thinking about anyway. So why take the armband away? It raises awareness for breast cancer and countless other bands in an array of colors represent a myriad of other causes. So why take it away? Because it says "breast" and "boobie"? Unless your health teacher is referring to the female anatomy in health class as her lovely lady lumps well then I really don't see the issue.

I thought that schools today (especially those in Florida) were most concerned with teaching youth to be good global citizens? Isn't showing support for a disease that one out of every three women will be diagnosed with a worthy global initiative? Maybe its only okay to show support for a cause if you a part of a mandatory service work program?

I wish that I could say that Frankie was still wearing his bracelet but sadly the school's administration succeeded in their bullying tactics (can teachers be members of a service employees union?) and he has stopped. He told a local news agency, "I just don't want to get in trouble anymore." Sounds like a real trouble-maker huh?

So here's my idea. Every parent with kids at Tomlin Middle School and everyone else who thinks that this entire situation in completely ludicrous and out of control should adopt a new slogan...........

FRANKIE SAYS SAVE THE BOOBIES!