Post Game Commentary

Like a thousand other would-be commentator blogs out there, it's time for Black Owl to give the post game assessment of the 2010 mid-terms. They were ugly, and spiteful, and not always particularly honest, but I think there are some winners and losers out there, and I don't necessarily think they are obvious.

Big winner- John Boehner. He is now ringmaster in that circus known as the House, and will be on every website and TV channel he can get his mug plastered upon. He's all about changing Washington... this 20-year Washington politician. Let's hope he takes Michael Jackson's advice and starts with the man in the mirror.

Kinda winner- the Republican party. They made great strides in the House, and have all kinds of an agenda to push: repealing Health Care, fixing the economy (whose troubles have roots in the Clinton presidency while those troubles blossomed in the Bush years, and BO was supposed to already have it all fixed), keeping gays out of the military. They have a lot to do in the next two years. Of course they have absolutely no chance of getting any of it done without the Senate or the White House, but I wish them the best.

Not a winner, but we're saying they are- the Tea Party. They did get a couple of big wins in, but as the Red states have reminded those few Blue states, there's the whole rest of the country. Less than a third of Tea Party backed candidates won. Further, some people are saying the TP lost the Republicans control of the Senate. Ouch.

Losers- The Democrats. You guys did a lousy job of running a campaign. You didn't use facts to counter the half-truths of your opponents, and frankly, the Country has a real right to be mad at you; you swept in with BO and then decided that just having a majority wasn't enough. Despite everything the Pres has made happen, he had to cajole and prod you into action, and it showed. I know, I know, you never REALLY wanted that dude to be President; you were ready for Hillary. You not standing behind your president however has cost you the House, and got you close to losing the Senate. Ouch.

Surprise winner- Barack Obama. The man is still President, and suddenly has something now he didn't have the last two years; Republicans willing to talk. Yeah, I know, they are going to come in like gang-busters, but again, if they actually want to look like they are doing something they do have to appease the Senate, and if I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the president has to sign their bills into law.




Yep, thought so. That two-thirds veto override is going to be tough too. So to get anything accomplished (here comes the C-word) Republicans will have to compromise; like the President has been trying to get for 24 months. Further, if they don't, the Republicans look like the bad guys in two years. And, I think Barack Obama would like to personally thank the American people for getting Nancy Pelosi the hell out of his way.



Biggest Loser- The American People. More than likely we have a grid-locked Government which will throw insults and rhetoric for the next two years until they can try to completely disparage one another in the next election cycle. That means nothing getting done on either side, and a quagmire which keeps us from growing, improving, or fixing anything...regardless of the side of the aisle one supports. The politics have become far more important than the actual issues. We lose.

Should have voted for this guy. At least he's honest.

A Sarcastic Thank You to the American Media and People

Why am I dipping my thanks in a deep irony sauce seasoned with a fresh grind of hostility? Because you (and by you I must indeed include me, as we are “We the People”) and the media we allow to taint our thoughts have successfully managed to befuddle and obfuscate every issue this election cycle. At times, it's been downright lies, but most often it's half-truths interpreted through our ever more polarized worldviews. I have been labeled, rightfully, in one such discussion as a “Centrist Intellectual.” (Let me wipe off the irony sauce and say thank you to my dear Deborah, who though we may disagree, calls them as she sees them, and this is I hope exactly the political persona I hope to project.)

As such, I now have no one for whom to vote. In order to receive kudos from the vocal of either side and their media masters, any show of intellectualism makes a candidate out to be not of the people. Candidates are CLAIMING IGNORANCE as a positive characteristic. Please think about that for a minute, and honestly assess of you want to support someone who claims to be no smarter than you. I can't balance a checkbook, I certainly hope the people for whom I vote are smarter than me. I want them to be smart... but I am apparently in the minority.

Secondly, there's no benefit in moderation today. Be a little in the middle as a Republican, and you are labeled a RINO and some Tea Partier will come along and kill you in the Primary. Be a little in the middle as a Democrat, and websites like “AlterNet.Org” will decide you are just part of the machine carrying on Bush policy. We have become enslaved to our false left-right political spectrum (where does anarchy fall on that spectrum may I ask?) and have paid corporate giants millions to have their talking heads on both sides stop informing us and start simply confirming what we already think we know. Obama's a Socialist? Beck said so, and that's just what I thought, so it must be true. Reagan's the devil? You bet Keith, tell it like it is! We take it and we feed our confirmation bias, and if we do flip to the other channel, it's just to see how wrong the other guy still is.

And that's if we even bother to go to a “news source.” Usually it's just a forwarded email we won't bother to confirm because it falls in line with what we think. Of course, we must then share this with our like minded friends and perpetuate those half truths ourselves.

So here I am, with no candidate to represent my thoughts except ones already in power whom I would like to replace with someone better, or hear the truth about once in a while. I can't; there's no one better running, and no one who's on the side of truth, on the side of America. If you think your political part represents true America, the simple truth is you are wrong. There is no party representing America, because there are too many of us to break into two easily definable groups, and the fact we keep trying is a detriment to our nation and our future.

I am about to make a confession. I am a Liberal. There, I said it.
Oh, you think I mean PELOSI Liberal? Oh hell no. I am a Liberal like Thomas Jefferson, the classical definition, the idea that LIBERTY should be the first consideration. The rights of the people. I see both slides wrapping themselves in that flag, and neither truly representing it. LIBERTY does not mean the Government doing everything for you. LIBERTY also does not mean a powerless Government. We have a Bill of Rights to protect us from an overzealous Government so that that Government can protect us from overzealous Businesses. Indeed, we seem to be on a path to eliminate the governments ability to do anything, and will instead sentence ourselves to slavery to banks and corporations to whom we will be indebted as long as we shall live. The corporation does NOT represent unfettered capitalism. The government MUST keep them honest, and not be enslaved to them. Simply ask Republican President and Monopoly breaker Theodore Roosevelt:

“Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
Speech at Providence, Rhode Island (1902-08-23), Presidential Addresses and State Papers (1910), p. 103

For there to be true freedom, we must be independent; independent of Government, of Corporation, of Political Party. There was a time Democrats preached that, as did this other Roosevelt:

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
Franklin Roosevelt

I have another confession to make; I am a Conservative. There I said it.
Oh, you think I mean a PALIN Conservative? Oh hell no! I mean the one who wants to leave the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as our ruling ideal. We have to understand what that means. If we want to be Constitutionalist, our government doesn't establish a State Religion, we don't keep people from saying what they think, we leave guns in the hands of the people, and we let some bad guys get away in order to secure Liberty and privacy. Yeah, I know privacy doesn't appear in the Constitution. Primarily because the word in the 1700s related specifically to using the toilet. (Look it up- ever hear the term “using the privy”? Surely you can see the etymological evolution of usage here).

See, I think about these things, and you should too. Think, don't feel. Think, learn to cooperate, because it is what we have in common, which is a hell of a lot more than we disagree on, that will protect us from those who are jealous of what we have. Don't underestimate the internal threat though; we are more of a threat to our own Republic, either through over-legislation, or under-regulation; through taking advantage of an already ailing system, or destroying it so it cannot help those with legitimate need. The answer to America's future lies in the middle, and in thinking so we can differentiate real problems from banner issues meant to get our party elected. We indeed must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.

Now, I would like to think I haven't promoted a specific side's agenda here, particularly since I am pretty put out with both. Their posturing as left an impression of doom. Despite the S&P500 showing great progress since January, despite two years of tax cuts from withholding (which leaves money in your paycheck which you spend rather than sending you a check you put in the bank which only helps... the bank), and a severe slowdown on job loss. Also, no one came to take my guns, no one forced me to house soldiers in my home (except of course the one who pays the rent) and I am not a headless body left in the Arizona desert...yet. Also, I have not been locked in prison for my repeated use of the term “aham' d'Allah” or my possession and occasional use of Islamic prayer beads (usually while reciting the Shema and singing hymns or sitting in a lotus position). We are not as bad off as either side says, and neither side is really as bad as their detractors tell you.

But don't take my word for it. Put aside your feelings, read a lot, and THINK about it all. If you change your mind on nothing, you haven't done it right. We all are wrong about something. Go find out what YOU are wrong about. Stop letting the parties tell you it's all the other guy, because you know who's fault it is?

Ours.

And that's why I am mad at us (and me too).

Deyz in yur government mezzin' up yer medizin!

My dear congressional Republicans, there is a problem in this country which needs your action. Right now, Federal bureaucrats are preventing doctors from making medical decisions regarding their patients. A specific treatment which has proven beneficial and cost effective is being blocked by big government, and some committee which thinks it know better than physicians how patients should be treated. Seeing as how that's one of the major arguments Congressional Republicans have against the Public Option, I am looking forward to seeing some brave Conservative get up and say it:

It's time to repeal the Federal ban on medical marijuana.

Seriously, regardless of my Centrist views, I also do NOT want some committee deciding who gets particular treatments. However, if we're not going to let a death panel decide an 80 year old can't have a new liver, then why are we still allowing the FDA to say doctors can't prescribe marijuana? I am not talking about legalizing it for recreational use (that's another argument). I am talking about a doctor prescribing to his or her patient who is undergoing chemo, or suffers from glaucoma, or has breast cancer, or even as some studies show, Alzheimer's- a natural remedy which is easy and cheap to produce, and has far less ill effects than the pharmaceutical alternatives.

I'm talking about a treatment supported by the American College of Physicians, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and of course Chris Robinson of The Black Crowes.

I'm talking about an easily delivered treatment which some evidence shows may treat or alleviate up to 250 different ailments.

Now, let's be fair- this list was assembled by a doctor who may not be totally objective about this subject, but if it works for even ten things on this list, isn't it worth using? Five? Even one, if it can bring relief for a single ailment, and doctors want to use it, why are we letting the Federal government say otherwise? They're the doctors right? And not just some quacks, but real doctors (see the list above).

So, what is the government's argument against it? The hazards of smoking. No really, you can't have relief for your nauseous reaction to the chemo you have treating your cancer because the period you smoke the MJ might give you lung cancer. Well, what if it becomes a gateway for the patient? According to the Rand Corporation, the Gateway concept is bunk, and so say these doctors.
Even the 1999 study the FDA cites on usage in general only says:

"The gateway analogy evokes two ideas that are often confused. The first, more often referred to as the 'stepping stone' hypothesis, is the idea that progression from marijuana to other drugs arises from pharmacological properties of marijuana itself.

The second is that marijuana serves as a gateway to the world of illegal drugs in which youths have greater opportunity and are under greater social pressure to try other illegal drugs." (Institute of Medicine in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base")

Not really a damning statement. Here's how Lynn Zimmer, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Queens College at the City University of New York put it:

"In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs.

A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities. For example, most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter.” (his 1997 book “Marijuana Myths - Marijuana Facts”).

More than that, 13 States have voted to use medical marijuana- aren't the Republicans the party of State's Rights? Why aren't Republicans screaming about the Federal Governments insistence on imposing their will over these States' decisions? Who's going to be the brave Republican to get up and call for the end of these laws? John McCain, whose state is one of those who passed a local proposition? Sarah Palin, who is vehemently against Federal controls and bureaucratic interdiction in medical decisions? Joe Wilson, who obviously feels very passionately about health care. Who?

I am not trying to be a smart ass here- this is exactly WHY I want to see two parties in government. Any argument however must follow to the logical consequences. Opposing Government Health care on the grounds of bureaucrats not being allowed to countermand doctors has to apply to any reasonable medical decision. The facts are in- MM is reasonable, with the FDA's stats being spurious at best. Further, wanting to shrink Federal power in favor of State power means allowing States to make certain decisions on their own. The tenth amendment says they can do that, if there is not an existing Federal law- Federal Laws came from the control of recreational use- you know what? I can't use Vicodin for recreational use either, but no one in the Federal Government is asking to ban it as medicine.

So as a citizen, I ask a Republican to take advantage of the argument about health care right now and do the right thing. You would have doctors, States, facts, and logic on your side. Be the party of Smaller Government and put this tool back in the hands of doctors.

So I been thinkin'...

I just watched a really good TV series from Great Britain, called “Torchwood.” For those of you who don't know, it's a spinoff of the venerable “Doctor Who” tv series, and plays a bit like a British version of “The X-Files” though is at times a bit more grown up, and certainly allows darker things to happen to its characters, which British SF is kind of famous for (Blake's 7 anyone?). It stars the delighful John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness, the indestructible leader of the extra-terrestrial-investigating group Torchwood, and Eve Myles (who has the best hair in television history) as Gwen Cooper, the former cop turned alien hunter (I might have written this entire posting as an excuse to post a picture of Eve Myles).


I specifically watched the third season, a special five part miniseries within the series called “Children of Earth.” I don't want to give away too much here, but the basic premise is what happens when an alien race comes and threatens to wipe us all out, unless we give them ten percent of every pre-pubescent child on Earth (I specifically won't spoil the 'why' part).

As the story plays out, the British leadership does some pretty heinous things, and eventually puts troops in the streets to gather up the undesirable children to give to the aliens. “Undesirable” pretty much equates to those who are eventually just end up on welfare or in prison, or those who were children of immigrants denied asylum. The scenes were the politicians are justifying this decision to themselves, while not offering up their own children are especially chilling.

The show is written by Russell T. Davies, who is also responsible for the Doctor Who revival, and the Showtime show “Queer as Folk.” The man is obviously a Liberal, and uses this venue as a method of pointing out how easily those who are supposed to serve us will offer us up to the wolves. He also makes a great show of pointing out how the Government, particularly in London, makes use of the “security cameras” to exploit or spy upon their citizens.




Now, this got me thinking about “V for Vendetta.” Decent film, but much better graphic novel about tyranny which takes hold while no one is looking, under the auspices of security and defending the people from terrorists. In the case of that film (pardon spoilers), a manufactured terror attack allows the powers that be to be those powers for life, and a despotic Orwellian nightmare ensues. Again though, this is a warning about the misintentions of government from a liberal source. Lots of that was really going on under the Bush administration for the last eight years, driven by things that even I have talked about: The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrantless wire-tapping, willfully ignoring the FISA laws, etc. It goes back though; the original V for Vendetta was written in the late 1980s, and was specifically talking about Margaret Thatcher's government. Frank Miller did something similar in “The Dark Knight Returns” with a Ronald Reagan who had become President for life. Liberals don't want those damn Conservatives creating a police state.

Have you checked your e-mail lately? Conservatives don't want those damn Liberals creating a police state. President Obama is backing public health care to weed out the old white folks (majority conservatives), and wants you to report to his political officers the names of people who disagree with him. Apparently he is also prepping to declare all Christians to be extremists, and possibly has the secret cabal backing of the Hawaii state Records division. Think though- this didn't start here! Bill Clinton was in office when the ATF went after innocent Christians like David Koresh, and he stripped down our military to make us weak before the UN. Remember all the people he and Hillary had killed to ensure their place in the Oval Office? (I bet Al Gore wishes they'd killed a few for him.)



So what's my point?

Maybe it's the idea they are all actually out to get us, and secretly in cahoots. It wouldn't matter who you voted for, it's whoever THEY want to win to keep the people thinking they have a say in a Democracy which is long dead.

Maybe each side is vying for their own power, so THEY can rule without dispute. We The People would still be screwed, because by that reckoning, each side still wants to enslave us, just around different agendas.

Maybe it is the natural way of all governments to tend toward tyranny. Again we would be screwed, because it doesn't matter what the actual intentions are of any given politician, so long as we keep legislating we will eventually create a state with so many rules anything is a crime.

Maybe each side is just doing what they think is for the best, mostly based on honest intentions (always some bad apples), and we have all descended to this sorry point where it is easier to spout one side's rhetoric than to actually look for a solution which is mutually beneficial. It's easier to believe the other side is evil than to admit you may be wrong about something and the truth may lie somewhere between.

Maybe it's always been this way. Have you looked at old political cartoons calling FDR a Commie, or anything in the late 1800s by Thomas Nast (the Mormon/Roman churches as “Reptiles” slithering on America is my favorite), or the rhetoric from John Adams' enemies regarding the “Intolerable Acts.” (The fact we remember them as the “Intolerable Acts” I think demonstrates some pretty powerful swaying of public opinion!)




Maybe... hell, I don't know. I was just thinking in Word. I do wish I was hearing more reasoned arguments and less fear mongering. What have YOU done to make things better? Something positive, not stopping someone else from doing something, not neglecting to do something out of protest; what was the last thing you got out and DID for your country, your state, your town, or your neighborhood? If you have something good, cool. If you had to think through all the negative things you did, even for the right intentions, maybe you should rethink it. Maybe it's time for all of us to research before we vote, be active in the community, and actively try to find a middle ground.

Or don't. We'll just pass more laws until passing laws is illegal.

Not really gonna tie this one up neatly; I think it's just a rant.

Much better.

This young lady needs to be the future of the Republican Party.



Perhaps one day I will vote for a McCain again.