The SoapBoxers

For as long as I’ve been born the United States of America has had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, even in a hostage situation. The thinking is that rewarding people who take hostages will just entice them to take more hostages. It’s a pretty common and widely accepted theory in psychology – we see it’s applications on things a lot more prevalent than hostage-taking; reward the dog for sitting down and the dog is more likely to sit when you want it to. Go pick up the baby when it cries and the baby will learn that crying leads to parental attention. In the same way, our current broken political system THRIVES on 11th-hour “crisis” situations.

The recent debt crisis is a glaring example of the extremism in politics, and in my opinion it is closer to a hostage crisis than we’ve ever been. Hostage situations almost always arise from the routine; it’s easier to both take hostages and shock and terrorize people when you disrupt their daily lives in everyday situations. In that same way, this debt crisis arose from something that’s so routine it’s been done 102 times before and never with stipulations attached. In the same way our financial system was shocked when it was held hostage despite the wishes of the majority of US citizens. After George Bush cut taxes in the biggest revenue loss in US history, despite having some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, congress was so concerned that they … that’s right, raised the debt limit with nary a debate.

Had we handled raising the current debt ceiling the same way that was done George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and every other president this would have been done weeks ago with almost no attention from the public. What was different this time? Well, just factually speaking, this was the first time the “Tea Party” had any kind of say in congress. This was the first time that Obama didn’t have a majority in both houses. Those are the only significantly relevant issues that apply to this specific debt increase. As a percentage of GDP, we’ve had more debt – this was back in World War 2, and we’re fighting 2 wars right now, both started by George W. Bush.

The combination of the Tea Party influence and Obama not having a free pass in both houses gave Republicans a prime opportunity to hold the possibility of a default over Democrats’ heads. As usual, the Democrats had no spine and caved in and as usual the Republicans went against the wishes of a majority of Americans to push a horribly misguided philosophy of “trickle-down” economics that has been proven to not work.

All through this situation I heard Republicans pandering to the camera and saying how they wouldn’t let Obama and the Democrats raise taxes on America. Yet from the moment this situation was labeled a crisis the Democrats did not want to raise taxes on 98% of Americans, only on the richest 2%. Your average Republican will immediately knee-jerk and come back with “but … but … but … if taxes are raised business won’t hire people.” I will point out that corporate tax revenues are at an all-time low (mostly thanks to loopholes).  I will also point out that despite corporate profits being up 22%, the unemployment rate has only slightly improved and that’s not counting the hundreds of thousands who have simply stopped looking. All that is in addition to payrates for the average American decreasing, in relation to inflation. The bottom line: The Democrats wanted to raise taxes more or less on just those very people benefiting from the 22% increased profits, and the Republicans held our economy hostage because they opposed that. Once again, I will point out that the Republicans are getting lots of campaign finance from the very companies that have flourished the past decades, and it has been Republicans in the past to oppose campaign finance.

Back on the 2010 campaign trail all we heard from Republicans was how we needed to turn around the economy by creating jobs, specifically by making it easier for business to hire people by lowering taxes and creating more loopholes. Yet, they were so concerned about the jobless rate that as soon as the debt ceiling deal was done, Eric Cantor called for the Summer recess for congress despite the fact that the FAA was shut down due to disagreement over the ability to make it easier for FAA employees to unionize.  Think about it this way: After crying for weeks during the debt limit crisis that they weren’t getting their way, Republicans were so concerned about the average American that they were letting millions in non-controversial tax revenue go each day and putting 90,000+ people out of work while they went on a SIX WEEK vacation. Aren’t you glad they represent you so well?

So, over the past 1+ decades my long-view take on US economics is this: Republican politicians relax Wall St. oversight rules and regulations. Wall St. takes too many risks and ends up crashing, dragging the economy down with it. Government knee-jerks and saves Wall St. Too many corporations lay off people as part of the crash. People stop spending in fear. Government revenues go down. Government lays off people. More people stop spending in fear. Private agency that’s funded mostly by Wall St. banks decides that the US might be a risky investment despite the fact that statistically it’s better than many others that were labeled as safe by that same private agency – despite the fact that as of this writing the stock market is tanking and US Treasury bills can’t sell fast enough.

The basic problem is not that the US Government spends too much. The problem is the US Government spends more than it earns. There are three ways to correct that problem: decrease spending, increase earning, or both. To determine which method is best requires one to prioritize spending needs. THAT is where the real issue is. Our representatives and, indeed, our people cannot come to an agreement on what the purpose of government is.

Heck, if we can’t even agree on that, how do we expect to move forward? Well we’re certainly not going to now that the hostage-takers have gotten their way – they’ll simply think that they can just take hostages to get what they want. Keep your eyes open, because they have their eyes on Medicare and Social Security.

My kids love the idea of a credit card. You walk into the store; you pick out what you want, slide your card, sign the screen or receipt and leave. In their minds you never have to pay for it. They don’t see the bill that comes 30 days later. They don’t understand that when I’m sitting at the computer I’m using bill pay to funnel money from checking or savings to the credit card. The concept just won’t click in their beautiful (but naive) minds.

The idiots in Washington apparently don’t get it either. The difference is that they’re not six years old, they’re not cute like my daughters and those idiots are elected to not spend us into bankruptcy. I understand that everyone has “pet” expenditures. Some items mean more to someone living in Pigsnuckle, Arkansas than they do to someone living in Intercourse, Pennsylvania. However, in the act of cutting budgets, not everyone can win. There always has to be a loser.

What I don’t understand is why some people can’t see the importance of trimming the budget. Maybe it’s the accounting side of me, but if my family had a budget of $100,000 and I made $75,000 I would be worried. How long could we sustain that? Not long with the amount of savings that we have. We certainly couldn’t borrow money for 50 years without making changes.

So, why do we expect the government to do it? Where do we expect the money to come from? If they print more money, the currency just drops in value, so that does us no good. If we borrow more money from China we just incur more debt and have more interest to pay. No one likes it, but we have to trim spending significantly. I’m thrilled that the parties and the president have been able to come up with an agreement, but this is just the start. Wait until government healthcare kicks in, do you really think the government is going to make money with it? I would be thrilled if we could break even with it, but that isn’t going to happen.

The economy is weak; many businesses are making less money which means they pay less taxes which means that the government is taking in less revenue. To better determine what that means to us, remember the formula:

Revenues – Expenses = Profit (or loss if negative)

Try not to freak on me, but this is not just a democrat/liberal/regressive problem. I read a few weeks ago that spending has not shrunk since 1955. I don’t know if revenues increased every one of those years, but I would doubt that we hit an increase every year. Why would any congress or any president think for a moment that it was OK to continue increasing spending every single year? Why do we want to build a ridiculous amount of debt to pass on to the next generation? Doesn’t anyone realize that there will be serious repercussions if we can’t fix this spending mess that we are in?

In a few months I will be turning 40. As I approach middle age, I naturally start to think about what kind of legacy I want to leave behind. I have been thinking about my career, my personal life and how I conduct myself on a daily basis. What will my kids remember about me when they’re 40, 50 or 60 years old? What will their lives be like? Will they have the same opportunities that I have had? Are we going to hit another massive depression? If we don’t begin to act responsibly with our money, I think a very bad recession or even a depression is very likely.

Let my ADD kick in for a moment on another budget related item. Have you seen the article about free cell phones in Pennsylvania? Yes, there is now public aid so that people can have a free cell phone and 250 minutes each month because it’s a civil right. It’s paid for by the Universal Service Fund that is included on your cell phone bill each month. It’s yet another example of people latching on to the community tit, sucking it dry and you’re paying for it.

The time for fiscal responsibility is now. Demand it. That being said, all you’re going to hear is how bad the conservatives are for wanting to cut program costs. Those damn conservatives have no heart. They take advantage of people and don’t want to help anyone out. Well, truth be told, we’re just trying to live within our means. Obviously, we have a problem with that in this country and it’s time for everyone to learn what it means.

Squeaky…

Last night was supposed to be all about the House voting on the bill to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.  A compromise had been reached, and the Republican House and the Democratic Senate were poised to pass a bill and send it to the President for his quick signature.  Crisis averted, economy back on track, cue the chorus of Hallelujah.  The United State of America could once again return to what we do best – spending money!

Suddenly, in a moment, the political wrangling had been shoved to the side.  The politicians put their ideological differences aside and welcomed back one of their own.  Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona), still in recovery from a January assassination attempt, entered the chamber and cast her vote.

It’s worth noting that Giffords, a Democrat, did not return on Friday to help her party defeat the Boehner.v3 bill – which squeaked through with a 218-210 vote.  Instead, she returned to support a bipartisan effort last night.  In truth, her vote wasn’t necessary to secure passage of the bill, as it sailed through by a 269-161 margin.  There’s much to be learned from Giffords’ actions – it is a time to work together, rather than being quite so adversarial.

What does the future hold for congresswoman Giffords?  I hope this is a sign that she will be able to resume her full duties before long.  One of many unfortunate effects of Jared Loughner’s rampage is that her constituents have been without representation in congress.  (A sidebar – perhaps we need to prevent this situation from occurring in the future?  Allow a temporary replacement to be appointed in situations where a legislator is temporarily incapacitated.)

Will she run for re-election in 2012?  I think House Democratic leaders will strongly urge her to do so.  If there was ever a candidate who was a slam-dunk for re-election, it’s Giffords.  Short of a major scandal (along the lines of embezzlement), I’m not sure she can lose.  Her opponents may point out ideological differences, but will this be enough to outweigh public sentiment in her favor?

The fact of the matter is that it’s quite easy to paint Giffords as a martyr for democracy.  She wasn’t shot as she was lounging around the pool or eating filet mignon at an upscale restaurant.  She was shot in the line of duty.  Not even at some mundane committee meeting in a far away building in D.C. – but at an event (Congress on Your Corner) where she was actively soliciting feedback from her constituents.  It wouldn’t take a spin master to turn this to her great advantage.

Is it wrong to play on the sympathy of the public for political gain?  Of course not.  This is politics, where you push every advantage and the game is no holds barred.

(Let us not forget the six people that died in the January shooting – Christina-Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Judge Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Giffords staffer Gabe Zimmerman.)

There are five days left until the threat of default and the circus continues in Washington over the debt ceiling. Feeling the pressure? The Republicans seem to be as The Man With The Fake Tan seem to be getting more and more agitated by the day. First he is overheard saying he didn’t sign up to go head to head with the President and then you have him telling his party colleagues to get their asses in line behind his ideas.

Here is how I see the whole ordeal. First you have a Democrat as President sounding like a Republican – well one before they were taken off the cliff by these nut jobs anyways. Making every effort to come closer each day to anything the right had wanted at the expense of his own support from progressives in the long run, Then you have the Republicans that are insatiable in their desires and keep wanting more and wanting it now. It looks like the Tea Party is more the Veruca Salt Party and all bad nuts to me.

It really pisses me off to see every compromise being offered their way on every single damn thing and, not once any compromise by the other side. No matter what he does to alienate his base, the right will always view him in a bad light. Heck he could suddently decide to outlaw abortion effective immediately and I am sure the right would reconsider its position on that.

Right now it seems that there are two last ditch efforts to avoid default. The one that is proposed by the Democrats has more dollars in cuts than it raises the debt ceiling and gives the Treasury room to pay the interest on past debt through 2013. It is not a good proposal, as it does not have any revenue side reform. However it will do suffice to avoid the end result and, what the hell, we can continue this circus without putting our credit rating on the table. Then on the other side you have a proposal of more cuts, but only enough debt ceiling room made to last until Christmas. Heck you even have teabaggers proposing we should vote to lower the debt ceiling – what absolute morons they are indeed.

It seems that the Pubes want to redo this side show again at Christmas and then I am sure once again during the heat of summer campaigning, all with the country’s economic fate at stake each time. When August 2nd gets here and there is obviously nothing going to get done the President should just use the 14th Amendment to avoid the end result the teabaggers want to see and then let us all continue this circus without holding the country’s credit rating ransom.

Now let’s discuss the Bad Nuts of the Month.

Glenn Beck: He may not have his show on Fixed News anymore, but he still has other outlets to put forth his agenda of lies and hate. This week in the aftermath of the tragedy in Norway, he compared the camp that the kids were killed at to being like the Hitler Youth. Saying who has a camp that is all about politics. Who? Well Glenn Beck, that is who – with his 9/12 indoctrination camp for kids this summer in Tampa. Anyways, what was with the comparison anyways? Does he think the kids deserved to die or something because they were at a camp run by a political ideology he does not agree with? Unfortunately that is probably the case.

Bradlee Dean: Well it seems that the nutcase that runs You Can Run But You Can’t Hide International did not take well to his own words putting him in bad light and has made a frivolous $50 million lawsuit against NBC, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, The Minnesota Independent. It stems from it being reported that Dean referred to Muslims as being at least more moral than us in executing gay people. Now he did not come out and say so in many words, but when one preaches for morality and says that the moral thing to do is to execute gay people, then you pretty much are advocating for that stance. I guess Dean thinks he can hide from his own words and thinks that you should not be able to make him beheld accountable for them.

Allen West: As you may know as Crunchy talked about in her article last week, Allen West, a Congressman from Florida, took issue with fellow Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz. He did not like her talking about his publicly known views on issues on the floor of Congress when he was not in the room. In an email her West basically said that DWS was the most vile piece of trash in the entire Congress an that he was not going to treat like a lady because she was not one and she needed to know her place. Now what does not treating her like a lady mean? If she does not stop talking about his views then he is going to beat the crap out of her or something? Anyways I am sure there is no evidence of West ever talking about someone else in a bad light when they were not present are there? Sure there are plenty of those. I guess DWS can just remember that West will likely soon be out of Congress after the next election and find peace in that like we all will.

As a mom, I am concerned about bullying. I went through it in junior high and high school but honestly, I think it made me the person I am. It gave me a bit of a thick skin so I can tolerate all of my critics (and I have plenty). And I’m not innocent in it all. I did a bit of bullying myself. I wouldn’t say I was a “Mean Girl” but there were times I wasn’t very nice. Here’s the deal, I grew out of it.

The “leaders” of our nation seem to play the role of worrying about bullying but they are taking part of it in the worst way. I think the leaders need to grow up, quit the bullying and just plain knock it off.

I am beyond annoyed with our leadership. As a mom, I wish I could give them all a time out. And Barack Obama thinks Americans should “eat your peas”? Whatever, dude.

The next day he yelled, “Don’t call my bluff” and stormed out of a meeting. Grow up, President. Put on your big boy pants and act like an adult. Quit being the bully. I’d expect this kind of behavior from my toddlers, not from the leader of the free world.

And it’s about the debt. Here’s the deal. It’s not the debt limit, it’s the spending. When you find your credit card is almost to max out, the sensible American doesn’t call the credit card company and ask them to increase their limit. They sit down and they figure out where they’re overspending. You don’t need Dave Ramsey to tell you that.

And then there’s the back and forth between Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Allen West, both representing Florida. She called him out on the House floor, calling into question his stance on Medicare during the debate over a spending cap and balanced budget bill before the House. She, of course, waiting until he was not able to defend himself to speak out.

So West sent her an email. The subject line of the email: “Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz.” The e-mail said: “Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up.”

I agree with him. What a cowardly chicken she is. To wait until he can’t defend himself and rail on him in front of the nation? That might fly in junior high but not on the floor of the House…and now she’s acting like the victim in it all? Grow up, sweetheart. Don’t write a check your tookus can’t cash. If you don’t want people to call you out on your actions, don’t act like a member of the “A” group who talks about people behind their back. It’s as simple as that.

It’s time for our leaders to start acting like leaders. They need to start acting like adults. No more talk of peas, bluffs and talking behind each other’s backs. Quit threatening to “take your ball and go home.” We voted you in to your current position to do a job. If bullying is all you’re willing to respond to, here’s a proposal, “DO YOUR JOB OR RISK LOSING IT.” How’s that for bullying? Do I have your attention now? Good. Get to work.

A lot about politics these days has devolved into partisan discussions that at best are bending the truth and at worst are hyperbolic to an extreme that would make a bell curve blush. We all know it doesn’t accomplish much, except maybe to boost the ratings of the associated extreme news services – Fox and MSNBC being the most obvious. Perhaps instead of asking “what does it accomplish?” we might be better off asking “why does it happen?”

Money.

That’s the most obvious reason. We all feel it. Statistics are showing it. More than ever the US is about the have’s and the have-not’s. I vaguely remember back in the 80’s in grade school learning that the three basic socio-economic divisions in the US were the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class. I learned that the upper class comprised about 5% of the population and consisted of the filthy rich all the way down to folks making maybe $150K or more (it was the ’80’s, after all). The middle class was the biggest chunk of the population, people making anywhere from the high 20Ks to the 150K barrier of the upper class. Probably 60-70% of the country could be described as the middle class. I would guess that the majority of people that will read this article will identify as both growing up and currently being middle class. Everyone else was lower class, yet there was hope – with hard work anyone could achieve the American Dream. Remember that? Everyone’s parent’s told them that, right? “Work hard and you can be anything you want.” Does it feel like it works that way now, in 2011? It doesn’t to me. You have to work hard, plan really well, and be very lucky, it seems like. A “good” college education can easily cost $40,000 a year, and an education with an Ivy League diploma attached is well over $100,000 a year. I’ve blabbed about money all this time, but what’s my point? Not a single one of the US senators or representatives in office today is in the middle class.

That’s right, none of our elected representatives can say they actually represent us in economic terms. Where as they’ve gotten 2.6% cost-of-living pay raises every year, some reports say the average salary has actually gone down in the last 10 years. It’s not like we have financially average people getting elected into office and suddenly becoming rich thanks to the $160K+ a year salary with full medical benefits- and add to that the fact that your average politician can easily make a few hundred thousand a year with speaking fees after they retire. Want to know what profession more congresspeople had than any other, before entering office?

Lawyer.

Yup, that universally reviled job that your average person looks down on more than prostitutes. Ever heard this one? Why does the law society prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients? To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service. Think about it, there’s a reason jokes like that exist … then realize that over 1/3 of the people running the Federal Government are lawyers. That’s not the most mind-bending issue to me, either. These are people that spend millions of dollars for a job that pays slightly upwards of $160K. Not only that, but a large portion of their job is to sit and listen to people paid 100K a year tell them why their corporation or organization should get a law written that benefits them. Yup, lobbyists average salary is over $100K a year.  It doesn’t help any that lobbyists are very often “retired” politicians or former political workers.

So who speaks for us? The Tea Party? They should really be called the “Me” Party. Google “who leads the Tea Party?” and the names that pop up the most are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Ron Paul. Of those three, only Paul isn’t using every other second in front of the microphone to push social issues from one side of their mouth while saying the government should get out of our lives from the other side. Heck, it’s been reported that one of the major reasons the Tea Party has actually survived this long is because the Billionaire Koch brothers have poured funds into it. The next time you see a Tea Partier claiming they want government out of their lives you might just ponder on the fact that a couple of billionaires who have a lot to gain with less government are funding that movement.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a socialist. I’m also not a pure capitalist. Corporations have proven time and time again that they will put human well being – including human lives – behind making a profit. The idea of capitalism – essentially greed – is good if and only if there is oversight and laws to keep those who don’t have money from getting squashed by the few who do have it.

Think about this final point – oil companies are making record profits the past decade. Billions of dollars, most of it going to a handful of men. Yet they are still getting millions in subsidies and tax breaks from the Federal Government. This past May, along almost strictly party lines, Republicans voted against ending those subsidies. Republican apologists will say that they’re needed to keep the price of gas low, if the subsidies are ended gas would go up. Doesn’t capitalist theory state that the market should be setting the price? Rather than give the money to the oil companies, why not help the poor out with tax breaks on gas paid? The reason is obvious to me: money. Big Oil has hundreds of lobbyists – making more money than most of us will ever make- telling politicians – also making more money than most of us will ever make – to keep those subsidies.

Trickle down? More like trickled on.

As we enter the time of year when we’ll hear presidential debate after debate and advertisement after advertisement I began to reflect on some of the values that I expect from my candidate. As I reflected, one particular value hit me very hard. Four years ago this same idea was “sort of” on my radar but I didn’t feel very strongly about it. As with most of us, our experiences in life provide us perspective. As we grow older we develop sometimes those perspectives change based on the very experiences that we have.

I often say that as we grow older in life we tend to think more conservatively. That doesn’t mean that all of us will become conservatives, but without a doubt I would think that most people will move a little more conservative with age. The last few years I moved a little more conservative on one particular issue; this issue won’t sit well with many people either. That issue is related to gay marriage; specifically, it’s gay couples having or adopting children.

I still could care less if the Squirrel and Zarberg want to get hitched and do the nasty all day. I could care less if that means they declare themselves a couple for tax purposes, for the benefit of insurance. I’m still fairly neutral in that view as long as I don’t have to watch them making out. I still think it’s a sin and I still don’t approve of it but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand the desire of a gay couple to declare their devotion to one particular person.

Here is where I draw a firm line in the sand. Gay/Lesbian/Homosexual couples should not parent children whether they have been adopted or birthed through insemination. A few years ago I didn’t view this as much of an issue. Let me explain why I have changed my opinion.

I work with a gay female that is in a committed, long term (married now) relationship with another female. They have two beautiful children. Both children were carried and birthed by my friend’s spouse. The father is the same for both children and Mom was artificially inseminated. The kids are 100% brother and sister in every way having the same Mom and Dad. They are blessed to have two very caring and loving Mom’s. The Mom that I work with is one of the most loving individuals that I know. She cherishes her children to a point that is rivaled by few. I know she would do anything for her kids and loves each of them more than life itself. Her spouse also loves their children more than many parents love their children, but I don’t know her very well. They provide for the kids very well and are raising them wonderfully.

Ok Squeaky, this sounds like it’s going well. What’s the problem?

The problem really origin blows up outside the home. Kids are horrible to each other, you know that. If kids can find something odd about another child, they exploit it. Most of the time its petty stuff like, “Kosmo has a green shirt on today so he’s bad”, “Kosmo has cooties” or “Don’t play with Kosmo today because he farted in class…again”. You know, stuff that passes in a moment or two.

These two kids however are in hell a great deal of the time. “Martin has two moms…eeeeew” “Squeaky is going to be gay because he has two Moms.” “Don’t invite Crunchy to the sleepover because she has two moms so you know she’s going to try and kiss you”. This has been going on for a couple years and it isn’t slowing down.

The kids can’t ride the bus any longer. The kids can’t hang around after school any longer. The kids have to get taken to school and picked up by one of their moms so they don’t get picked on. The whole family is deeply troubled by this and they’re all in psychotherapy trying to deal with it. You tell me, what 7 year old child should need a shrink? Do you think for a minute that this was a thought in the mind of the parents when they decided to have these two kids? Of course not, obviously the kids’ moms never intended for any of that to happen. What parent would?

This doesn’t mean that they aren’t good parents. This family lives in a small town of 50,000 people and everybody knows everybody’s business. There is no escaping for these kids. Certainly as they grow older it will get better, but we’re talking years from now, and at what price? The oldest is 12 and she is still going through hell. She went on a date with a boy a few months ago and the boy’s parents flipped when they found out that she had two moms. Then one of the moms found out that the boy was black and she flipped too. There is no winning.

I’m not trying to say that gay people are bad. If anything this story should show just the opposite. They’re just like everyone else, they can be great, kind, loving, caring people OR they can be a total jack ass. Being gay doesn’t make someone good OR bad. Being gay doesn’t mean that a person is a good or bad parent either. What I’m saying is that being a gay parent does set up your children for a lot of grief, turmoil and many years of hell.

As we go to the polls, as we listen to and watch debates this year, I’m not asking you to change your mind. I’m not pushing for No Gay Marriage or anything like that. I’m not trying to deprive anyone of their rights. I’m just saying, we all need to grow up and not think about immediate gratification. Think about the long term impact of the decisions that we make. Think about how your decisions impact others; not just with gays being parents but with everything: Unions, taxes, abortions, green/clean energy, buying American produced goods, annexation of that little farm down the road, approving the bond fund, raising the sales tax, eliminating the senior exemption, changing the drinking age, immigration requirements, and minimum wage. I could go on and on.

I’m not saying that the conservative thought is the correct one every time (even though it is), but we really need to be responsible and think deeply about what you’re voting for/against. Everything we vote on has impacts beyond the main subject you are looking at. Think about it thoroughly, consider the impact and make your decision wisely. Don’t just live life in the moment.

I’ll stop down off my soap box now.

Squeaky…

Sorry PolitiFact, this may be news to you, but The Daily Show is not a real news show. Earlier in the week there was discussion over Jon Stewart’s comments in an interview on Fox News in which he stated that Fox News viewers constantly poll at the bottom in being the most misinformed. Then PolitiFact came out the next day giving Stewart’s comments a false rating on their truth scale. They found the polls Stewart was referencing and Fox News was not at the bottom, only near the bottom with almost all their programming. In fact PolitiFact stated that even Stewart’s own Daily Show ranked below the Fox programming.

The only thing is, PolitiFact, you forgot one thing, The Daily Show is a comedy show about media, not a news show. It’s kind of akin to Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, not Fox and Friends or Bill O’Reilly and his spin filled zone. It is kind of like someone trying to compare amateur wrestling to professional wrestling on their value as sports. One is an actual sport and the other is sports entertainment.

It is kind of the same thing Wallace fell into in the interview itself when he started taking out old tape of clips from Comedy Central Shows. Now it would have been funny if Wallace was trying to fight back on the argument that Fox is not News with a Comedy Central is not really Comedy a lot of the time, but that is not what he was trying to do. Wallace was trying to use other Comedy Central clips to discredit Stewart because his network plays this filth.

Here’s the deal, boys, I know that politics is a boys club. My first political job was canvassing for the Iowa GOP in 2002. Since then I’ve been a Communications Director for a US Senate Campaign, served as Secretary and then Co-Chair for the Polk County GOP and volunteered on countless campaigns. So I get it, it’s a boys club. Which is probably why I got such a high tolerance for beer. If you can’t drink with the boys, you can’t play with the boys. At least on the campaign staffer level in Iowa.

But after Arnold’s little Schwarzenegger he has running around, John Edward’s “love” (ew) child with his former staffer (while his wife was battling cancer), Bill Clinton and the infamous blue dress and Weinergate, maybe we should look at who we have in office.

I warned you I was a feminist. So here we go. When you lost something as a kid, who did you ask? Mom. Because Mom always knew where it was.

When you had a problem, who did you ask? Mom. Because Mom always knew the right answer (and to do what was right).

When you thought you forgot Grandma’s birthday, who informed you she sent a card from you last week? Mom. Because Mom remembers.

I’m not saying women are infallible. Look at Eve (although I’m still partly convinced that Adam just threw Eve under the garden on that one). But women know better than to do things that get themselves into trouble. Women consider the risks, weigh all of the options (it’s how our brains work and why we talk so much) BEFORE they act. And talk (for the most part). And women rarely send naked blackberry pictures of themselves (not just because they don’t like the way they look, but because they know it will get out).

Frankly, Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner is in a lot of hot water these days.  He sent racy photos (of his, well … use your imagination) to several women over the internet and lied about it when he was confronted.  (His acting was definitely not Oscar-worthy.)  When he finally came clean, it turns out that he was having online relationships with six women.

The media frenzy around the scandal has reached a boil, and many inside the Washington power circle are attempting the skewer the congressman.  The Republicans are relishing this opportunity, pushing Weiner to resign.  Members of Weiner’s own party are turning against him, joining the Republicans in the chorus, in an attempt to distance themselves from the congressman.

The most likely situation is that Weiner will resign, a special election will be held, and the democratic candidate will win.  The Democrats will continue to represent New York’s 9th congressional district.  They’ll lose Weiner’s seniority, but also distance themselves a bit from Weinergate.  It’s possible that a Republican can would, but it would be an uphill climb in the left-leaning 9th district.

My question is this:  why are the Republicans in such a hurry to see him go?  Time and time again, the opposition party tries to force someone to resign when they become embroiled in ethical issues.  Wouldn’t it be better to allow Weiner to keep his seat?

Here’s my logic.  If Weiner resigns and is replaced, the scandal will eventually fade, another Democrat will be elected to represent New York’s 9th congressional district, and the country will forget about Anthony Weiner (since the vast majority never knew he existed before this scandal).  The lasting impact will be minimal.

However … if Weiner stays in office, the Republicans have an albatross to hang around the neck of President Obama and the rest of the Democrats.  Find a photo of Democratic Senator John Doe giving Weiner a high five and use it in a commercial to support Doe’s opponent – painting Doe as a friend of Weiner, and painting the Democrats as the Weiner party.

The best plan for the GOP: keep Weiner in the House!