Image Courtesy Vic Lic

Today I was driving home from work, flipping through radio stations, when I came across a Black-Eyed Peas song I like. Or so I thought.

Seems somewhere along the line, the lyrics got changed. As I was ready to sing along with the chorus, I got blind-sided by an apparent lyric change. Instead of "Don't Phunk With My Love", I got "Don't Mess With My Love".

What!?

That's right. At some point, someone decided that the word "Phunk" (as it is spelled on the CD) was too racy for the radio, and a version with the word "mess" was used to replace it.

Is this really necessary? Is "phunk" too risque for radio? Has political correctness gone this far?

The "Peas" have changed lyrics before. Their first really big hit, "Let's Get It Started" is actually "Let's Get Retarded", as in "let's get stupid". But the title was deemed offensive by some, and was changed, as were the lyrics in the song. So this isn't the first time. And perhaps this version of "Phunk" has been out for awhile, and I've just never heard it.

But if this is where we're going, what's next? Instead of Funkytown, do we now go to Messytown? No more, funk music, we have mess? We can't be in a funk, we're in a mess? Of course, these examples are absurd, but so is this lyric change. In general, suggestios to make these kind of changes are well-meaning, but deliver some pretty heinous results. Should we start changing any songs that feature the word "ship"? No.

So where is this coming from? At what point did we become so overly sensitive to the potential of offending each other that we start to alter songs because of near homophones? Folks need to lighten up, and quit looking for harm where not only is none intended, but where is genuinely does not exist. We have become so burdened with fear of offending that we are losing our freedom to speak. In the movie "A Fish Called Wanda", John Cleese's character describes the Bristish as being perpetually afraid to offend, of doing the wrong thing, afraid that they might ask someone if they had children only to be told that they all burned to death last Wednesday. This is where we're headed with all this.

Yes, this is taking things to a point of absurdity, but we're already well on our way. Now we can't say "phunk". What's next?

Image Courtesy eob

I'm walking through the office the other day, and on one of the TVs is CNN covering a Bush speech. In the past few years I've conditioned myself to ignore the blatherings and move on, but for some reason, this time I caught one.

But in the meantime, in the short run, we didn't allow exploration for oil and gas in places like Alaska, our outer-continental shelf. And guess what happened? World demand exceeded supply, and now you're paying for it. If Congress truly is interested in helping relieve the price of gasoline, they would do two things: They would recognize that we can drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways here in the United States, where there is good reserves; and they would build refineries. They would encourage the construction of refineries. Do you know that there hadn't been a new refinery built in America since 1976? No wonder there's constricted supplies. If you want more of something, in this case you got to build the additional manufacturing capability. And so our gasoline supplies are restricted, as well.

That's right. The solution to the oil crisis is to build more refineries and allow drilling in ANWAR. Except the facts don't support any of it. From the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

The Arctic Refuge is another issue raised by the President - but he failed to mention that drilling in the Refuge will do nothing to address the high price of gasoline.

If opened for development, not one drop of oil will come from the Arctic Refuge for 10 years, and we will have to wait for 20 years for maximum production. The Energy Information Administration has estimated that production from the Arctic Refuge would, at its peak, reduce our reliance on imports by only 4 percent, from 68 percent to 64 percent.

Other areas of Federal land that are much more appropriate for development can and should be drilled. In fact, of the 45.5 million acres of Federal onshore lands currently under lease by industry, over 31 million acres are not producing.

Likewise, there are 33 million acres of the Federal OCS that are under lease but not producing. Processing of drilling permits on Federal lands has surged over the past several years, more than doubling from 2001 to 2006. At the same time, the Administration reported that in five key basins in the Rocky Mountain states, 85 percent of oil resources and 88 percent of natural gas resources are available for leasing and development.

Congress has also funded important research and development programs to enhance domestic production. It is simply inaccurate finger-pointing to say the Congress is impeding oil and gas development and production in our Nation.

Refinery capacity has increased by about 1 million barrels per day during President Bush's tenure -- from 16.6 million barrels per day in 2001 to 17.5 million barrels per day in 2007, through capacity expansion at existing refineries. There have been no efforts from Congress to try to slow down this expansion.

Refiners have been asked whether they would like to build new refineries, as opposed to expanding capacity at existing refineries, and the refiners have told us that they would rather expand capacity at existing refineries. We have never heard support from anyone inside the oil industry regarding the President's curious plan to build refineries on former U.S. military bases.

The economics of refining are not very good at the moment, as gasoline prices are not yet fully reflecting the jump in crude oil prices. U.S. refinery capacity is at about 85 percent utilization at the moment, as many refiners are losing money on every gallon of gasoline that they produce. Clearly, constrained refinery capacity is not our current problem.

These are fairly easily checked facts, but they're spewed like gospel by the Oilman in Chief. Of course, they ignore the fact that Saudi oil production has not increased as promised, and is in fact slowing. So why spout off? Because doing so deflects the attention from real problems. Remember the good old days early on in the foray into Iraq? That's when Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, said in Congressional hearing "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but … We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” By putting the blame on ANWAR and Congress and shifting the solution to refinery construction, they hope folks won't remember that one of the most oil-rich regions of the world isn't even paying for itself in production.

So the obfuscation continues. And since this is an election year, it's coming from both sides. The latest little bit of chicanery is the so-called "gas tax holiday". The idea is that the Federal government will suspend the gas tax for the duration of the summer, giving you a tax holiday. The end result - you save about $25 this summer. A whole twenty-five bucks. In my car, that's not even a half tank of gas. In fact, even in the smallest subcompact, gas would have to plummet below $2.50/gallon to get a tank of gas. And the real cost - nearly $11 billion in additional deficit spending. More importantly, most economists and analysts predict that the savings in gas tax won't translate at the pump. Every link in the delivery chain would eat up a portion of the savings, reducing what you actually save.

And what happens at the end of the "holiday"? Do we really think that they'll just "pop" the tax back up? In an election year? Two months before the election? Of course not. It will extended. So we get more "holiday" and more deficit. And another 25 bucks. Woo hoo.

Do these politicians - on both sides - think we'll actually fall for this? Yup. And they may be right. When a tank of gas can cost half a day's work, getting half a tank sounds like help. I hope that the voting public isn't this gullible, but I'm not holding my breath.

And of course, the naysayers aren't offering real solutions. Barack Obama's plan? From his website:

Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.

18 years. And if you can find any more specifics, let me know. No real specifics, nor any real information. I've read the "energy plan". It makes no sense. For example, the plan lists spending $150 billion in 10 years for development of alternative fuels. But from the same plan, it lists that our "oil habit" costs our economy $1.4 billion a day. So the costs exceed the investment in less than 4 months. Somehow, it doesn't sound like it's that big a priority. In addition, he's a big proponent of ethanol, specifically cellulosic ethanol. This type of biofuel requires large land areas dedicated to growing the base biomaterial, as well as vast amounts of water.

Read the whole thing. The only other proposals for reducing oil consumption are to increase mileage standards, and to require flexible fuel engines, which of course, have to be able to use ethanol. None of this is earth-shattering, visionary, or even innovative. But at least it's a start.

And that is the answer to the question posed in the title. They do get it. They get that all they need to do is dangle a carrot, something for folks to hang a hope on. They believe we are so tired, so anxious for a solution that a half tank of gas will buy our fealty. Or that a promise to farmers that since we'll need all that corn for ethanol it's going to save them from the bankers. Or that a phone call in the middle of the night will result in a quick decision that will save us from the bogeyman. They get it. Do you?

Image Courtesy CarbonCopied

Bad manners, rude behavior, impatience. It might be me, but it seems kids are being allowed to exhibit these traits on an increasing basis. And there's only one source of this.

Us.

Most of us don't even realize it. But it's the little things that we do that the kids pick up on. Today I was at a park with my 5-year-old when we saw a balloon sculptor (Roger the Balloon Guy). He hangs out at the park, making balloon animals for the kids, working just for tips. In his full-time gig, he's a chef, but he has fun making the balloons for the kids, and based on what I saw, he was doing ok in the tip department as well.

Cutting In

As you can imagine, Roger is popular. When my daughter and I walked up, he had about 6 kids waiting for him to make them a balloon. I sidled my daughter to the end of the line, gave her $4 (the only cash I had on me - movies had sucked up the rest), and we waited. He worked on two for two little girls, then one for a little boy. This one was a cool sword made with two balloons. As he was making this one, another little boy approaches with his grandmother (or a mom who had kids REAL late). The grandmom hands him a dollar - yes, one whole dollar - and watches as he pushes into the line ahead of four kids, including my daughter. He proudly sticks the dollar in Roger's face and announces he's next. Roger finishes the balloon he's working on, and tells the boy that the little girls are next. "Then me right? I'm next!"

I look at the grandma, thinking she'll rein this kid in a bit. He walked up with a crowd already around the balloon guy and just jumped right in. No, instead grandma affirmed "Yes, you're next".

I let it go, but I shouldn't have. My daughter ended up waiting until after this kid. The balloon guy was a nice guy, and it just didn't seem right to create a hassle. The poor guy was working hard to put smiles on kids' faces. But it stuck in my craw.

Yes, kids can be pushy all on their own. But it was the kids tone, his actions - they gave off an air of entitlement. Like he never has to wait in line. At the lack of any restraint from grandma was enough to see where he might have learned it.

The Scream

We stayed in the park a bit longer, and as my daughter played, I took the opportunity to watch some more parents with kids. At one end of the playground, a pipe that was sticking out of the ground (awaiting maintenance) had been covered with a tall orange traffic cone. It's in the middle of the play area, and a kid lifts it a bit, setting it off balance. From out of nowhere, this woman storms up and starts in on the kid, startling him and causing the cone to tip a little further, almost falling off. While in her tirade, she tries to replace the cone, not realizing she has now picked it up too far, and the bottom of the cone is now resting on the top of the pipe, keeping it from dropping back down. Her reaction? She screams at the kid "Now see what you did!"

What exactly does she expect the kid to learn from this? It's a bright orange cone in the middle of a playground. I have no idea if this is the way he is always spoken to when he does something he shouldn't, but if this is what happens with a playground issue, what happens when he does something more serious?

Make no mistake, I believe kids need discipline, but in an appropriate scale. But this isn't about the discipline. It's about what she is showing this child is appropriate. Reprimand him? Sure. Screech like a harpy across the playground? Not so much.

I also don't pretend to be perfect. I lose my cool on occasion, and if I'm accused of anything, it's of trying to reason with my five-year-old too often. Recently I had to take her in for shots, and in trying to calm her down after the injections, I said "I know baby, shots suck". Oops. Not two hours later, I heard my daughter say something else "sucked". My bad choice of words and she learned a phrase she shouldn't use. And that's really my point.

Kids learn from what we do. They are watching constantly. And when we cut in line, when we scream at minor irritations, when we spout obscenities at drivers who cut us off, they learn. But they can learn from our good actions as well.

Proud And Confident

As I watched my daughter, I saw a little boy head straight to the rock climbing wall and scramble up it like a pro - no fear. And I saw his dad watching, with a smile. I told his dad I was impressed on how quickly and fearlessly he headed up the wall. His dad said he had just let him start up the wall earlier in the day, and as he climbed, dad stepped away a little farther with each climb. He let his son gain the experience and the confidence that he could do it by himself. And by mid-afternoon, he was like Spiderman.

Kids are always watching. And if we're lucky, they catch us doing the right thing.

And the kid who cut in line? He popped his balloon less than two minutes later...

Photo Courtesy Red Carlisle

When the news broke earlier this week about NY Governor Spitzer's sexcapades, I didn't know much about him. All I saw was "NY Governor Linked To Prostitution Ring". Since I wasn't aware of his political affiliation, the headline instantly had me thinking he was a Republican. When I saw it was about him hiring a prostitute, I knew immediately he was a Democrat. The only real difference between the two sides is what side of the ledger they're on. Republicans are usually on the side with financial benefits, the Dems on the side that gets them caught.

We've had a pretty good laugh at this, but the thing that has stood out for me has been what people seem to really be upset about in this case. Sure, there are plenty of New Yorkers who don't like him and are reveling in his crash, but outside of the state of New York, folks don't seem to be to upset about the whole prostitution thing. It's kind of a given that a politician is far from squeaky clean. Hooking up with a hooker is almost de rigueur. No, they seem to be upset about something else.

The price.

At $5k a night, the guy is hardly getting a bargain, although a news story in Las Vegas today claims otherwise. But $5k a night? If he had been caught in the backseat of a car getting favors for a couple of hundred bucks, he'd probably get more sympathy. Instead, he shelled out what amounts to more than a months pay, or 2-3 months mortgage for a night with a nubile 22-year-old. That, my friends, is what rankles.

When Clinton got caught, he got caught lying about getting a little somethin'-somethin', but he didn't crack out the cash. He and little Monica used some interesting locales, but it was just sex. With Spitzer, it was a business transaction. It's worse because it appears that some may have been public money, but that's less disturbing than what he paid. He couldn't have blown a few Benjamins in a strip joint?

No, he went for the full package, with a price to match. It's the price that's got folks honked off. Watch the news - what they're reporting isn't about prostitution, it's about price. As always, it's the economy stupid.

Today, I received an email from an uncle that forced me to write. There is no question, he is a Republican and conservative. He likes to send off stuff that berates Democrats and/or liberals, which he equates as one and the same. Most of the time, I just read what he sends along and put it off to his political leanings. But what I received today just required a response:

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…

Lest you forget!!!

Just a little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

 

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we're seen:

 

1) Consumer confidence plummet;

2) the cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);

5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;

6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

Yep, America voted for change in 2006, and boy did we get it!

As is often the case with such messages, they tend to be based on very selective statistics, and tend to put the side they favor in the best light. With this particular message, the problem is not with the statistics themselves - then tend to bear out. No, the problem is with the standard being used as measurement. The message holds up the status of the various statistics as a measuring stick, and compares current conditions to those. This conveniently ignores prior statistics. For example, if we use a similar comparison as the one in the message, we can come up with a very different picture. Below, we compare the stats in late 2000-early 2001, to the same stats in late 2004-early 2005. This represents the shift from the Clinton administration, with a Republican Congress, to the Bush administration with a Republican Congress:

In March 0f 2000, 1 year before a Republican congress got a Republican president:

The consumer price index was at 137.1
Price of Gas was $1.80
Unemployment rate was at 4.3%
Number of non-business bankruptcy filings in 2001 - 1,452,030
GDP - Gross Domestic Product - $10.1 trillion
National Public Debt (9/29/00) - $5.7 trillion
Debt as percentage of GDP - 56%
Minimum Wage $5.15
Median Family income  (in 2004 dollars) - $55,647
Consumer Price Index 177.1
Personal Saving Rate 2%
Trade Balance - $32.8 Billion deficit
Average number of weeks staying unemployed  - 12.8
Number of people unemployed for more than 15 weeks - 1.5 million

In the four years that followed, all under Republican control of Congress and a Republican president:

The consumer price index fell to 103 (30%+ drop)
The price of gas rose to over $2
The unemployment rate rose to 5.1% (nearly 25% increase)
Number of non-business bankruptcy filings in 2005 rose - 2,039,214 (over 30% increase)
GDP - Gross Domestic Product - $12.4 trillion (10% increase)
National Public Debt (9/29/00) - $7.4 trillion (29% increase)
Debt as percentage of GDP rose - 60%
Minimum Wage stayed unchanged $5.15
Median Family income fell (in 2004 dollars) - $54,061
Consumer Price Index rose to 195.3
Personal Saving Rate dropped to .9%
Trade Balance - $53.5 Billion deficit (63% increase)
Average number of weeks staying unemployed  increased- 19.3
Number of people unemployed for more than 15 weeks increased - 2.8 million

As you can see, it paints a very different picture. If we look at these statistics, things got significantly worse during the first four years of the Bush administration.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think either party has done us any favors. Of the three candidates with a real shot at getting elected, I'm not enamored with a single one. I think all have major flaws in policy, in rhetoric and in judgment. So in a nutshell, I don't trust any of them. My vote will end up being one of the lesser of the evils. But when it comes to quoting statistics, I can't let one side get a shot at the other without showing how quickly the table can be turned, and how we really are looking at two sides of the same coin.

Courtesy of Olaf

You're walking around the outlet mall, cruising past the shops and having a decent afternoon. Even the kids are cooperating, and haven't tried to get you to buy them something from every store. It's been nice.

And then you see it. Or more accurately, them.

The couple who seem oblivious to the fact that they are in public. Who are bound and determined to see if they can collect throat cultures from each other with their tongues - right in front of the Carter's kidswear store. Three words come to mind.

Get A Room.

What Happened To Modesty

I'm not a prude by any sense of the word. I like a little somethin'-somethin' like the next guy. But lately, it seems like people are trying to see just how much they can do in public without getting arrested for performing a sex show without a license. Modesty has taken a back seat. Way back.

Do you really need to grope your partner in public? You can't save that for a more appropriate place? Is the bench in front of the roasted nuts stand really that much of a turn-on?

I can't put a finger on when I started to notice it. There were always those couples that wanted to push the envelope. But it hasn't been that long since I was in high school. Sure, we made out. But usually, we tried to hide it from the 'rents. Now, it's an act of defiance.

But it isn't confined to the kids. As I mentioned in my post "A Parenting License?" I mention a couple who act completely inappropriately in front of not only their kids, but their kids' teachers. At some point PDAs stopped being Public Displays of Affection and charged headlong into Positively Disgusting Activities. Men seem to be bigger culprits, but in a true show of equality, I'm seeing women do their share as well.

Again, I'm not talking about kissing, even fairly passionate kisses. No, I'm talking about bosom-grabbing, butt-squeezing, pelvis-grinding, obnoxiously overt sexual behavior in full view of the public.  This is the stuff that makes me crazy. There are already plenty of stimuli pushing kids to explore sexuality at increasingly earlier ages. I don't need two exhibitionists forcing me to explain the birds and the bees to my 5-year-old in front of Williams-Sonoma.

How did we get to this spot? What was the impetus for the relaxation of social mores that makes people think this behavior is appropriate in public? Was it a slow slide, or was there some great societal rift that opened up, releasing the hounds? I'm not sure what it was, or when it was. Maybe I never noticed it before, and now that I'm a dad, it's more obvious. But the genie is out of the bottle, and I'm not sure we can get it back in.

My Solution

I've decided my solution is simple. They want attention? Let's give it to them. Here's some ideas:

• Carry a digital camera, and blatantly start taking pictures. Got a camera that does video? Hello, YouTube!
• When they come up for air, applaud.
• Suggest some low rate hotels in the vicinity

What would you do?

Courtesy Nabeel H

We put a whole lot of faith and responsibility on the educators in our society. So much so that they end up not just teaching our kids about reading and writing, but about how to behave in society at large.

To a point, I'm ok with this. Kids spend a lot of time with their teachers, and they should be getting a little more than the basics. I did from my better teachers.

The problem I see is that many parents are abdicating their parental responsibilities and letting the teacher, or daycare provider, etc., bear the brunt of the child's upbringing.

Having a SO who is a teacher, I get to hear a fair number of these stories. They seem to gravitate around a few themes -

• Not my child! - These parents seem to be incapable of believing that their child is behaving poorly. Examples of this are the parents who are informed that their child has missing assignments or are not paying attention in class, and whose response is that their child has never had these problems before. There must be something else going on.
• Shocked! - These are the parents who when informed of the poor performance of their child, and seem genuinely shocked. They can't understand how their little darling has gotten so far behind.
• It's obviously your fault! - This group takes the above to the absurd conclusion: It's all the teacher's fault.

Mind you, I'm not talking about kids who have genuine problems with learning. No, these are kids who - in 4th or 5th grade - have more interest in getting their hair or makeup right than they do finishing classwork. Who have, in a single report card period, over 40 missing assignments. Who have straight "F"s in all their work, across multiple teachers.

These kids are not developmentally challenged. They are parentally challenged. In one case, a parent was notified by a teacher that they were missing assignments, and the parent came and picked up the assignment because their 5th grader was hanging out at Arby's with friends. Another has lobbied the administration of the school to eliminate homework for their child, successfully. So when the child brought home work, it had to be explained that it wasn't homework, it was the child's unfinished work from the school day, that he refused to do in class. And yes, the parent thought him taking this home was excessive as well.

The stories go on and on. But in each case, the parents seem less and less interested in teaching the child responsibility, instead opting to make thing easier for the child. They want to be the child's friend and not a parent.

When I was a kid, my parents held me responsible for my work. There were some downsides to be sure, but I was taught that my grades were up to me, and getting my work done was important. More to the point, failing to do what I was supposed to would have consequences. And those consequences are what seem to be lacking nowadays.

The problem is starting early. On a trip home from daycare recently, my daughter and I are having a conversation about why it's important to always do the right thing, and that doing something bad never brings something good. Her response was "What if you don't get caught"? At four years old. We had a long talk about that. But my guess is that she heard this line of thought from someone at her daycare, likely another child. Where does another kid learn this kind of thinking?

Frankly, it all comes down to the parents. It's our responsibility as parents to teach our children the values, the lessons that will guide them as they get older. In the examples of the kids above, the parents, for whatever the reason, seem to be more interested in finding any reason to exonerate their child and absolve them of responsibility rather than find out why their child is failing and holding them accountable for work. Kids with "F"s have dozens of missing assignments, but hit the skate park with clock-like regularity.

How about holding them accountable? How about tying consequences to actions?

It's about doing the tough things. Sometimes, the tough thing is saying no. It's holding our kids accountable for their actions. It's saying "no" to the skate park. It's keeping them home to finish homework when they'd rather be hanging with friends. It's teaching them the lessons that they need to learn as they grow into young adults.

Educators should be teaching our children skills. We should be teaching them values. Teach your children well.

Original image Copyright 2008 Del Far

Comedians have long pointed out the irony of it.

Before you get behind the wheel of 2000 lbs. of metal, you have to take a test and receive a driver's license.

Before you take your vows of matrimony, you have to get a blood test and a marriage license.

Heck, even before you can fish legally you need a license.

There are business licenses, dog and cat licenses, pilot licenses.

But there is no license for having a kid. None. No test for parents' compatibility or even common sense. No background check, no verification that you aren't going to be some nutjob who is going to mess with a kid. Nope, folks are allowed to procreate pretty much as they want.

I am not advocating such a license. If I wanted that (and a whole host of other ugliness) I could move to China, where you are required to have pregnancies approved by the government. There, children have to be spaced apart, and more than 2 children in a family results in large fines. No thanks.

It's usually brought up as a joke, a sarcastic commentary on the parenting skills of some individuals, but the truth is that there are some folks that are just lousy parents.

Yeah, you can probably come up with a basketful of reasons why they aren't good as parents: they had bad parents themselves; they got involved with the wrong crowd and got hooked up with things that messed up their priorities; they just aren't "wired" for it. Yet, they get to be parents. Meanwhile, folks who would be great parents but can't conceive have to jump through an infernal set of hoops to adopt a child that desperately wants a family.

Need some examples? Sure. My SO is a schoolteacher, and gets to see the results of poor parenting.

Like the parents who came to Parent/Teacher conferences recently with their kids. The two teachers sat in the classroom, going over the kids' troubles with grades. "Mom" and "Dad" were there, sitting next to each other. One teacher is male, the other female. As the male teacher begins to address them, and looks at Mom (whose mode of dress was described as being in the "stripper" category - not that there's anything wrong with that), Dad decides to assert his companionship, so to speak. He pulls Mom's chair up against his tightly - then drapes his arm around her, stroking her bosom as the teacher speaks. When the teacher gets up to show them the school's website on the overhead projector, Mom gets up. Dad follows, first wrapping an arm around her, then reaching between her legs from behind her, and fondling her.

In a classroom.

In front of the teachers.

In front of the kids.

What are these kids subjected to at home? What is their nightly "routine"?  I'd like to think that this is an isolated incident, but I know it's not. We see them all the time.

Look, I'm not pretending to be a perfect parent by any stretch. There's no such thing. Each kid is different, each parent's set of strengths and weaknesses is different. But in the end, we bring a child into the world, and they are our responsibility. It's our job, as parents, to give our kids the best we have inside us. Unfortunately, some people don't get that. They are so wrapped up in their own stuff, so focused on the "me", that a child is secondary.

I don't want a parenting license. But I sure wish there were a way to know if a parent is going to be good for a kid. And if not, maybe we can issue them a fishing license instead.

What do you think?

Copyright 2007 opportunityagenda

Next on my agenda of campaign topics that I don't expect (nor want) to get elected on - healthcare.

Anyone who thinks the healthcare system in the US is ok needs to have his head examined. Like the oil industry, the pharmaceutical companies feed off the increasing needs of the American consumer, raking in enormous profits while it gets harder each day for a family to maintain health.

The biggest problem we face is that this nation has fallen into the "Don't go unless you're really sick" trap. It has become so expensive to see a doctor that most folks won't go unless they are very ill. What might have been caught as a slight cough turns into a full-blown sinus infection or pneumonia before people go to the doctor.

Studies have shown that economically, it is much cheaper and more productive to keep employees healthy than to have them out sick. Many companies have jumped on this bandwagon and are beginning to reap the benefits. The focus in on maintenance and preventive treatment rather than attacking the symptoms.

But we can't rely on this corporation or that to do the job. If you work for one of these companies, great! But what if you work for a smaller company that can't afford it's own medical clinic. Where do you go? What if you lose your job? What about the millions who go without coverage daily?

One proposal posited is to mandate that people maintain healthcare. Unfortunately, this doesn't pass muster. The proposals say that people will pay no more than a certain percentage of their income. Let's be generous and say that's only 5%. Folks living beneath he poverty line can't afford that. If you're making less than $20,000 a year, you're taking home somewhere around $16,000. Pay rent of $500 a month (good luck finding that apartment) and you're down to just $10,000, or less than $900 a month. Now, we're going to take another $1,000 for your health insurance. Now you're down to about $800. On that amount, you will need to feed and clothe your family, pay utilities, arrange for transportation to and from work, and all the other day-to-day expenses. About $200 a week. It doesn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with a lot of you on the concept that we shouldn't have to foot the bill for people who refuse to have insurance. They owe it to the rest of us to have the coverage in one form or another. But I think there's a better way.

In my previous post about the economy, I mentioned refining and reducing the IRS with the goal of making taxes more straightforward. The money saved there could be tagged for providing healthcare for those who don't make enough. If your income is below a certain level, then a portion of your taxes goes to paying for health insurance. Simple.

But you don't have to take the insurance. For those who want to cover themselves, create a Flexible Healthcare Account that can come out of their paychecks before taxes. This already exists, but with specific usage limitations tacked onto it. I would tighten it further - the FSA would be used exclusively for paying for necessary medical treatments - an insurance plan. And that money would be held to pay for future medical needs. If the individual wants to put in more, that's fine, but any amount above the mandated amount is "Use it or lose it", and must be spent prior to the year's end. So this is a hybrid of what we have now.

Got more money than you know what to do with? Show proof of your own annuity to cover your costs, and the payments give you the same income reduction benefits in regards to taxes. Again, these are not tax breaks, as the money must remain in the annuity, and any increase in the value of the annuity will be taxed.

Another area that needs to be improved is prescription drugs. Americans are going over the border to Canada and Mexico by the busload to get lower cost refills of their existing prescriptions. Why? Because the cost here is through the roof. Same medicine, same effect, astronomically higher prices. Doctors, pharmacies, and other health care providers should be allowed to access drugs at the same prices a the rest of the world. The FDA claims that they don't allow these drugs into the country because they haven't met testing. Malarkey. If there were a problem with the versions in Canada, doesn't it stand to reason that we would have heard of them?

Give Medicare and private doctors the ability to shop around, to get the best prices and for patients to do some shopping themselves. Sure, they need to be able to make educated decisions and know what the differences might be, but as a rule, they would be getting the info from their doc who already checked out the meds.

Lastly, we need to be spending more on innovation and less on marketing. How many millions have been spent advertising Viagra, Levitra and Cialis, and how much of that could have gone to research? I say we go back to the time when pharmaceutical companies couldn't run ads, and had to rely on the good will of doctors for sales. Again, consumers need to be educated on the drugs they are being prescribed, but that education isn't going to come from a commercial featuring "Viva Viagra".

This guy is the front-runner for the Republicans. Apparently, economics are the not only thing he isn't real strong on. From the Washington Post -

McCain is stumped on the stump

It's not often that a reporter stumps John McCain. But it happened Friday, and it was a telling moment for the Republican presidential contender.

The bus had been rolling for a half-hour and McCain was holding court on everything from Iraq to college basketball. ("Who woulda thought? VCU," he exclaimed upon boarding.) And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS.

"I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past," he stammered as he looked to his communications director. "I'm sure I'm opposed to government funding."

Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence, like President Bush wants?

"I think I support the president's present policy," he said, tentatively.

More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?

A long pause.

A stern look.

"I've never gotten into these issues or thought much about them," he said, almost crying uncle. "Obviously, we all want to stop the spread of AIDS. Everybody wants to do that. What's the most viable way of doing that?"

Well? The reporters asked?

In a last ditch attempt to rescue himself, McCain told an aide to go get a briefing paper prepared by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a doctor, who he said has been advising him on "these issues." But the aide couldn't find the briefing paper. "We've lost it," McCain mumbled.

"Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives. He then said he'd look into it for the reporters, who finally let him off the hook and moved onto other subjects again.

-- Michael D. Shear

McCain is stumped on the stump - Campaign Trail 

I haven't picked a candidate yet. Frankly, none of them excite me. Not the Dems, not the Repubs. But in the fight for the lesser evil, McCain is falling behind. His stance on Iraq - keeping a long-term force there - is unacceptable. He comes right out and says the economy is not his strong suit, which is scary considering where it is already. Now, when questioned about AIDS and sex ed, he can't come up with his own ideas? He can't even tell you what he thinks?

This is the kind of stuff that should scare the hell out of all of us. Why? Because to me, the subtext here isn't that he doesn't know. The guy's pretty smart. No, I think the real reason is that he's afraid of what will happen if he answers the questions. Answer them one way, and he loses the conservative vote, and Huckabee gains even further. Answer the other way, and moderate Republicans will bail, leaving him to compete with Huckabee on who's farther right, and giving the Dems an even bigger target.

Reality here is that McCain, so far, appeals to more mainstream Repubs, but not the dyed-in-wool variety. He's moderate on a lot of things. But because of that Huckabee is gaining ground. Until he has locked up the nomination, don't expect him to answer this kind of question.