What's The Question

Andrew Breitbart – Serial Prevaricator?

Breitbart is a conservative activist blogger with a history of “breaking” stories that are less than factual.

This week, Shirley Sherrod, an employee of the US Department of Agriculture lost her job because of a severely edited video that purported to show Ms. Sherrod showing racist tendencies while doing her job. But that was because of the editing. The actual video showed that Ms. Sherrod was talking about how she overcame racism, and helped a white couple save their farm.

Who would have published such a blatantly damaging – and false – video?

Andrew Breitbart.

The ACORN controversy in 2009 was started with videos released by Breitbart. The videos purported to show ACORN employees advising a prostitute and her brother how to avoid detection, dodge taxes and other acts. This led to investigations and eventually lack of funding to ACORN and the shuttering of their offices nationwide.

But the investigations turned up virtually nothing. There was some indication of unprofessional actions by lower-level employees, but no criminal conduct. And the prostitute and her brother? Young Republicans Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, who concocted the act to try to capture ACORN employees doing something illegal. Giles is an employee of Breitbart’s.

The videos, used to launch Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com website, appear to be severely – and badly, – edited to aid in creating controversy and to act as false evidence. Most of the comments from employees were edited out, leaving questions as to the context of answers. For example, one employee actually went along with the story, but contacted Mexican police to inform them of the “child smuggling” plot that Giles and O’Keefe related. That information was completely omitted from the tapes. While ACORN was never found guilty of any criminal activity, the tapes had the desired effect – destroying ACORN.

The latest controversy is the also severely edited video of Shirley Sherrod. Again, the salient portions of the video had been edited out to push a specific narrative. In this case, Fox News ran with the story, and knee-jerk reactions by the NAACP, USDA, and even the White House resulted in a premature demand of Sherrod’s resignation. The overly-quick rush to judgment by the media and polticians gave Breitbart another win, making the pols look worse than he did – at least in terms of action.

Brietbart has given conflicting stories of how and when he obtained the tape, but has tried to turn the story away from himself, blaming the media and everyone else he can think of for not fact-checking their stories on his video.

This is the Breitbart modus operandi. He pulls the pin on a grenade, drops it into a crowd, then calmly walks away. When it goes off, he sits back and laughs, and blames them for standing there in the first place.

As to Breitbart’s sensibilities, he famously went after the late Ted Kennedy in the hours after his death, posting on Twitter comments calling Kennedy a “duplicitous bastard”, “villain” and a “prick”. His motives are not hidden. In an interview with ABC’s “Nightline”, Breitbart describes his motivations:

“I’m fighting back against years and years and years of the cultural and the political left telling people to sit down and shut up,” he said. “And I’m finally telling a bunch of people, whether it be a conservative or a libertarian on a college campus, whether it be an actor or a director in Hollywood who wants to make movies that represent his world view, I’m sayin’ I’m gonna lead the charge. And you want to follow me? Fine. And there are people who are followin’ me. I want to make things equal. I want people to have a free and open voice.”

Breitbart’s “free and open voice” is about saying what he wants, regardless of the consequence – or even the truth. He has, on multiple occasions, invented his own version of the truth, to promote his own agenda. A serial prevaricator, and one who is proud of it. The next time you hear the story came from Breitbart, consider the source.

What’s The Truth?

This week, an unsuspecting employee in the US Department of Agriculture lost her job when a conservative activist blogger posted a video purportedly showing her making racist comments. The trouble is, it wasn’t true. The video was edited so severely that it didn’t show that she told the story to explain how she overcame racism.

The incident has opened up a number of discussions. Are bloggers journalists? Are journalists doing their job? Is it ok to run a story without fact-checking it? Who is doing the fact-checking?

In a conversation with some folks over Twitter, the topic of concern has been how some bloggers, and in fact, some media outlets, have been complicit in spreading false information, blatantly partisan spin, and out and out lies. They are backed by “pundits” and “analysts” who have overt agendas, and no one seems to be calling them on it.

To be sure, part of the problem is that there is so much of this going on, from both sides of the political spectrum, that catching all of it may be like trying to drink from a firehose. But why not try.

So, in this space, we’re going to try going after some of these bits of hackery to get to the bottom of things. We’re going to try cutting out the crap. And we’re really going to try to keep it to facts and not opinion.

People deserve facts, and as the midterm elections come up, they need to be able to see where people stand, and What they have said – and done – before.

We hope you’ll participate. And we hope you find this enlightening – or at least interesting.

The Immigration Issue Gets Weirder

(Originally posted at LeoSoderman.com)

As mentioned in this post yesterday, the battle over the Arizona immigration law, SB1070, has intensified, with folks on both sides girding for a tough fight.

But with this fight, we start to see the how some of the players really think. Take the guy at the left, California Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA42). He was asked at a Tea Party rally about whether he backed the deportation of natural-born citizens if their parents were illegal immigrants.

“I would have to, yes,” Hunter said.

Hunter said in the video that some of his critics believe his stance is mean-spirited.

“And we’re not being mean. We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen,” he said. “It’s what’s in our souls.”

Even if we put aside the whole idea of someone having an “American soul”, this Representative seems to have forgotten the US Constitution he took an oath to uphold. The 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, Rep. Hunter seems to be advocating a violation of the Constitution. But that shouldn’t be surprising. He backs SB1070, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment in and of itself.

But he doesn’t win the contest for nutjobs yet. No, that one we’re going to award to Rep. Steve King, R-IA5. In an interview with Fox News, King was asked about AZ Rep. Raul Grijalva’s call for a boycott of his own state to protest the immigration law:

LAURA INGRAHAM: This boycott is intended to do, what? I would imagine to intimidate people from supporting this law which, as far as I can tell, is wildly popular, but to intimidate because they’re using dollars. Is there anything wrong with that?

REP. STEVE KING: Well, it looks like the case is that, that he’s trying to scare the businesses out of Arizona, or he’s trying to get the businesses to change their position and press the legislature to reverse the law that was just signed by the governor the other day. I’m wondering if we look at the map of Congressman Grijalva’s congressional district if we haven’t already ceded that component of Arizona to Mexico judging by the voice that comes out of him, he’s advocating for Mexico rather than the United States and against the rule of law, which is one of the central pillars of American exceptionalism.

So he’s suggesting that what Grijalva is supporting – peaceful protest by boycott – is the equivalent of advocating giving the land back to Mexico. Another guy who apparently doesn’t remember his Constitutional lessons from school. Like the 1st Amendment, which protects peaceable assembly and free speech. Which of course, also protects King’s right to speak as well. Sigh.

On another front, a Tucson police officer is suing to have the law overturned. From CNN:

Officer Martin H. Escobar claims in the suit that the law will “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.”

He also says there are no “race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States,” including a person’s proximity to the Mexican border, linguistic characteristics and capabilities, skin color, clothing worn or the type of vehicle driven.

So, there’s at least one law enforcement front-line officer who thinks this is unrealistic. Expect to see more and more of these in the days and weeks to come. One of the big knocks on this law, beyond it being unconstitutional, is that it has a good chance of breaking the bank in Arizona. Until the law is either overturned or upheld at the US Supreme Court, there will be legal challenge after legal challenge, which of course will have to be defended by the state, and paid for by the taxpayers. Not to mention the flood of wrongful detention suits, whether of merit or not, that will also be filed.

Arizona might take a lesson that is being learned in Oklahoma. Over the past few years, lawmakers trying to make a statement have passed, then upheld after veto a number of laws that then end up being taken to court, and finally stricken down. In most of these cases, the lawmakers could see from the beginning that the law would not hold up, but decided to push it through anyway. Recently, these include laws requiring doctors to show a pregnant woman an ultrasound before she can have an abortion, the death penalty for child rapists (which the US Supreme Court already struck down in Louisiana), and a law to restrict how much control the federal government can have over the sale of guns in Oklahoma.

These laws end up costing millions of dollars to defend, then end up losing. And in Oklahoma, these kinds of cases can result in the loser paying the attorney’s fees for the winner. And where does that money come from? The taxpayers. So while they try to make a point, the taxpayers pay. The same is going to happen in Arizona. And we’ll see how happy those folks are going to be about that.

This is going to get more an more interesting over the next few days, with Cinco De Mayo around the corner. Stay tuned for more mayhem…

Why SB1070 Is A Bad Law

Rally against Arizona Bill SB1070

The law has been signed by Arizona Governor Brewer. SB1070, an effort to curb illegal immigration has been made official. And with it, our rights have been diminished.

I don’t normally start so heavy-handedly, but this law is bad for everyone involved. The basic idea is to make it “easier” to arrest and remove illegal immigrants from Arizona. But there’s a whole lot in the wording of this law that overreaches that goal by a mile, and in the process, attacks our 4th Amendment rights.

For example:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Note the wording: “probable cause to believe”. Nowhere else in the bill does it say what “probable cause” is. Are there some circumstances that would warrant “probable cause”? Sure. You stop a truck full of men coming from the border area with the lights off, and you have probable cause. But what if your friend, who is Hispanic, decides to go for a jog. He leaves his wallet at home – who carries a wallet when jogging? He got home late, so his jog is after dark. Police see him running. Probable cause? Depends on who saw it, right? But the real problem here is that they can arrest him on the probable cause. They can put the bracelets on him, throw him in the clink, and let things sort themselves out, just because they thought he might be here illegally and he didn’t have ID. Sound far-fetched? Wait till it happens.

But the real problem here is that is goes against the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates of America:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, the cry I have heard multiple times in this discussion from folks who mean well is “illegal aliens don’t share those rights!”, and technically, that’s true. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that law enforcement is being given the right to arrest on “probable cause” without determining if someone is illegally in the country. But if you read the 4th Amendment above, that’s not allowed. Because if you can arrest anyone on the street on probable cause, there is no warrant, no Oath or affirmation, no description of the person to be seized. It’s a fishing expedition. “I don’t know if you did anything wrong, but you look like you might be illegal, so I’m arresting you.”

That’s the Constitutional side of it. But it gets much, much uglier.

How many folks are going to be detained in error? How many lawsuits is this going to generate? How many good actions of the police will now come under fire as potentially racial profiling under this statute? And how much of the taxpayer’s money is going to be spent defending these cases.

What’s more, this law does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration. Oh, sure, it sounds good – “We’re getting tough on immigration – see our new law!” – but the reality is that the only change this makes from existing law is that it allows law enforcement to act despite 4th Amendment protections. If they see someone in the commission of a crime, they can stop them and question them.

One gal posted that her friend was killed by an illegal immigrant driving drunk. But would this law have stopped it? Not likely. If he hadn’t been caught before why would this change it? And if he had been pulled over prior to the accident, he would have been arrested for the DUI, his immigration status identified, and he’d be off. While the story is sad, this law would not have changed the situation.

Meanwhile, one of the real driving forces in illegal immigration is jobs. Employers are willing to hire illegal immigrants because they’ll work for below the minimum wage, below a living wage for most Americans. So what does this law do to them? Basically – nothing. Suspension of business licenses. No fines, no jail time. A slap on the wrist. If you are saving $500k a year in payroll because you’re hiring illegals, you’ll probably think it’s worth the gamble. Besides, there’s no real downside.
Oh, and there’s another way this is going to cost you money:

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A  COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT  LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

That’s right. Anyone who thinks that law enforcement isn’t doing a good enough job can file suit. How many of those lawsuits do you think will be coming? And of course, there will be all the challenges that will be filed against the law itself.

This is a bad law. I understand the frustration. People feel community resources are being drained, that crime has increased, that they are being invaded. And all of those need to be remedied. But we should not do it at the expense of our freedoms and our rights.

Government Mandated Health Care – 200+ Years Ago

Protesting... but what?

The healthcare bill has been voter into law, not that you’d know it from the complaints we continue to hear. “They’ll pay in November” is the cry. How dare the government mandate health care with legal penalties if we don’t comply?

The argument even includes the statement that our founding fathers would never have allowed such a thing.

BZZZZT! Thanks for playing.

The founding fathers did exactly that, 212 years ago. The then-president, John Adams, signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. This law mandated a tax on the income of merchant marines to pay for their healthcare. It included provisions for penalties for non-compliance ($100 in 1798 money), and even included language allowing the spending of any excess to build facilities such as hospitals, at the discretion of the President.

Here’s the actual text of the law signed by President John Adams:

CHAP. LXXVII – An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled -

That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a  foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

SEC2. . And be it further enacted, That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrolment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrolment or license before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed, as aforesaid; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

SEC3. . And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums  collected by them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the Secretary of the Treasury; and the President of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct: Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended within the same.

SEC. 4. .And be it further enacted, That if any surplus shall remain of the monies to be collected by virtue of this act, after  defraying the expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together , with such private donations as may be made for that purpose (which the President is hereby authorized to receive) shall be invested in the stock of the United States, under the direction of the President; and when, in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or provision for buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings, when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.

SEC5. . And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to nominate and appoint, in such ports of the United States, as he may think proper, one or more persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen, under such general instructions as shall be given by, the President of the United States, for that purpose, and also subject to the like general instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals as the President may direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the President, who is authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said directors shall render an account of the monies received and expended by them, once in  every quarter of a year, to the Secretary of the Treasury, or such other person as the President shall direct; but no other allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge of the duties required by this act.

APPROVED July 16, 1798.

You really don’t get much farther into the “founding fathers” than John Adams. And yet, he signed this “mandated healthcare” into law.

And yet, there are at least 13 Attorneys General who are suing to have the law repealed because they find it “unconstitutional”. Seems they missed this piece of legislation in their litigation research. As I mentioned in my recent post about the TEA Party folks, they keep arguing against the facts. But to these folks, the facts aren’t important. The only thing important to them is keeping their anger fueled, their rhetoric angry, and their vitriol directed to those they think are responsible for their dissatisfaction.

So, these Attorneys General are going to waste their taxpayers money fighting a battle that was settled by the founding fathers 212 years ago. But hey, it’s not their money.

What Exactly Are They Angry About?

Angry Otter - Courtesy Law_Keven

This morning I was listening to an NPR story comparing the real Boston Tea Party to the folks who are now calling themselves TEA Party activists. The capitalization on the latter is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already.

The story made the distinction – correctly – that the original Tea Party was not about taxation in and of itself. No, it was specifically about taxation without representation. The British crown was taxing colonists on a whole host of things, but the colonists had no representation in Parliament. They had no voice, no way of airing their grievances. They were simply looked upon as a revenue stream for the King.

Fast forward to today. Today’s TEA Party movement is claiming that they too are protesting against what they feel is unjust excessive taxation. They also make the claim that they are not represented. And this is where the argument jumps the shark.

First is the issue of representation. The current TEA Partiers may not like what their representatives are doing, but they are, nonetheless, represented. If they don’t like what their representatives are doing, they need to find a new candidate, get behind them, get them voted into office, and hold their feet to the fire. And if that one doesn’t work out, try it again in the next election. They are duly represented. They make like to make noise about it, but they do have representation.

But where they really annoy me is the taxation part. See, they’re protesting excessive taxes, claiming they are being taxed into oblivion. And that’s the second point where they fail.

The group Citizens For Tax Justice just released a report analyzing what folks will be paying in taxes for the 2009 tax year based on the cuts introduced last year. The analysis revealed that 98% of taxpayers actually received a tax cut for this year. The average tax cut is about $1,158. In fact, if you’re in the bottom 80% of taxpayers, you are getting a tax cut. Not maybe, you are getting a tax cut. In fact, virtually everyone but the top 1% are getting a tax cut. Those folks at the very top? 29% of them received a tax cut as well. You can go to the report and look up what folks in your state are getting. And chances are, you are not in the top 1% and your taxes were cut. (If you are in the top 1%, would you consider adopting me…?)

Back to the NPR story. They asked a TEA Party organizer about the tax cuts. They told her that 98% of the taxpaying populace actually received a tax cut. Her response – she doesn’t believe it.

And there lies the big problem. These folks are so tied up in their ideology that, even when presented with facts that completely contradict them, they choose to continue to believe the party line. It’s denial. They have a need to be angry, and if the tax cuts are real, they have nothing left to be angry about.

Let’s do a quick recap: Tax cuts for 98% of taxpayers. Dow average is over 11,000, nearly doubling in 14 months. Employment figures are moving up, with employers starting to add more time to cut-back employees and adding positions. Inflation is virtually zero. Retail sales are showing the best gains since 2006. While the economy is recovering slowly, it is recovering.

EDIT  (4/15/10) - To add to this, a Brookings Institution analysis shows that current tax rates are the lowest in 60 years.

So, what are these people angry about?

It might help to know who they are. The NY Times just released a poll that has sampled tea partiers and here’s what they found:

• White
• Male
• Married
• Over 45 years of age
• Describe themselves as “very conservative”
• “Angry” (as opposed to “dissatisfied”)
• 25% think the Obama administration favors blacks over whites
• Are more likely than the general public – and even Republicans – to say too much has been made of the problems facing black people
• 57% hold a favorable view of George W. Bush
• 3/4 say they want a smaller government, even if it means cutting domestic programs – until it is pointed out that the biggest are Medicare and Social Security. Then, they say they don’t want THOSE programs cut.
• They make more than the average household income.

EDIT (4/15/10) – Some more data points from the same poll:

• 24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.
• 84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree (remember: 18% are tea partiers).
• 59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)
• 63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.
• 45% say they are most likely to trust information from other Tea Partiers above any other source.

That last point is telling. It’s indicative of an “echo chamber” effect, where information, whether factual or made up completely, gets repeated within the group, echoed back and forth, until it is believed as gospel.

They self-identify as very conservative, but don’t want to be called “right-wing extreme”. Meanwhile, they don’t want to fund “government handouts”, unless of course, it’s a handout to them in the form of Social Security or Medicare.

So what are they angry about?

I think it boils down to this – an imagined slight. They’re unhappy with something, the way things are going, the neighbor next door, whatever, and they need a face to put it to. And all too happily, right wing blowhard will pump it up, spreading lousy disinformation – death panels, tax increases, socialism – all to get their ratings. And all falsehoods. But when you’re dissatisfied, you look for something, anything to grab onto. And when you’re that invested in it, when your ideology is so tied up in those beliefs, you’ll ignore the facts. You’ll deny truth, because it contradicts what you believe.

In the end, I think they’ll be angry at themselves. They’ll be angry that they were sold a bill of goods. That they were unwitting pawns in a publicity stunt that took on a life of its own. A movement that was fed, and now as quickly being abandoned by right wing pundits and politicians.

They have a reason to be angry. It’s just not what they think it is.

Laws, Sausage and the Grind

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

The old quote is “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

Anyone who has actually watched the process of a law, especially a controversial one, being put through the wringer might actually prefer to watch the grinder instead.

And so it goes with the health care bill. There has been wailing and gnashing of teeth. And whether you’re for or against it, the behavior around this hasn’t been about you or me, it’s about how to protect one’s ideology and one’s status quo, on both sides of the aisle. And it has been about how compromise is or isn’t done in Washington.

There has been unfortunate ugliness. Racial and sexual slurs hurled at Congressmen, others spat upon. In these incidents, this has been not about “debate”, but about mob rule, about intimidation, about trying to win by shouting louder. But that’s not how laws are passed. And the sausage grinder there is perhaps more sophisticated, but no less messy.

Let’s look at a few examples, starting with the whole hue and cry over “pass and deem” tactic the Democrats threatened to use to get the health care bill through. Frankly, most of the people I have heard decry this – other than politicians – have no real idea what it means. In fact, I’d wager a large percentage of politicians couldn’t explain it properly. It’s a parliamentary procedure, it is perfectly legal, and most importantly, both sides use it when they want something done without real opposition. Both sides. For lots of stuff. And it is always used when the topic is falling along party lines. The Republicans and Democrats have used it when they needed to get around the stalling tactics of the opposing side. By the way, on the Senate side, the counterpart is reconciliation. And both sides have used it too.

But the reality of the situation is that they didn’t intend to use it. It was a leverage tool. By getting the argument to be about process – which Americans care very little about – the Democrats shifted the attention to the Republicans, getting them to talk about how about the process was “unfair”, and not about anything that really had a chance to change the vote. So on Friday, when they had a good count and could see the vote would be won straight up, they removed the threat – and the other side wasted energy and time chasing a ghost.

Now, after passage, they are making it about abortion. It’s a ploy to try to derail something that has already passed. Abortion is a contentious issue. To the point that a last-minute deal was struck by the President to issue an Executive Order to guarantee certain “pro-life” provisions. And of course, the argument is about whether an Executive Order is valid.

But Executive Orders are used all the time. The previous President was famous for them, his first controversial one saying that Presidential records did not have to be released to the public after a President left office (it had been a 12-year lag). The original law – Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974, was put into place so that the record destruction after J. Edgar Hoover died would not happen again. The idea was to give appropriate materials the ability to see the light of day. Bush’s Executive Order 13233 changed that, limiting the access to those documents, and increasing a veil of secrecy around the Executive Branch. In all, he issued 284 Executive Orders in 8 years, an average of about 1 every year and a half. The current President is on a similar pace, with 47 in about 13 months.

So what does all this mean? That crying about Executive Orders is in vogue when it doesn’t go your way. But here’s the real kicker about this particular argument – they are complaining that the EO can be reversed. It gives assurances that one of the right’s major party planks is addressed, and their complaint is that it might be revoked. It’s very much a “have your cake and eat it too” argument.

They got assurances that their views were addressed, now the assurances aren’t good enough. It’s just a ploy to slow things down, when there really aren’t any votes to support it. Meanwhile, the original deal was a great strategic ploy. If the argument was about abortion, remove the complaint. Stupak, a Democrat, raised his concerns. They were addressed. Now instead of being about abortion, it’s about the Executive Order. Once again, the argument has shifted from content to process. Americans don’t care about process.

But in the end, this was about one thing – and it wasn’t health care. Very few Americans think the health care system is working. They may disagree on how to fix it, but it’s a small number that think it works. This bill aims to fix a lot of that, and it’s not perfect. But the bill is part of a larger picture.

Health care is a topic that has been “third-rail” territory for nearly 100 years. Many presidents on both sides have talked about it, and all – until now – have failed to make any real progress. Whether this is “real” progress remains to be seen, but it is certainly movement of an order of magnitude larger than any previous work. And this is where the rubber meets the road. In six months, when the mid-term elections come around, the question will be whether people are seeing improvements in their lives. Whether their wallets, their health care, their homes are in better shape. If the answer is yes, the Republicans are going to be left holding the bag as obstructionists that tried to stop the most sweeping changes to how Americans health is taken care of. If the answer is no, Republicans will likely gain some seats, and will have ammunition to work with.

So the real battle in this “debate” wasn’t about health care. It was about control. If it failed, the President would be hard pressed to get anything else through Congress. Republicans would be emboldened, and Democrats who had tough battles ahead would be willing to depart from the President’s side. By passing, Republicans are defeated, and must regroup. There will be serious talk about who failed to get the extra 5 votes to swing over to their side. And there will be serious talk about who needs to be supported in November. Meanwhile, those Democrats that wish to go against the President will be strong-armed to toe the line, and will have a lot to answer for if they choose to go the other way.

This is, indeed, the untidy mess that is making law. So, which would you rather watch? Lawmaking, or sausage-making?

That’s The Picture You Want To Show? Really?

Yes, that's really me. Beard's a little bushy, but an accurate representation.

Confession time: I am on some online dating sites.

Sit down. Take a breath. It’s not as bad as it sounds. Really.

I haven’t subscribed to any of them, and not sure I ever will. I’ve “met” what seem to be some good folks on them, with some interesting conversations. Heck, my last relationship started online. This time around, it’s more to just find some people to communicate with in my area, and develop some friendships.

But that’s not what this post is about. No, this is about – What the hell were they thinking?

Look, I’m no bronzed Adonis. I’m in my mid-40′s, still trying to work off a gut that I let myself build, listening to my joints sound like a bowl of Rice Krispies every time I stand up. I shave my head because I got tired of looking like Bozo the Clown every morning when I got up. But I still think I’m a decent looking guy. And if I’m going to post a picture of myself on a dating site, I’m going for the ones that show me at my best.

Apparently, that sentiment isn’t shared by all.

Great first impression

Yes, that’s an actual picture for a dating profile.

Unless she’s a KISS fan trying to show off her Gene Simmons impression, this is not a good look.

But this isn’t the only one like it. There are many. Hundreds. Perhaps thousands. For some reason, these people are determined to post their absolute worst choice picture to attract a date.

Maybe they’re thinking that if they show their worst, then the potential dater will be pleasantly surprised when they meet in person. I’m thinking it may take a while to get the first one.

And of course, you can see that by the position of her right arm, it is in the classic “cellphone self-portrait” style. I’ve seen a few of these that have worked, but as a rule, taking a self-portrait with your cellphone at arm’s length is probably not going to deliver the best picture.

Now turn to the left...

Here’s another example of a bad choice for your picture. Keep in mind that many sites allow you to choose which picture will be your primary picture. This picture came from one of those sites.

The whole idea of being able to choose your primary photo is to allow you to put your best foot forward. Don’t think we got there with this one…

This is as close to a mugshot as it gets. All it’s missing is a name and prisoner number. The sad thing is, this is probably an attractive woman. When she smiles. And is in focus.

Instead, it looks like she’s waiting to get her one phone call.

Note the big drink...

Note to self: If fully one-third of someone’s profile pictures include a shot of them holding a half-consumed alcoholic beverage, and at least one appears to be served by the yard – this is probably going to be a bad choice.

One of the first things I look for is the pictures. Yes, it sounds shallow, but there has to be some physical attraction. But when you go to the pictures and they’re laden with scenes of booze-fueled abandon, you’re going to get a fairly strong idea of what the person’s interests are.

In this case, it looks like a bad version of the Thriller moves facilitated by entirely too much tequila in a really tall plastic container.

Hmmm....

Now, this next photo is of a whole different genre. This was not an unintentional choice. In fact, this person’s profile is titled “Now that I have your attention…”

But here’s the problem – the profile says something a little different. She is not “out to ‘catch’ a man, but would love to find someone willing to invest time and effort in knowing me.”

If she’s not out to catch one, she sure is throwing out a lot of bait.

My guess is that this gal, who seems to be nice enough, is going to attract the guy who is willing to invest enough time to get to know her, and her ample wares, the latter being the most likely target of his affections.

Take it from a guy – the ones who stopped solely because of this picture are usually not the ones you want getting to know you. Just sayin’….

But, I suppose if you’re gonna put it out there, it’s about as straightforward as it gets.

So look, if you’re gonna go with online dating, pick a good picture. Have a friend shoot one. Use one from a wedding you went to. Hell, go to a photo booth at the fair and spend a couple of bucks and get one. But stay away from the cellphones, and the drunken boozefests, and the mugshot and the overtly displayed busts unless that’s who you really want potential dates to see. If you don’t you could end up using a profile picture like this one:

Can You Live Without Passion?

Live With Passion - "Hot Passion" by Malu Green!

The last few days, I have really been searching for an answer to this question: Can You Live Without Passion?

It comes to me as I have examined my life over the past few years, and the lives of some of those around me. And what seems to be a recurring theme is that those who are happiest, those who seem to have the ‘perfect” life, the life others envy are those who live their lives with passion. Passion for what they do, for those they love, passion for life.

Conversely, those who seem to be the least happy are those whose lives are lacking passion. They don’t feel strongly about anything, or feel that no matter what they want, life just won’t deliver it, so why look forward to anything? They live in a constant fear that plans will change, dreams will be dashed, hopes shattered. And so, they live without passion.

From Dictionary.com

pas⋅sion

–noun

1.	any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.

2.	strong amorous feeling or desire; love; ardor.

3.	strong sexual desire; lust.

4.	an instance or experience of strong love or sexual desire.

5.	a person toward whom one feels strong love or sexual desire.

6.	a strong or extravagant fondness, enthusiasm, or desire for anything: a passion for music.

7.	the object of such a fondness or desire: Accuracy became a passion with him.

8.	an outburst of strong emotion or feeling: He suddenly broke into a passion of bitter words.

9.	violent anger.

10.	the state of being acted upon or affected by something external, esp. something alien to one’s nature or one’s customary behavior (contrasted with action ).

11.	(often initial capital letter) Theology. a. the sufferings of Christ on the cross or His sufferings subsequent to the Last Supper. b. the narrative of Christ’s sufferings as recorded in the Gospels.

12.	Archaic. the sufferings of a martyr.

So many of these involve the physical manifestation, the lustful countenance of passion. But of real interest to me is the very first definition: any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling.

The “compelling aspect” is what I really identify with as passion. The desire – almost a need – to do something, to achieve something that can burn like a fire within you. That is the definition of passion that I connect with. For me, it’s those things that I can lose myself in, forgetting about time and other distractions. It’s those things that I do that I can do all day, and want to do more.

Which brings me back to the original question – Can you live without passion?

The obvious answer is “yes”. Many people do. But why would you want to? Is there really nothing that fires these folks up? Nothing that gets them excited?

For many of these people, the fear of rejection, failure, and disappointment keeps them from following a passion. Sure, there are sometimes logistical reasons for their lack of action – there are bills to pay, mouths to feed. But if you feel a passion for something, these are simply speed bumps, obstacles to be overcome, not roadblocks stopping you from achieving. No, for many the real obstacle is themselves.

Where do you fit in? Do you have a passion for something? Or are you struggling to find what it is that drives you? Maybe you’re one of the folks who can’t get past the fear. Here are some ideas on how you can find that inner drive:

That Silly Grin: Think about those things that just get you to crack a smile. What are those simple things that brighten your mood just thinking about them. In those things is the seed of your passion. You can’t be passionate about something that makes you unhappy.

Invincible: Even those of us who have run into mountains of adversity have something that makes them feel powerful, invincible. These are the kinds of things that you know you have mastered, and at which you can’t be beaten. Look for those things in your life. You have mastered then because you enjoy them. Again, you’ve found another clue to your passion.

Your Muse: What is it that fires up the creative force within you? What is the thing that gets your brain fired up, that once you get started you can’t stop? This is a very powerful clue on the path to finding your passion. That creativity comes from a genuine desire. It’s very hard to think creatively when you hate doing something. But when you love to do it, the ideas flow.

What’s On Your Bucket List?: What things have you always wanted to do, or to try? What are the things you would regret not having tried? These things are also signals as to what might be your passion. The real question is – why haven’t you tried them? By working on those things, even if you start with the smallest, you start to find the ones that really matter to you. Those things eill help you define your passion.

It’s A Snap: Are there things that you do that just seem easy, while others can’t seem to get it? Those things are likely things you are passionate about – you just haven’t looked at them that way. The easier things come to you, the more likely that they are things that make you happy, that drive you. How can you do more of those things, and less of the things that you dislike? This is a key question to ask yourself, and to get you on the road to living passionately.

Chatterbox: Do you find there are things that you can talk about forever? Sports, movies, basket weaving? The topic doesn’t matter – the fact that you really enjoy talking about it does. Again, we don’t talk about things we don’t like, unless we want to complain. Look for those things you are more than happy to yap about, and you’re likely to discover something you’re passionate about.

“Shoot, I’d play for nothing’”: It’s a great line in the movie “Field of Dreams”. Shoeless Joe Jackson talks about playing baseball.

Shoeless Joe Jackson: Man, I did love this game. I’d have played for food money. It was the game… The sounds, the smells. Did you ever hold a ball or a glove to your face?
Ray Kinsella: Yeah.
Shoeless Joe Jackson: I used to love travelling on the trains from town to town. The hotels… brass spittoons in the lobbies, brass beds in the rooms. It was the crowd, rising to their feet when the ball was hit deep. Shoot, I’d play for nothing!

This is passion. It’s not about how much you’d make, what lifestyle it provides. It’s about what drives you. It’s about those things you’d do even if there were no money involved. Try this little exercise: If money were no object, if you had no worries about paying bills, what would you be doing right now?. What would you jump off the couch or out of your chair and go do right this minute? That, dear reader, is likely your passion. When all obstacles are removed, what would you do? Now, remove the obstacles. Push them aside. Find the way to get there. You’ll be amazed what your life can be!