Catholicvote.org Censors Posts

I am a rather "liberal" practicing Catholic. I sometimes purposefully engage conservative Catholics in on-line forums and work very hard to ensure that the words I choose are as fact-based and as dispassionate as possible. I engage with a mind very open to learning more about the alternative points of view and I believe it important for both sides of such arguments to be heard. I recently engaged in just such a dialog on the site "catholicvote.org". This is the group that endorsed Sen.Rick Santorum for President. I'd never heard of them until they made news with the endorsement. During a very civil dialog, one poster asked why I said Santorum would legislate Catholic doctrine and referred me to a CNN interview where Santorum clearly states he would not. Here's my reply:

You're buying Santorum's back-peddling. I did not say he would legislate it. I said he had no problem with legislating it. He has stated repeatedly that the states have a right to outlaw contraception - and the video footage makes it impossible to deny. You will never convince me that the federal government should not supersede and prohibit such a heinous violation of civil rights. This is clearly indicative of his stand on states rights vs federal protections and is obviously strongly influenced by his Catholic faith - though he is too smart a politician to say so directly. I'm open to moral debate on abortifactant methods but a blanket ban on, say, using a condom is beyond the pale and would not be characterized as anything but extreme by the vast majority of Americans - including a majority of Catholics. Here's just one link to video footage: Santorum Link

OK, emphatic, yes -- but I don't believe it could be construed as offensive by any reasonable person. Certainly some disagree and that's fine but it is not the point. I've posted many times on this site over the past week or so and never had a technical problem and have never been turned away for violating their posting rules. Posts are moderated and generally appear within an hour or so of being sutmitted if submitted during the day. Late postings always show up the next morning. I've now submitted this post at least 6 times over the course of the last two days. It still has not been posted despite the fact that much later postings by me and others have appeared. This morning, before the 6th attempt, I sent them an e-mail asking why:

I've tried the same post 5 times now over the last two days. I've never had a post fail to go through before. There is nothing in the post that could even remotely be considered outside of guidelines. The only problem you might have with it is that it reflects, I believe rather poorly - but completely factually - on your endorsed candidate. I expect to see the post or would appreciate a reasonable explanation as to why it is not being posted. If neither happens by the end of business today I have no choice but to assume I'm being censored - and will begin publicizing that fact in other on-line Catholic venues.

I don't even think I'd mind so much if I were starting a new thread but this is a reply to a direct question that was asked of me -- twice. Refusal to post my reply makes it look like I'm ignoring the question and conceding the point by default.


They've never acknolwedged their active refusal of the post and they've not given me the courtesy of a reply with their rationale - not even an excuse about it being somehow outside their guidelines. They've never acknolwedged me at all. I have no problem with people taking strong issue with my views. I'm accustomed to it, even expect it in today's too-polarized environment. I simply accept it for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am severely hesitant to accuse them of censorship - but I feel I have given them ample opportunity to explain themselves so I don't see how it could possibly be anything else. While they explicitly state that they "reserve the right to remove or edit a comment for any reason", I feel it is certainly fair and valid for potential readers of this site to know that one of those reasons is selective censorship.


In case anyone is interested here's a link to the full thread: Catholicvote.org

On the Debt-Ceiling crisis

The Tea-party caucus wants what it wants when it wants it with no regard for anyone else or the consequences of their actions. If they were kids - we'd accurately call them spoiled brats. Also like spoiled brats, it wasn't enough to get almost everything they wanted - they have to have absolutely all or nothing. I'm sick of the obstructionist temper tantrums. Government, by design, requires compromise to work. If a member of congress is unwilling to compromise - they've chosen the wrong profession and are incompetent to perform the requirements of their job.

It is silly, and dangerous, to say or even imply that the U.S. will not pay the bills it has already incurred. That is ALL a debt ceiling increase does. It does not authorize one penny of additional spending. I'm all for sane, thought-through spending cuts and entitlement reform but there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way.

60 Votes

I am sick of the way wrangling takes place in the US Senate. I see pundits consistently say that 'the will of the people' is behind killing real health care reform. Balderdash! The will of the people, in a democracy, is represented by 50% plus 1. The 60-vote requirement in the Senate to kill a filibuster and allow a bill to be voted on has nothing to do with the will of the people. Without the 60-vote requirement, REAL health care reform would have passed months ago as clearly desired by the majority of senators representing the true will of the people. This long standing Senate rule (click here for a brief explanation and history) can certainly have it's advantages but I believe, in today's reality, it has long outlived it's usefulness. The 60-vote rule is currently being used for exactly one purpose -- obstruction. It is, in fact, a way to prevent the will of the people. Getting a 60 vote majority on any issue of substance these days is nearly impossible. Even if the Republicans held a majority I would feel the same way. I might not like the result in all cases, but what I dislike more than anything is the inability of our government to take decisive action on the tough choices. I am disgusted by the 'gimmes' Senators are walking away with in order to 'sell' their vote toward the magical number 60. I am disgusted by the process which allows it, but I am even more disgusted by the Senators who will 'negotiate' for such things instead of voting their conscience OR the will of their constituents. I understand this is legal, fully in keeping with Senate ethics and even encouraged as the standard traditional way business is conducted in the Senate, but that doesn't make it right. Negotiation and compromise are good and necessary things. Obstructionism and self-serving sellouts are not.

I am fully aware that there is not a snowball's chance of this rule changing, but -- for a long time there wasn't a snowball's chance of Barack Obama being elected President either! I've never been one to advocate because a position is popular. My opinions reflect my informed position of conscience and no amount of bribery, legal or otherwise, is going to change that! Kill the Filibuster!

On Obama's First Year

I've been asked why I don't blog much any more. The basic answer is simple... My guy won! Much of my ranting in recent years has been largely therapeutic. Lost in a sea of overwhelming 'conservatism', I felt as if the voice of those with views similar to my own were being irrationally dismissed. Knowing I was largely speaking, or yelling, for myself - it felt good to yell. I knew I would not change minds or hearts. I knew that the whole thing was really an exercise in self-indulgence. Now that my own ideal candidate is in the White House, my need for yell-therapy is greatly diminished. Hey, those who've heard me in person get... shall we say 'intense'... would much rather I yell in writing than in their faces! 8)

As President Obama approaches the end of his first year in office, I just want to stand up and say that, despite news hype about his base support leaving him, this liberal could not be happier with President Obama's performance. That's not to say I'm happy with all the results. I'm just a realist who understands that the massive machinery of government moves slowly, political capital must be spent wisely and the power of the presidency is limited by design.

In the final analysis, it is not about left/right, liberal/conservative or even right and wrong. It is about what we value. It is about how we prioritize that which is important to us in life. From the moment I finished 'Audacity of Hope', I knew this was a man who's values were nearly identical to my own. I bask in the knowledge that my voice is being heard because Barack Obama's voice is the closest to my own of any political figure in my lifetime. This book is required reading for all who honestly seek to understand before passing judgment.

I'm content in the absolute knowledge that President Obama is doing everything in his power to change the world according to those shared values and I will continue to support him in any way that I can.

On the death of Senator Kennedy

I mourn the loss of "the greatest legislator of our time," as he was eulogized by President Obama. For those of us who remember the Sixties, Ted Kennedy's passing represents the end of more than an era. As the sole surviving Kennedy brother, this passing also brings to a close the 'Kennedy mystique' that I grew up with. For those who are too young to remember both the idealism and tragedy of that era, the JFK assassination is nearly as removed as Lincoln's. For those who were there, however, the values represented by the better nature's of all the Kennedy brothers represented the very best this country could hope to be.

Senator Kennedy was well loved by Republican colleagues as well as Democratic. He worked hard at true bipartisan cooperation and negotiation despite his generally liberal perspective. It is my hope and prayer that the memory of his political life and service may inspire a renewed effort toward finding common ground among our political leaders.

One of Senator Kennedy's lifelong goals and priorities was health-care reform. Debate over this tremendously important issue is appropriate and necessary. Honest divergence of opinion will always exist. It is impossible for me to honor the memory of this great American, however, without expressing disdain for the way in which our current health care debate is being conducted. It is unquestionable that factual discourse is not valued by, or even relevant to, many of those opposing health-care reform. Many are purposefully spreading lies to incite wholly irrational fear for their own gain. These tactics disgust me. I am certainly no expert but, from personal observation and common sense analysis, here are a few thoughts:

• Anyone who believes that government has a lock on wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy has not spent enough time in Corporate America. The only difference between public bureaucracy and private bureaucracy is that private corporations are, by definition, motivated by profit. Profit is not inherently bad, but neither is government. For-profit entities do, however, prioritize the bottom line above all else. It is their reason for existence and their responsibility to their stockholders.
  
• Anyone who believes our current health care insurance industry represents free-market capitalism must be blessed with a quickly disappearing model of employer-provided health care. As a self-employed consultant, I pay ridiculous premiums for nothing more than catastrophic care. I am prevented from competitive shopping for alternatives due to pre-existing condition rules. Others I know of suffering a catastrophic health crisis have been canceled by their insurance companies. This is not insurance - it's a prepayment plan where the insurance companies have free reign to do whatever they like to maintain their profit margins. If you don't believe there is a health-care crisis then I don't believe you're seeing the situation for what it is.
  
• Medicare, a federal government program, is generally held in very high regard by many health-care professionals I know as a well run program - more efficient and effective than the vast majority of health-insurance providers they must deal with.
  
• The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group - one of the largest health insurance companies. This source for many of the statistics used to blast the idea of any government health care intervention claims to be fully independent and states on their web site that they have complete editorial autonomy from their parent organization. Even if I accept this as true there is still no doubt in my mind that the employees of this company also know who provides their salaries. Every employee of this company has a clear conflict of interest and is undoubtedly motivated to make the source of their livelihood look good. I know I would be. It doesn't mean they're lying but it is certainly only simple common sense to know that they are at least selective with the statistics they choose to publicize.
  

Every citizen of this great nation has the duty be as well informed on the issues as they can possibly be -- has a duty to look past the sound bite and try to distill fact from fiction. I am not favoring any particular solution to the health-care crisis here. I am simply asking everyone to get past the stereotypes, past the fear-mongering, past the lies and try to be as objective on the issue as possible. Senator Kennedy was hated by many for his belief that government must take an active role in social justice issues. Even if you disagree with his philosophy, I ask you to honor the memory of this veteran's half-century of service to our nation by honestly taking a step back and considering his lifelong advocacy of health-care reform. Challenge yourself to look closely for the lies you may be believing, for the fear you may needlessly be feeling.

Iranian Proxy Server

Wow. I have put my geek-ness into action.

Perhaps some of you have seen the news reporting that much of what we know about events following the Iranian elections is being provided directly by Iranians via the Internet. This is true despite the fact that the Iranian government is censoring Internet access. This is happening because of a thing called a 'proxy server'. Proxy servers allow the Iranians to access censored material by doing it through an alternative web address which serves as a proxy for the real thing. The proxy server goes to the censored site, retrieves/sends the material, and feeds the results back into Iran - all via a seemingly innocuous internet address.

I am proud to say that I have put my values and my geeky talents into action and set up just such a server. I will not provide details here but have done so to the appropriate channels. The Iranian government is doing everything it can to find these proxy servers and shut them down.

Of course this does present some level of risk. The machine I am using as a server has nothing on it that is either secure or irreplaceable. If it is hacked -- there is nothing they can hurt. The rest of my network is fully fire-walled. I've taken every sane precaution while still taking action.

I know little about Iranian politics. What I do know is that the relative freedom of information is one of this country's most precious and productive gifts to its citizens. Without accurate information - accurate conclusions are impossible. I see this act as simply facilitating the free flow of information.

Affirmative Action

I have written about Affirmative Action on a previous blog. The current heightened media coverage, however, prompts me to do it again. Even the most liberal of media outlets do not cover this topic correctly - and it surprises me. Affirmative Action is completely misunderstood by the vast majority of US citizens. This is not opinion -- it is a fact. I am not a lawyer, but I happen to be associated with a Washington D. C. law firm that specializes in employment law. The following are facts:

• Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin is illegal.
  [Notice that sexual preference is not a legally protected class of citizens. This is one reason gay rights is currently such a hotly debated topic.]


• So-called 'Reverse Discrimination' is also illegal. There is absolutely no distinction in the law that provides preferential treatment for anyone.


• Quotas are illegal. Quotas favoring women over men, for example, are obviously reverse discrimination. Discrimination against a white man is exactly as illegal as discrimination against a black woman. Discrimination is illegal.

Affirmative Action is designed to prevent discrimination... not institutionalize it. The Affirmative Action reporting requirements for federal contractors do sometimes result in the establishment of placement goals. These goals are based upon the percentage of minorities and females (aka 'protected classes') in the qualified labor pool using census data by geographic area and occupation, as well as, the labor pool inside the company for internal promotions. These goals are only established when the incumbent population of a protected class for a given group of employees is significantly less than the qualified labor pool. The following are facts regarding these placement goals:

• Expressed as a percentage, the goals represent the expected rate at which the protected class would be hired/promoted based upon the qualified labor pool.


• Goals are not quotas.


• Goals do not provide justification for:
  1. Extending preferences to any individual
  2. Selecting any particular individual
  3. Adversely affecting any individual's employment status on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin


• Goals may not be used to supersede merit principles

In other words, employers have the full legal right to always and only hire the absolute best qualified candidate for the job. Period! If a placement goal was not met, the employer is only obligated to demonstrate with adequate record keeping the reasons that one candidate was chosen over another. As long as these reasons are merit-based, an employer has broken no laws and has nothing to fear.

If anyone believes they have been discriminated against or been given preferential treatment because of Affirmative Action, they are factually mistaken.

If your employer has stated or behaved otherwise then your employer has acted illegally. Though I am confident in my facts here, I am also confident that the gross misunderstanding of these facts certainly extends to employers who have violated these laws. My intent here is not to deny the reality of reverse discrimination. Rather, my intent is to inform. Reverse discrimination certainly exists. Like ALL discrimination, however, it is illegal.

If you think I'm wrong, consult a good labor attorney. I'm not. If you care about facts instead of propaganda, you will spread these facts in any conversation about Affirmative Action and call out the propaganda for what it is!

Justice Souter retirement

The moment I've been waiting for has arrived. The supreme court is the single most important reason that I so emphatically hoped for a Democratic president. I believe strongly that the whole constructionist/activist argument is wholly bogus. To say that there is exactly one correct interpretation of the constitution is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as saying there is only one literal interpretation of the Bible. Language is always imperfect and imprecise. All words are necessarily interpreted based upon the receiver's values and life experience and our rightfully revered constitution is no different.

The second amendment is a hotly debated current example. The text is quoted here exactly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My opinion on gun ownership is irrelevant. The point here is that there are easily at least two interpretations of this sentence. One argument is that the individual 'people' are granted the right to bear arms, the other is that the collective 'people' in the form of a 'well regulated Militia' have the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of anyone's personal belief it is undeniable that the other argument exists among constitutional scholars. To say a 'strict constructionist' judge would only interpret for the individual right and would call the collective militia argument 'activist' or 'legislation from the bench' is simply without merit. Either is fully in keeping with the strict letter of the constitution and depends on your point of view. To believe that the language of laws is self-evident, requiring no interpretation, denies the very need for a judiciary and blasphemes the very core of our constitution. By the way - Obama has stated, as a constitutional lawyer, that he personally believes the right to bear arms refers to the individual right. No hard core liberal there!

I dread the inevitable onslaught of propaganda as President Obama nominates his first supreme court justice. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Obama's remarks today laying out his criteria for selecting a judge were absolutely perfect from this voter's perspective. I would generally label myself as a center-left voter. More left socially and more right fiscally. I have agreed with nearly every word I have heard from President Obama even though he is often slammed from the left as well as the right. In this case, however, I will be hoping for as liberal a judge as can possibly be appointed. Justice is not and never should be blind. True justice must see the suffering of humanity. True justice must see the raping of our planet. Yes, true justice must even see the abhorrence of abortion. That does not mean legal decisions are made from a bleeding heart perspective, but it does mean that judges seeking true justice must temper the necessary and constitutionally mandated interpretation of literal law with the entirety of their being.

Vacation Pics

Yes... I do have a life outside of my political passions. Alice and I had a glorious week in California. Visiting Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park. Here are a few pictures.

We happened to be in Yosemite during three days of record-breaking Spring heat creating rapid snow melt. The waterfalls are rarely flowing as full as they were during this time. The first picture is Yosemite Falls.

The rainbow effect around the edge of Bridal Veil Falls below is completely genuine. The shot was taken from the "Tunnel View" lookout point with the rainbow from the mist

Full shot of Tunnel View with the rainbow on Bridal Veil Falls.

The intense water flow created equally intense mist making rainbows common in the afternoon sun. Following picture is just below Vernal Falls after hiking the Mist trail followed by a full shot of the same falls.

Lake Tahoe was equally amazing.

Newt Gingrich is wrong.

There are many descriptors I'm tempted to use, but I'll settle for 'wrong'. Gingrich is calling Obama's foreign policy a 'fantasy'. This statement can not even pass for opinion. If I give him the benefit of the doubt, it is more accurately labeled a delusion. President Obama has been extraordinarily consistent throughout his campaign and early presidency. He has never limited military force as an option, he has always acknowledged that evil exists in the world and 'must be confronted'. To implement a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy over brute force is not a fantasy, Newt. It is called a vision. Our greatest leaders have always been visionaries. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of seeing the mountaintop, equal rights for people of color in this country were as much of an impossibility as world peace is today. Dr. King maintained the vision and pragmatically, courageously, led this country toward realizing that vision. He knew it would not happen in his lifetime but the vision, the goal, remained unchanged. Seeing potential does not imply blindness to reality. Seeing the end of the road in the distance does not imply ignorance of the roadblocks along the way. The vision of a better world is vital to achieving a better world. No one, including President Obama, believes the goal is easy to reach. Thankfully, we now have a president who is both a visionary and a pragmatist. Yes, Newt, it is possible to be both. To honestly believe Obama is conducting a fantasy foreign policy is, at best, naive and grossly misinformed of the facts.

Rant for the day....

I am so F'ing sick of this anal retentive judgmental society. I am so F'ing sick of the holier-than-thou set who seem to think judging others is better than sex. I am so F'ing sick of people so anxious to find fault that they've conveniently forgotten about any missteps they may have made in their own lives.

Yes I'm mad... and I'm venting... in my own inimitable Italian way. I usually try to stay balanced here, but sometimes I've just gotta blow off some steam! 8) I'm fully aware that there is a large spectrum of opinion and I try hard not to pigeon-hole people. The outcomes are indisputable, however, and certainly speak to at least a significant percentage of our society who will think I'm insane or a heathen or both. Two things happened today that I believe shouldn't have.... and they happened because of a society too quick to judge.

Sen. Tom Daschle removed himself as a nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Over an income tax error?!?!? Everyone involved agrees he's infinitely qualified to do the job. Everyone involved agrees he has a stellar career in public service. To lose this man's extraordinary service and expertise in this way is a tragedy for the entire nation. This is not about a double standard. How many are 100% confident that they've never made an error on a tax return? How many could withstand the scrutiny of perfection our public servants are expected to endure? This whole thing is just silly -- and those making a big deal of this are the silliest. I'm not saying it is not a significant mistake, and neither is he. I'm saying it is trivial in the larger vision of America's strategic needs. Ask what is really in the best interests of the country... A) to hold our public officials to an impossibly high standard of perfection? or B) to leverage the best and brightest our nation has to offer toward a better tomorrow?

The second, though obviously not as significant, is just as irksome to me. A sheriff in South Carolina has announced that he will file charges against Michael Phelps if he can determine Phelps smoked pot while in his jurisdiction. This is not about celebrity, not about privilege and not about special treatment. This is about the further silliness that is criminalized marijuana possession and proves our two-faced society not only hypocritical but often stupid. Can pot be abused? Of course. Can pot be harmful? Of course. Can pot ruin someone's life? Absolutely. All this is also true for alcohol - a legal drug. To compare pot to alcohol is valid - comparing pot as a peer to heroin or cocaine is not. How much smarter would we be to legalize it and educate our youth as we do with alcohol and tobacco? Cigarettes were once 'chic' and accepted everywhere. Drunk driving used to be commonplace. Only through strong education programs were these turned into the social taboos they are today. How much smarter would we be to tax marijuana as we do with alcohol and tobacco? Keeping marijuana in the closet only perpetuates ignorance, perpetuates the culture of crime marijuana is forced into, encourages disrespect for the law when the law is so silly, and costs desperately needed revenue to enforce such silliness as well as in lost taxes. Think of all the jobs that would be created by a legal marijuana industry! 8)

The common thread here is the rush to judgment toward a punishment wholly inappropriate for the 'crime'. To throw Daschle out over this is our loss. To prosecute Phelps over this is morally wrong even if, unfortunately, legally right.

Perfection has become the enemy of excellence. It is very sad indeed.

Post-Partisanship?

Please! Get Real!

President Obama is, after all, a mere mortal. The new bailout bill is being touted by the media as some kind of litmus test to see if we've really entered the 'post-partisan' era. There's nothing that any one person can or should do to create instant consensus -- even the president. We are a nation of diverse opinions and that diversity will always be with us. 'Post-partisan' does NOT mean the two parties will come together and sing Kum ba yah.

So what, then, does 'post-partisan' really mean? I believe it is about attitude more than outcome. It means that the party in power actually listens to the opposition. It means they look for common ground where they can find it and accept all opinions as valid - agree or not. It means an end to the disgusting divisiveness that exerts power for its own sake with total disregard for alternative points of view.

The neo-con movement in Washington has been pandering for ever-increasing power and wielding it like a sword to destroy even the thought of respectful bipartisanship for decades. Democrats now hold virtually ALL the power. Democrats could easily dismiss the Republican opposition just as Democrats were so long dismissed. Instead, President Obama is reaching out, he is asking for input, he is open to all ideas toward conquering the daunting mess he inherited and achieving his worthy goals. THAT is 'post-partisan' politics. It has already happened and requires no litmus test.

Elections have consequences. The Democrats won. In the end, those in power will generally get what they want. That is a simple fact of life - not partisanship. When the likes of Republican leader Boehner cherry-pick inflammatory details and play the game the old way, by their old rules, they have already lost. The American public is sick of it. It's not about what he's saying as much as the provocative way he's saying it. Republicans better get smart and realize that they are being treated far better than they've treated Democrats and try - try hard - to remember how to be respectful; how to disagree without being disagreeable; how to work together toward something instead of actively working against everything. Every vengeful bone in my body wants to crush all remaining shreds of Republican power into submission -- wants to dismiss them as they so often dismissed us. President Obama is better than that. Republicans would be wise to recognize that fact and act accordingly.

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

At the risk of staining my joy in the moment, these words keep echoing through my mind and I needed to get them out. They were spoken by President Gerald Ford upon taking the oath of office in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation. It is indeed my sincere belief that the Bush 43 administration has been another national nightmare. This is not meant to inflame or be cynical... it is just my very honest personal assessment. I hope to make that my last look backward as we all now look to the future.

President Obama [God it feels wonderful to type that!] rose to this unique moment as only he could. Joy for the day with respect for our better past while clearly repudiating our recent past. Most of all -- hope for and commitment to a future more true to our American ideals. All this and more wrapped up in an inauguration address now passed to history. A perfect beginning to what I honestly believe is the dawn of a new age. I look forward to a renewed sense of what it means to be a truly patriotic American. I look forward to regaining our status as a beacon of light for the entire world.... not for the light itself, but because of the good that light can do for all humanity.

God Bless the United States of America.
God Bless President Barack Hussein Obama.

Personal thoughts - Obama Inauguration

I'm choked up already after watching the inaugural kick-off concert last night. The peaceful transition of power in this country represents the best of our great republic to the world. Every presidential inauguration presents some measure of hope. For me, and I think many others, this one is truly different.

Barack Obama is, for me, THE candidate I've been waiting for my entire political life. The color of his skin is a wonderfully just and history-making bonus but is otherwise irrelevant to me personally. I believe this country has been on a very wrong track for a very long time. Even during the Clinton administration, Newt Gingrich and the neo-con movement of the day completely paralyzed our federal government with partisan divisiveness. Perhaps Clinton could have done more to heal that divide but the end result was still a mostly ineffective stalemate. Democrat or Republican -- I have been largely disappointed by the entire culture of our federal government since before I could vote. A lot of good people have served and I have no doubt they generally wanted what was best for the country. Certainly accomplishments have been made, but the final result will forever be judged as far short.

Barack Obama is the first candidate I've seen who, from the beginning, provided a real promise of real change. There is a difference between disagreement and divisiveness. There is a difference between political positioning and political pandering. There is a difference between standing up for what you believe in and refusing to acknowledge validity in the beliefs of others. There is a difference between running from something feared and running toward a hope for something better. As a nation, we seem to have forgotten - or maybe we're just now learning - how to come together and compromise toward the greater good. I see those differences in Barack Obama and he is the perfect person to lead the America of today toward the America of tomorrow.

I admit to being a part of the great divide. I have been so thoroughly disgusted with the actions and attitudes of the so-called conservative movement that I have found it increasingly difficult to respect it on any level. I believe that George W.'s only lasting positive legacy will be that he hastened the demise of closed-minded wedge politics and prepared the way for Barack Obama to be elected by emphasizing politic's most abhorrent aspects. Without the demagoguery he and his administration forced upon us I don't know that this country would have been ready for a President Obama. I am inspired by Barack Obama to back off. I will follow his lead. I won't always see the result I want, but I'm content to know that slowly moving the bar in the right direction is far better than not moving the bar at all.

Barack Obama speaks of bridging gaps. I am not naive. In fact, I am more accurately labeled a political cynic. Those of us who came of age during the Watergate era earned our cynicism quite honestly. This cynic, however, grew up in the 60's. I was too young to actively participate but old enough to understand the idealism. The assassinations of truly great leaders were burned into my psyche. The Civil Rights movement and Vietnam war were happening real time on the TV in my living room. It was all so senseless on its face and I carry a lot of that with me. The human race had to be capable of better than this. Music has always spoken to my soul. The 'peace and love' that defined much of the 60's most iconic music helped to form the idealism; helped to counter the craziness of the times. Barack Obama has the vision, values and talent to at least nudge the world toward realizing the lyrics of those songs. The world will always be made up of flawed human beings, but we all have the capacity to change and grow. I hold no delusions and am truly void of specific expectations. I am just filled with hope. Hope for a better tomorrow. Hope for our great nation like I've never felt in my lifetime.

You can bet that this particular patriot will be in tears much of inauguration day. I'm unapologetic about it. I'm going to enjoy it.

God Bless America. God Bless Barack Obama.

The Rick Warren selection

The media and many pundits on the left are going on and on about how inappropriate Rick Warren is to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration. They are outraged at the symbolism of someone so opposed to many of Obama's positions being placed front and center at this extraordinary moment in history.

Once again..... Bravo President-elect! I support Obama's position completely and find myself in increasing awe. I am angry at the 'lefties' who want to continue the politics of division we have so long suffered, who want to now wield the power so hard won in a way that dismisses and discounts the opposition - in a way that treats them the way they've treated us.

With Pastor Warren, Obama is signaling that he will be a president for ALL the citizens of this country. He is signaling that he wants to listen to all the people - not just those who agree with him. He is being extraordinarily magnanimous- much more than I would be with a similar choice to make. Inviting conservatives to the table does not mean they're going to plan the menu.

This is entirely consistent with Obama's overarching theme of inclusiveness. This, above all, is the reason I am such a fervent supporter. I am more than pleased to see him act in concert with these values. Liberal, moderate or conservative - we are all US citizens and our new president is clearly going to respect that.

Amen!

What does change mean?

Obama continued his streak of winning words, from my perspective, when he answered a reporter's question about change. The media has been all over Obama's cabinet selections. They keep asking how he can call it change when he is appointing so many familiar faces to his cabinet. They suggest he may alienate his supporters. When a reporter directly asked about this he demonstrated a perfect wisdom with his reply. He explained that we need experienced people but that the 'new vision is my job.' Bravo, President-Elect! The 'change we can believe in' does not happen by exchanging experience for inexperience just to be different. Change happens when a new vision is set and well-communicated to those charged with implementing that vision. Change happens when decisions are made by surrounding yourself with the best of the best and valuing their expertise.

I've tried to temper my expectations of an Obama administration. The road back from Bush's bungling is long and steep. Obama, however, continues to meet or exceed my best possible expectations every time he speaks. He consistently demonstrates the wisdom and judgment required to do this job well. Clearly Obama has a mandate for change. His definition of what that means and how to accomplish it does not disappoint this voter at all... it thrills me!

What's good for GM.....

Is good for the country... right? That's how the saying goes anyway. I've heard lots of historical analyses around how and why the auto industry is on the brink of bankruptcy. Here is one consumer's point of view.

I am disgusted with the industry at large. They certainly do not deserve a bail out. They are in this situation by their own fault. It is compassion for the workers and the simple fact that the auto industry is a huge segment of our economy that I will swallow hard and accept the inevitable.

My opinion is based on my own experience. My wife and I bought a brand new Chevy in 1980. I really liked the car at first but with extremely poor design, engineering and quality control the thing turned out to be an absolute lemon. When we finally traded it in, there were 111 recalls issued for it. Badly burned... it was many years before I could even consider another American car. We finally bought an early Saturn and liked it enough to recently consider another only to find that everything we liked about Saturn was ripped apart in a huge step backward by GM. We bought a Honda.

I travel quite a bit on business so I drive a wide variety of rental cars - some American some not. I am quite disappointed to report that I simply do not like American cars. The attention to detail is always lacking. The suspension is either too mushy or too stiff. I don't find the interior controls and dash layouts at all intuitive. The seats are less comfortable. The overall look and feel of the American cars are just not appealing to me and they are much less fun and relaxing to drive. Much of this is my own individual taste and I've always assumed that American automakers were designing for others, that I was simply not part of their target market. Apparently, their only successful target market is the gas guzzling one now disappearing. Apparently, I'm not the only one who doesn't particularly like the American automakers' product line. If these companies have ever actually asked real customers what they really want, they weren't listening very well. If these companies have ever thought strategically, they have not acted on it well. I don't doubt they have tried to do market research and strategic planning -- the point here is that they've failed miserably.

While I applaud the automakers for profiting from the SUV/Truck (i.e. gas guzzler) boom, it is unforgivable that they did not use those profits wisely and strategically to plan for the future..... the future that many foreign automakers had the foresight to see a decade or two ago. They'll whine about labor costs and unfair trade practices. Certainly some of these issues are real but they are not show stoppers. I imagine unions would be very open to all kinds of cuts when the alternative is wholesale job loss. The American buyer has shown over and over again that they're willing to pay a premium to get what they want, to get a better value through higher quality and/or more features. I see a sizable number of BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus, and on and on. If the big three would have built the better product, they could have charged more for it and it would have most certainly sold.

I know the auto industry will ultimately be rescued somehow.... but even this rather liberal and forgiving taxpayer will be mad as hell if one dime of taxpayer money ends up in the hands of the short-sighted, incompetent management responsible for this mess. Further, if taxpayers are footing the bill then the government ought to mandate intelligent forward-thinking design, as well as, innovation toward 'green' transportation.

By the way, in case anyone's wondering... I currently drive a '99 Volkswagen and love it.

California's Proposition 8

I grew up in a house where I was often judged more by the alcohol intake level of my father than by the merits of my actions. Growing up in the 60s, I remember even more of the racism that often still exists just below the surface... never blatant, sometimes wholly unconscious, but omnipresent. Traits I learned and inherited from my maternal extended family - representing for me what family and love were all about - very Italian and very LOUD, were often judged as obnoxious and overbearing. I've regularly seen some self-proclaimed Christians distort what I read as the message of Jesus to the point where I don't think Jesus himself would recognize it. Growing up is always a process of discovery and decision-making. These early experiences started me toward a belief I hold very strongly today. All human judgment is incomplete and, therefore, flawed. We are all a product of our own histories, our own frames of reference. Our knowledge and understanding are limited. Our societal norms are nothing more than a collection of prejudices shaped by our collective histories. I'm not proposing anarchy. I'm not suggesting that our societal norms are wholly invalid. I'm not even suggesting that our judgments are necessarily incorrect. I'm simply suggesting that, as individuals, we all have a responsibility to know that our wisdom is incomplete and imperfect. We all have a responsibility to accept the history of others as true and valid. We all have a responsibility to seek to understand rather than to condemn.

It is in this context that I express profound disappointment with the passage of California Proposition 8 banning gay marriage. To me this represents a collective condemnation and attempted invalidation of every homosexual American's experience. Whether I agree with or support gay marriage is irrelevant. What I believe with all my heart and soul is that everyone has the right to their own conclusions, to their own passions. Not I, or anyone else, can fully know another's history, can fully understand the path any individual life may take. I have no right or true knowledge to tell anyone their love is not valid... and neither does the voting population of California. Certainly that voting population has the right to pass laws - and has. That fact does nothing to change the individual experience of those affected.

President Obama

I'm still stunned. The media is well-articulating this historic shift in American politics represented by President-elect Obama's victory. Wow... that feels good to write. It has been a very long two years for this political junkie and I've never been more filled with hope for our country. My expectations, however, are easily kept in check. I'm old enough to have lost some of my idealism, but not my ideals. Agree or not - Obama's vision, values and priorities are nearly identical to my own and, for me, this is more than enough. Not since FDR has an incoming president faced such a daunting in-box as they enter the oval office. Succeed or fail, I know beyond doubt that President Obama will be working hard to move the bar in what I believe is the right direction! I hold out hope for a wildly successful administration but will be thrilled if President Obama only succeeds in reversing the disastrous direction of these last 8 years. Even that is a very tall order.

A fellow Catholic - Joe Biden

I am a practicing Catholic -- a practice increasingly difficult for me. This pre-election Sunday we were given the predictable, thinly-veiled mandate to vote 'pro-life'. Of course no one says it outright but the message is clear - vote Republican. I have argued before at some length that voting pro-choice is not the same as voting pro-abortion. My views actually parallel our new Catholic Vice President-elect, Joe Biden, who articulates his position well.
Here's a quote from his web site:

I remember vividly the first time, in 1973, I had to go to the floor to vote on abortion. A fellow Senator asked how I would vote. "My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think I have a right to impose my view on the rest of society. I've thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn't please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court's decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman's right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion."

I've stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years. I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I'd like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.

This is America -- not an extension of the Vatican. To force papal opinion, or any religious belief, via legislation is nothing less than anti-American. I am quite pleased to see that a majority of voting American Catholics, 54%, voted for Obama. I'm sure this was a very difficult decision for Biden to make... as it has been for me and, I'm sure, the rest of that 54%. For anyone to dismiss our own struggle with the issue, to dismiss our long and hard consideration toward this decision made in good faith and good conscience is to dismiss the love of God. It dismisses the Sprit in all of us. I do not accept their judgment.

I came to the Church at the height of the post-Vatican II era. The Catholic church, then, valued a God of love and acceptance over one of judgment and damnation. It was a perfect fit for me at the time but now increasingly sacrifices compassion and broader social justice issues to a blind dogmatism. The fact that so many Catholics voted for Obama gives me a newfound hope for my church. The Catholic church, however, is not a democracy and I fear the respite will be brief. I'm sure if my own bishop were to read this I would be threatened with denial of Holy Communion... just has Biden has been... just as Kansas Governor Sibelius (who holds similar views) has been. I'm fine with that. My bishop may not understand, but I have no doubt that my God does. Opposing the criminalization of abortion simply does not imply that any of us are pro-Abortion. It is a ludricous assertion.

Resources are much better and more effectively spent toward changing hearts and minds instead of laws.