When the Shoe is on the other Foot: Reconciliation

There's a lot of talk out there that congressional democrats in the Senate want to use the process known as "reconciliation" to ram the White House's new health care bill through because they lack the 60 votes necessary to end the debate and filibuster. Reconciliation, created in 1974, was originally meant to be a legislative measure aimed at passing proposed presidential budgets through congress without a threat of a filibuster, and it only requires 51 votes instead of 60 to avoid a filibuster and end debate.

Anyway, I came across this video on Breitbart.tv that shows how democratic senators reacted when a republican majority threatened to use reconciliation in 2005, or "the nuclear option," to end a democratic filibuster. It's interesting to see the 180 degree about-face when the shoe is on the democratic foot only 5 years later. I thought Joe Biden's quote from the video was interesting: "I pray God when the democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."



Bottom line: I don't like reconciliation. I don't like it whether it be republicans or democrats who threaten to use it. The filibuster is one of the greatest checks to unbridled tyranny of the majority that this country has, no matter what party controls. What do you guys think?

Thoughts On TARP, or the 'Bailouts'

I am trying to form my opinion on the bailouts that cost the tax payers, so far, over a trillion dollars. When Geithner, Poulson (I'm a huge fan of his), Bush, Bernanke, and all the other people decided to let Lehman fail, the world almost came to an end. If memory serves, AIG would have been the next to go since they now had to pay out on all of the Lehman bonds they insured. Before Lehman declared bankruptcy we helped out, or nationalized, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie. Apparently the government didn't think Lehman was interconnected enough, or the moral hazard was too high. Either way, after Lehman they changed their mind and paid out billions to companies that did, and some that did not, want the money.

I think the problems were with us and the banks. Some people say it's the banks fault for letting us get loans on homes double what they're worth, so they should have to repay the mortgage. I know this will be a sensitive subject to some, but how could either side see it coming? For the same reason that everyone and their dog wanted to buy a house, because it was gonna make everyone tons of money when they flipped it, the banks didn't anticipate homes losing as much money as they did. Likewise, it is our fault for thinking we could pay a mortgage with payments which increase over time, because we thought we'd be making more money or it would work itself out. People with sub-600 credit scores were getting loans, and though it was still that individual's decision to make the purchase, the banks and loan officers were getting too greedy. Plenty of blame can be thrown either way, but I don't think anyone can argue that it was just our fault, or just the bank's fault. Is it only fair that we now help the banks?

2 questions:

1. Should we have bailed out these companies? There is no question in my mind that the bailouts helped us today. I think our financial markets would have been absolutely destroyed today if it hadn't happened. My biggest reason for asking: did we just delay the inevitable and make our day of reckoning worse?

2. GM has a horrible corporate structure, and few companies can be profitable with pensions like the ones they offer. Especially in these markets. Unions need to be done with...forever. Do you think GM or Chrysler deserved the bailout?

Like I said, I'm just trying to educate myself with everyone else's point of view and knowledge. Throw all the facts and links at me that you can.

Has Biden Totally Lost It?

I was just wondering if anybody heard about Joe Biden's recent interview where he took credit for the success in Iraq as "one of this administration's greatest achievements"?

Now I've been one of this current administration's harshest critics from the outset (even during the campaign), so it goes without saying that I think he's just totally full of it (even more than usual--if that's even possible, lol), but I'm curious to hear everyone else's reaction to it. Is there even any credibility left to lose at this point, or is that why Biden thought he could get away with such an audaciously idiotic statement (given his ardent OPPOSITION to the surge and everything Bush did in Iraq literally the entire freaking time!!)...since people don't even take them seriously anymore, anyway?

I guess there's two questions here: 1) is there any credibility left to lose for Obama, and 2) if so, then to what extent does that outright, two-faced (I mean they blame all the bad stuff on Bush, yet somehow they get to take credit for his greatest success...really?) lie hinder it. I mean it is Joe Biden, after all...

President's Day

Tomorrow we celebrate Presidents' Day. We have lots to be grateful for by way of this country's chief executives. As I mentioned before, I am appreciating Bill Clinton more and more, so when he went to the hospital last week with a heart problem, it was a concern, especially given the many good things he has done in his post-presidency (some in tandem with George H.W. Bush).

The genius of America, though is not that we have been graced by wonderful statesmen as chief executives. Rather, it is that we have been graced with a system that empowers true leaders, restrains would-be tyrants, and reveals incompetents.

Sarah Palin's Hand

I did not watch the tea party conference or Sarah Palin's keynote speech. However, I have seen lots of news shows, slanting both right and left, that cannot stop talking about the notes that Palin had on her hand at the conference. The quantity and quality of both the right and left news coverage about this seemingly minor issue is baffling. Can't these guys think of something more news-worthy than this? The media obsession with this lady, on both sides, is getting out of control.

I do not wish to defend Palin here, or make excuses for her. However, I do wish to call out the many lefties in the news and on TV who have skewered her for this small, hand-written outline. I think it is disingenuous and hypocritical for attacking Sarah Palin about the handwritten reminders on her hand when Pres. Obama can't even address a bunch of sixth graders without using his beloved teleprompter. Although Obama's heavy reliance on the teleprompter is understandable. When he doesn't have it and when he's just talking off the cuff, he's either talking about putting infants on breathalyzers, making fun of handicapped people, or digging holes for himself by telling the Cambridge Police Dept. how stupid they are.

Look, President Bush was certainly not blessed with the ability to even speak coherently at times (my personal favorite was the botched "fool me once" line - classic). President Obama is a very talented orator. Sarah Palin is not, nor is she as up to par substantively as she needs to be. She knows this, and recognizes it as a weakness. But my question is this: is it worse to jot down a few reminders on your palm to help you remember what you'd like to say, or to have every single word laid out for you on the teleprompter. Many lefties in the news referred to Palin's palm notes as "cheating." If palm notes are "cheating," then what is the teleprompter?

From where do you come?

This is not a political post, so I hope nobody finds it inappropriate. Nic just found out that Creighton lives in his neck of the woods, and it caused me to wonder about everyones' background. I'm curious what life experience and education everyone is bringing to the table, and the states in which you live.

As for me:

I am attending Arizona State University (Phoenix, AZ), have a Bachelor's in Business Management, and will receive my second Bachelor's in Biological Sciences next year while I wait to hear back from medical schools. My work experience consists of sales and management of sales teams.

No children, but a wife of just over two years. She is in the last year of her Physician's Assistant program at Midwestern University.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I have to admit my bias before I even begin this post. I believe homosexuals are severely mistreated in our country today, and I don't find them to be evil. The homosexuals I know are good, honest, loving people. I also do not believe homosexuality is a choice, or a consequence of upbringing. I believe it is either genetic, or due to some kind of chemical imbalance during development in the womb.

From what I understand, the don't ask don't tell policy allows homosexuals to serve in the military only if they do not disclose they are homosexual. One such homosexual who wanted to serve his country said earlier today, "why am I refused the opportunity to serve and defend my country because of who I am?" I agree. I understand that some homosexuals may be mistreated if they join the military, but I believe the military could implement new rules as to the treatment of fellow gay soldiers. I do not think sexual orientation should stop someone from being allowed to serve in our country's military. What do you guys think?

State of the Union

I'm just curious to hear everyone's reaction to the President's speech. I know there are political junkies out there who watched it or at least read the transcript, so let's hear what you think ...

The Political Pendulum, in MA?

To everyone's surprise, the special election tomorrow in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate is actually competitive. You don't get more "blue" than MA, and there hasn't been a republican Senator from there in over 30 years. Moreover, Ted Kenedy's seat has been controlled by that family since 1953. In the election, you have Martha Coakley as the dem nominee, who is the current Attorney General. On the R side, you have Scott Brown, a col. in the MA National Guard and a virtually unknown state legislator.

The stakes are high. Scott Brown would be the 41st republican senator, which means that they could filibuster the health care legislation, already "hanging by a thread" according to Chris Dodd. Pres. Obama went to MA yesterday to stump for Coakley, just like he did for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, who both lost the election for VA and NJ governor, respectively. Will it help? It's not looking good for Coakley. The poll today has Brown over Coakley 51 - 46.

So if Coakley loses tomorrow, taken in context with NJ and VA electing republican governors, powerful D senators like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan "retiring," and 10 more dems in the House "retiring," does this mean that the democratic party is on its way out? Last May, Creighton asked the same question about the Republicans. It's amazing how quick the tables can turn in politics. I'll answer my own question the same way I answered Creighton's. No. It's just the political pendulum, and I wouldn't read much more into it than that. To Creighton's credit, he didn't know last May that the health care debate would have gone the way it did, that the economy would still be in the tank, and that Obama's first year popularity would drop off quicker than any previous president in U.S. history.

Back to the MA Senate race. Why is Brown leading in the polls, despite all the odds? Has Coakley coasted, bungled the campaign, and taken victory for granted? Perhaps there's something to that. The mainstream press will give that answer, wanting to distance Obama and his policies from another defeat at the polls. I'd give Brown some credit though. He's struck a chord with the people of MA, who already have universal health care. "We're going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we're going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana…boy, that's a real bargain." I also loved his response to CNN's David Gergen when he condescedingly asked Brown if he was willing "to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and block the passage of health care for another 15 years?" Brown immediately shot back: "With all due respect, it isn't Ted Kennedy's seat, and it isn't the democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."

So what do you guys think? Would a Scott Brown victory be a referendum on health care? On one-party rule? On Obama's policies? Or would you chalk it up to Coakley's bungling of the campaign?

The Story of Taylor Pugh and His Beautiful Breck Hair

I know this one isn't as politically charged as most posts on here are, but this has bothered me since I heard about it a day or two ago. I figured there would be some pretty good opinions on here.

I'm sure by now we've all heard of little Taylor and formed our opinons in one direction or another. Let me first make my side very clear: Rules are put forth for a reason. Even if you don't like them we must still obey them. In this case, Taylor is enrolled at a public school in Balch Springs, TX. (East of Dallas) Public schools are very clear about their code of conduct and dress codes. In fact, they send home a copy of the student handbook at the beginning of every year with each child. There's also all the required paperwork for the new year. Most of which is duplicate info from the year before. In our school district, I have to sign several forms stating that my children and I agree with and will obey said conduct and dress codes. The same can be said for other districts we've been in in years past. It's all pretty much the same.

Before I go any further with this, I have an anecdote that I think is very relevant to this issue. When we first relocated here in 2007, I was thrilled when I finished gathering all the school supplies and spent as little as I did. Then I saw, way down at the very bottom of my list in teeny tiny print, KISD is a standardized dress district. Uniforms. I had no idea that I needed uniforms. Khaki/navy/white polos or oxfords with khaki or navy pants/shorts/skirts/capris, tennis shoes and belts for grades 3-5. Ok, no big deal. All the major stores carry these specific items, so I got 5 sets of uniforms for each of the 2 school-age kids I had in school at that time. (Now it's 3 kids. Pants are the hardest to recycle from kid to kid, but the uniforms really do make mornings go pretty smoothly as far as dressing goes. BUT, I'm stuck buying 2 sets of clothes: Uniforms and regular street clothes for when they aren't at school. That gets pretty costly.)

Last Friday the temperature didn't get above about 28 degrees. For us here in Texas, that's arctic. I bundled the girls and even put them in thick, fuzzy, hot pink socks. They wouldn't be outside that day, but I can't stand the thought of them not being prepared in case they have to go out. Apparently my oldest daughter's teacher did a sock inspection. She made all the kids in Lilly's class take their shoes off and then checked their socks. At first I didn't think much of it. Maybe Mrs. Dockery was just being thoughtful by making sure everyone was prepared for the weather. Then Lilly told me that Mrs. Dockery said she couldn't wear those socks anymore. SAY WHAT?! I always hit the dollar bins when I'm at Target and get the girls those fun sock. (Hello Kitty, Disney princesses, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.) I figure they're stuck in those boring uniforms, so I might as well do what I can to brighten things up a little. They wear these socks all the time. When they're in skirts or pants, it doesn't matter. I've never had anyone in 2 years say anything about their freaking socks. There are other kids that do the same. Naturally I can't find my student handbook the one time I need it, so I called the school Monday. Sure enough they're only allowed to wear solid white, tan or navy socks. The lady in the office had to look it up because even she didn't know what the policy is on that. Then she admitted that it's asinine, especially if the kids are in pants, which they are because it's winter. SOCKS!

Well, now I know the rule, and my kids are stuck in plain white socks from now on. It's pretty simple. I'm not so much a conformist as I am a choose-your-battles kind of girl. Socks are pretty insignificant in this case.

Back to poor Taylor. First of all, Taylor's parent(s), Delton and Elizabeth Pugh, filled out the paperwork like mine. They agreed to all the guidelines set by the school board. Second, Taylor's in Pre-K. It's not mandated, so, in my opinion, he's really more like a guest at school. Yes, the school is still liable for him. Yes, they still have to take care of him. But that doesn't mean he's exempt from following the rules. He's 4, so it's not Taylor making the decision to keep his hair long. Elizabeth claims "he likes it like that" and "he'll cry if [they] cut it." Delton says, "I don't see why I should be required to hold my child down against his will and cut his hair." If that's the case, maybe I should reconsider the next time my 5 year old wants to go out in the backyard to hunt for rollie polies while in the buff. I mean, it always makes her cry when I tell her she has to keep her clothes on. Besides, she really wants to do it.*

Taylor has been in ISS (in school suspension) since November because of his hair. He sits alone in the library with a teacher's aide all day. His parents have flat out refused to cut his hair, and he's aware that he's in trouble because of it. He even says that he misses his friends.

I blame the school (Floyd ES) almost as much as I blame Delton and Elizabeth. Floyd has the right to enforce the rules that the Pugh's agreed to. However, keeping him in ISS for 2 months is ridiculous. (Perhaps the Pughs should consider taking him out of school if they don't want to cut his hair.) Elizabeth even goes on to say she'll continue to fight it.

What kind of message is that sending to Taylor? He's entitled? The rules don't apply to him? Isn't that what's wrong with a lot of today's society? The only thing Taylor is entitled to in this case is an education. By not cutting his hair, his parents are doing him a great disservice by infringing on it. I'm sure the aide is doing a great job with him, but where are the social skills he should be learning by participating in the environment in which he's intended? I understand that social skills can be learned without being in school, but that's part of the curriculum. All 3 of my kids went through Pre-K, and it was a wonderful experience for each of them. I feel badly for Taylor because his experience should've been the opposite of what it is now.

The Pughs were offered a compromise. Cut Taylor's hair above the ears and collar or keep it in a braid. They refused even that stating that a braid will make his scalp bleed. Instead, they put it in a neat ponytail. OK, I'll give them that one....kinda. Floyd made it pretty clear, but they still wouldn't do what was asked.

This will get me jumped from all angles, but I'm really not trying to be judgemental. And I'm saying it anyway. You can look at Delton and Elizabeth and see that they either haven't grown up or haven't conformed to societal norms themselves. So I guess it stands to reason that they wouldn't see the harm in keeping his hair long. There IS no harm in keeping his hair long except for the fact that they agreed to follow the dress code. If that's their excuse then maybe this should be mine: "I'm really not a fan of uniforms, so maybe I'll start sending my kids in their regular clothes. I understand the district's reasoning behind that decision, but I don't agree with it." Really, I won't challenge it because that's just stupid and a waste of time because I already agreed to it. (And I've already spent all that money on uniforms!)

I understand that we're allowed certain things based on religious and/or cultural beliefs. (I'm sure they'll use this as a cultural issue since they have until 18JAN to cut Taylor's hair or conform to the compromise the school district offered. That's just my prediction, so don't get bent out of shape.) The army has very strict regulations regarding this very thing, but some soldiers are allotted various allowances for things based on the same criteria. But we rarely hear about it. You're given a set of rules/standards, and you're expected to abide by it.

I know Taylor's too young to understand or be affected by any of this now. If this is the precedent the Pugh's are setting now, what will it be like in 8 or 10 years? What will the excuse be when he can't play football because he's failing? Or when he gets into a fight at school? Maybe he didn't throw the first punch, but he should still suffer the consequences already in place for such a violation.

It's not just the Pugh's, I know. Their time will fade and someone else will take over. It just seems like this is setting the stage for other things to become the norm. It's very unsettling.

* I'm aware that hair and going outside without clothes each have their own set of consequences. The idea is that you can't let a kid do whatever they want. They also need to understand why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCVbuNg1s2M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7kYoE9rXA