The Daily Hurricane

Trading Places

2013-03-05T15:26:46Z

I have cross-posted today:

http://www.untilmysoncomeshome.com/2013/03/trading-places.html

Rachel Maddow on Shell's Noble Discoverer Safety Violations

2013-02-23T21:45:47Z

http://this-small-planet.com/2013/851/

Former US Army General Speaks Out for Reasonable Gun Regulation

2013-01-09T03:02:00Z

Today on Morning Joe, former US Army general Stanley McChrystal spoke out about the need for reasonable gun regulation. Have a look:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Well said.

Finding Meaning in the Madness

2012-12-20T00:42:03Z

Our collective response to the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy has been predictable. Americans' collective response to tragedy is both a testament to the better angels of our nature and a large part of the problem. These kinds of events strike at the very core of our soul and hit a chord so deep into what frightens us individually as people and collectively as a nation. So, before we begin any sort of debate we must come to grips with that fear.

In short, we are not in control. I'm not exactly sure who or what is in control if anyone or anything truly is. A large part of our problem as a human race is that we have a desperate need to have someone or something be in control. So, natural disasters become preordained by a supreme being or are somehow caused by our own fallibility. This kind of grasping at straws is an end around to our own control. If we somehow control our own fallibility then we have control over what happens to us.

This one inescapable fact paralyzes us in moments like this. On one side of the fence you have people like my wife who oppose gun control not because they are necessarily opposed to gun control, but because they don't see the point. We can't prevent madness. On the other side we have those that see too much into any one measure. To be sure, fighting our violent culture is going to come down to more than just banning assault weapons. It will be a two front war (or even three) including a step up in what we are doing in terms of mental health and maybe a prolonged look at our culture itself.

This is where perspective has to be the order of the day. On the one hand, we have to acknowledge the fact that no amount of legislation, enforcement, and effort from all of us will eliminate evil in this world. Those that believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, and Krishna must acknowledge that their god either cannot or will not prevent all evil. We were given free will and unfortunately some among the herd will find any way they can to carry out their evil.

What we cannot do is give up. We must carry on and try to limit the tools at their disposal. We must carry on and try to reach them before they disintegrate to the point where they are considering violence as their solution. We must carry on so that our collective American culture becomes less prone to violence and less prone to glorifying violence. We can start by limiting our coverage of this young man to the lessons we might learn in the future and provide no additional coverage so future would be monsters don't come away thinking they can get a quick fifteen minutes.

We must also resist the temptation to demagogue anyone at this point. Gun owners are not to blame for this. 99 percent of them are responsible citizens and the vast majority are in favor of common sense controls. We cannot blame Republicans or the NRA. As opposed as the GOP or those that are in the NRA's corner may have opposed these controls, opposing controls is not the same as condoning acts like this. These events unite us all if nothing else than reminding all of us of how precious and precarious life can be.

Sure, my initial response was one of anger. I listened as our own Texas delegation said we should arm teachers. As a former and hopefully future teacher, I can't think of anything worse. I derided our governor and that certain representative as idiots and they may very well be, but they are also trying to come up with a solution in their own way. I listened as a southern representative tried to tell television viewers that a rifle with a 30 round clip was not an assault rifle. Again, it initially made me angry, but I had to keep in mind that he doesn't want tragedies like this anymore than we do.

The bottom line is that we each can only do the best we can to prevent senseless tragedies like this from ever happening again. Success is elusive in matters like this. Those that would point to heartless statistics could point to improvement, but improvement isn't enough in matters like this. It would be like reading "No presidential assassinations in 49 years" at DFW Airport. It will always ring a little hollow. We cannot let this knowledge paralyze us from trying. Future generations demand that we try.

An Open Letter to Advocates of Unfettered Gun Ownership

2012-12-18T05:47:05Z

An open letter to Facebook user 2nd Amendment, and other gun advocates on Facebook and other social media who advocate unfettered gun ownership:

I appreciate the way some of you have respected the tragedy that has been visited by us by senseless gun violence after taking down your inflammatory posts such as the one about how teachers who can't handle a weapon shouldn't be trusted with our children. Honestly, that post and similar ones are some of most callous, ignorant posts I've ever seen in the face of such a national tragedy. You were wise to take those down, if only out of common decency. Before you accuse me of being some looney lefty, as many gun anarchists like to do, let me tell you that I hold a CHL in Texas and own a number of handguns, long guns, and shotguns. In my career, I've looked down the business end of high powered weapons, so I know of which I speak. I'm an advocate of responsible and trained gun ownership.

However, it's time to change the conversation. After countless tragedies, with Newtown as the latest, I can confidently say that you have lost the argument for unfettered and uncontrolled weapon ownership for all who can pony up the bucks. We, as everyday Americans, are finally ready to take our country back from gun nuts who are not happy unless they can selfishly amass huge arsenals of high powered, combat style weapons with high capacity magazines that have capability of killing dozens of people in seconds. We certainly need to address mental health issues, and the popular culture of violence; however, it's time for gun owners like you and me to take the lead in reforming our gun laws.

Perverted readings of the BIll of RIghts are now finished. 18th century language designed to protect a new country against a former tyrant's dominance can no longer be twisted into some weird interpretation of that language that somehow allows you to own a semi-automatic weapon capable of mass murder. It's time for us, as adults, to face the reality that your right to own a bazooka or high capacity weapon ends at the right of a 6 year old child in Connecticut to safely go to school and be in her Christmas play.

I encourage each of you to join the conversation between good Americans to achieve a positive result for us as a society. I'm asking you to stop making asses of yourselves by posting false, incendiary, and distorted entries on the internet that are designed to simply inflame peoples' emotions. It's destructive, wrong, and un-American. It's time for you to help, not hurt.

Enough is enough. Please either help, or sit down and shut up.

Bob

Let's Talk About Gun Responsibility and Accountability | this small planet

2012-12-16T20:11:57Z

My latest on HuffPo. http://this-small-planet.com/2012/lets-talk-about-gun-responsibility-and-accountability/

ODS--Thanksgiving Edition

2012-11-24T12:55:47Z

The right-wing freak-out over all things Obama continues. This time it's the president's Thanksgiving address yesterday. The headline at The Daily Caller reads:

Obama Thanksgiving address: Calls to unite behind WH, doesn't thank God

Then in the opening paragraph that changed from "unite behind the White House" to "unite behind him."

Uh, no he didn't. This is what he said:

"As a nation, we've just emerged from a campaign season that was passionate, noisy, and vital to our democracy. But it also required us to make choices - and sometimes those choices led us to focus on what sets us apart instead of what ties us together; on what candidate we support instead of what country we belong to."

"Thanksgiving," he continued, "is a chance to put it all in perspective - to remember that, despite our differences, we are, and always will be, Americans first and foremost."

Only the wingnuts could get 'bow down and worship me' out of that. About the "doesn't thank God" thing, this is what Obama said:

"Today we give thanks for blessings that are all too rare in this world. The ability to spend time with the ones we love; to say what we want; to worship as we please; to know that there are brave men and women defending our freedom around the globe; and to look our children in the eye and tell them that, here in America, no dream is too big if they're willing to work for it."

"[T]o worship as we please." Isn't that kinda sorta the whole idea of the First Amendment? But no, at the Daily Caller that comes off as a challenge to the Catholic Church.

Jumping on the bandwagon, iOwnTheWorld chose to compare Obama's remarks to what 2 previous presidents had to say about Thanksgiving, just to supposedly prove Obama's godlessness, I presume. George Washington:

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks - for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation."

Don't see God mentioned by name there. Lincoln:

"It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens," he wrote."

There either. Maybe Washington and Lincoln were seekrit Mooslems, too.

Something called Gather used the Thanksgiving address as a springboard to put its misguided spin on the election results-Romney would be president if only 'those people' weren't allowed to vote:

"Obama is asking for the popular support he did not receive in the election. Obama attained 10 million votes less in 2012 than in 2008, a drop from 69.4 million to 59.8 million votes. Even McCain earned more votes in 2008 than Obama did in 2012, with 59.9 million votes. Whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney in 2012, voting 59-39% in his favor...Obama skipped the tradition of Godless politicians making trite remarks about God and instead talked about what he really wanted--popular support for his Presidency after a controversial re-election in the midst of a disastrous economy with little indication for recovery."

"Controversial re-election?" Earth to nutjobs, 332 to 206 ain't no controversy, it's an ass kicking.

"Circle of Trust" at BP did not Include the Government | this small planet

2012-11-15T14:58:53Z

My latest on the pending BP criminal settlement that could occur as early as today: http://this-small-planet.com/2012/circle-of-trust-at-bp-did-not-include-the-government/

David Frum On the Conservative Entertainment Complex

2012-11-09T17:41:10Z

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tick Tock: 2016 is Coming ... Noooooooo!

2012-11-08T15:13:26Z

I'm so glad the election is over, but couldn't they give us at least ONE day of rest before talking about the 2016 election?

They aren't going to so, FINE. There are some take-aways we need to pay attention to going forward. By 'we' I mean us regular citizens, not the pandering/lying/sleazy/self-serving politicians who already have their teams of strategists at work on their next plan to manipulate the public.

Let's start with these 7 first:

1. We need to all refresh our memories by re-reading the US Constitution. There have been too many occasions where the content of the document has been misrepresented or misquoted, and we need to be familiar with the document that so greatly shapes our national government. A middle-schooler can quote it for you verbatim, or here is a quick link.

2. We need to pay attention in history class -- or go back and take a refresher course -- so that we don't continue to let George Santayana be a smug little SOB (philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist who said that "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.") Can I just say here that I really don't want to go through another 2-year, $6 billion dollar election cycle nightmare like the one we just experienced. How many times are we going to allow ourselves to be suckered by politicians? How many times do we have to suffer through the blatant pandering and flip-flopping and continually unfulfilled promises before it finally dawns on us that some people will say anything to get elected? How many times are we going to let them get away with forgetting about who's interests they are really supposed to be protecting?

3. There is a Cherokee prayer: Oh Great Spirit, grant that I may never find fault with my neighbor until I have walked the trail of life in his moccasins. We should mandate, as they do in some countries, that all citizens must participate in some sort of community or volunteer service annually -- let's say for at least two weeks, not necessarily all at once. If we get to know all of our neighbors in our cities and towns, it broadens our perspective on the plight of all people rather than allowing us to insulate ourselves from all but our 'own kind.' Some of the most amazing experiences I've ever had have come from the volunteering I've done over the years. Ordinary PEOPLE are the ones who make the magic happen.

4. Our focus must first be on taking care of what is happening here within our own borders. We can't 'be the change we want to see' if we aren't taking care of business here at home -- education, infrastructure, sustainable energy, ending poverty, getting along with each other, the basics. If there is something left over to put in the 'rainy day fund', great. If not, then we won't always be in the red. That's how we are supposed to manage our personal budgets, so it should logically work that way for the larger entity.

5. We should know the difference between different forms of government so that we don't misuse them in conversation and inappropriately throw big concepts out of our asses like 'communism' and 'socialism' with no clue as to their actual definition and/or practice. See here for the primer on Communism, here for the primer on Capitalism vs Socialism (FYI - Marx and Engels were actually more socialist than communist), here (this one should scare the ever-loving CRAP out of you with its familiarity) for the primer on Fascism, and here for a primer on the Democratic Republic, which is what we are.

6. We need to evolve -- politically, socially, emotionally, intellectually -- so that we are relevant and current with the needs of our citizens. The Electoral College was a clever way to solve a problem in a world with communication challenges, but that isn't us any longer. We are, unfortunately at times, connected everywhere through myriad electronic devices, satellites and cyberspace, and transportation. Perhaps if we felt as though our vote counted in a 'red/blue' state that might be leaning away from our beliefs, voter turnout might we higher (only about 1/2 to 2/3 of those of voting age actually vote). We all want our voices to be heard.

7. Corporations are NOT people, and we should rap anyone on the head who says otherwise and repeal that stupid law. We need to tell Citizens United to kiss our proverbial asses because they have nothing to do with the actual citizenry. We need to eliminate the option to have SuperPacs that can do things under the 'cone of silence' or behind a 'veil of secrecy'. If you have to hide behind something, you are up to no good.

These would be a good start. If we all work together, the burden will be distributed and the roar will be heard in Washington.

Tick tock. The next election cycle has already started, and THEY aren't waiting in DC ... midterms in 2014 ...

2012 Election Results: Lessons That Need to be Learned

2012-11-07T11:53:35Z

It became apparent fairly early in the evening last night that the Republicans were going to get thumped. As state results began to march across the map, with major battleground states turning blue, and Tea Party candidates losing, Republican hopes waned. Their plan simply didn't work. The hundreds of millions of billionaires' money didn't work. The politics of division didn't work. The Tea Party revolution of 2010 failed. Despite almost unanimous prognostication that the race was going to be close and that we were going to be up all night, Obama won handily during prime time. Even though they did win some key races and keep control of the house, the GOP lost almost every hotly contested race, sometimes in a spectacular fashion.

What were the lessons here that the GOP should learn before 2014? Well, I have few thoughts:

Unlimited dark money doesn't necessarily buy votes. Karl Rove's and others' Super PACs poured hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, much from anonymous sources, into key races to win Congressional seats, Senate seats, and the presidency. Now working in Colorado, I became a victim of this unlimited money, where 100% of the ad time was bought up, and I was carpet bombed during morning news shows, evening news shows, and primetime programming. The electorate here became numb, and I believe all those millions had little to no effect in major races.
Voter participation matters. The GOP became complacent and over-confident after the 2010 mid-term "landslide", and badly over-reached. They won in 2010 not because the electorate suddenly became more conservative and Tea Party members; they won because regular people didn't vote that year. In presidential years, turnout is around 60% (which is deplorable), but in off years, turnout is an anemic 40% or less. Candidates are often picked in the primaries by 5% or less of the electorate. In 2010, turnout was 41% nationwide. With only 20 to 25% of the electorate's support, the Republicans claimed a landslide mandate, thumping their chests about how the country had suddenly become extremist, and introducing radical social legislation by the truckload. Freshmen Tea Party darlings almost drove the economy into the ditch by trying to hold it hostage over simple debt limit votes. Their problem, though, was that the mandate they claimed didn't exist. They had simply benefited from low voter turnout, and had hoped that no one noticed. In 2012, however, results were vastly different. The voter ID laws and other voter suppression efforts by Republicans in 2011 and 2012 generally failed and/or were thrown out by the courts. Voters turned out. I haven't seen voter turnout numbers yet for this election, but based simply on reporting of long lines on election day and in early voting, turnout was big. When turnout is big, Democrats do well.
Candidates matter. Especially after the 2010 mid-terms, GOP leadership has been hijacked by the Tea Party, and as Steve Schmidt said this morning, ran "loons" in key races, especially for the Senate. In the last 2 cycles, Republicans lost 6 Senate pickup opportunities by running nutjobs like Sharon Angle, Richard Mourdock, and Todd Akin. Neanderthals don't get elected by normal people, at least most of the time. If the party wants to start winning again, they have to run people who are actually qualified to hold office by killing off the candidacies of crazy people in the primaries.
Non-white voters don't support candidates whose issues important to them are used as weapons against them. Some sources this morning are reporting that 75% of hispanics went for Obama last night. To get nominated during the clown show of the primaries, Romney lurched to the right of even Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, idiotically declaring that we need to make things so bad for Hispanics that they would "self deport". He played to the worst proclivities of his base, and it cost him big time in the general.
Lying doesn't work. The most shocking strategy of the Romney campaign was a conscious decision made by the candidate that winning was more important than truth. He freely lied about the President, the economy, welfare reform, the auto bailout, major companies, history, and even Americans themselves. He flipped on every single social issue that he had advocated as governor of Massachusetts and stridently concealed his own tax records. Almost without exception, he doubled down on his lies and shifting positions when publicly called out. In the end, he badly damaged his reputation by the freeform lying, reducing confidence in his candidacy. Many other Republicans followed suit.
Pandering to an immoral base doesn't work in a general election. The GOP, driven to the extremist fringes of our society by screwballs who have taken over the party carries a cost when you have to appeal to normal people in a general election. The base now consists of Bible thumping, gun toting, war mongering weirdos who squawk about being pro-life while advocating for capital punishment, starting new wars, destroying personal rights, and country music. They were actually successful at re-opening long settled issues like contraception and equal pay for women, scaring the hell out of millions of potential voters. This pandering threatens to turn the Republican party into a regional body dominated by hillbillies, rednecks, bigots, religious zealots, and simpletons.
You have to live in the reality based world. The GOP's response to every single bit of bad news during the campaign was to impune either the data or the people generating the data. During the campaign, the candidate, or his surrogates, accused the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget of "cooking the books" whenever any of these non-partisan agencies issued reports with which they disagreed. They engaged in free character assassination of every analyst, blogger or pundit with whom they disagreed. Nate Silver of the New York Times 538 blog, who is a well respected statistician, was openly attacked for his conclusions, even though he has a spotless track record in calling races (and baseball). Their other dimension existence was put on full public display last night after Fox News statisticians called Ohio for Obama when Karl Rove, a paid flack for the GOP and Romney, demanded to be put on the air to retract the call, making a fool of himself and his network in front of millions of viewers. I believe Rove's attempt to alter the results caused the awkward hour and a half delay before Romney finally conceded.

In order to stay a national party, the GOP must abandon the politics of fear, division, xenophobia, and religious extremism. They have to abandon absolutist ideology in a number of areas including social policy, religion, taxes, and spending. They also have to acknowledge that the electorate is changing and that they can no longer win by simply cornering the market on old, white, male bigots. In states like Texas, which can easily become a Latino majority in the next decade, is prime hunting ground for the Democrats in coming years, especially if the Republicans don't drop their xenophobic platform. There simply aren't enough Bible thumping rednecks in the state to maintain their stranglehold, and bright, young Latino Democrats like the Castro brothers from San Antonio could very well be politicians of national stature in the next few cycles. In fact, Joaquin Castro was elected to Congress just last night.

I'm not naive enough to think that the Republicans are suddenly going to become more compassionate, kind, caring, less white, less racist, less strident, and more female overnight. However, if they don't embrace these truths, they will imperil their own future relevance or even existence.

Election Predictions

2012-10-26T00:59:42Z

Just for fun -

What do you think the electoral college split will be?

What do you think will be the final split in the Senate?

I predict Obama will win 290- 248. I believe Obama will win the swing states Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin and Iowa. I believe Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

I predict the Senate will split to the Democrats 53-47. I believe Democrats will win the close Senate races in Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Republicans will take the toss ups in Arizona, Nevada, and North Dakota.

I used the polling data and averages at www.realclearpolitics.com and the "make your own map" at www.270towin.com.

I'd like to hear your predictions, as well!

Romney's Selling Snake Oil, and the Houston Chronicle is Buying

2012-10-22T11:03:04Z

I'm not really surprised by the Houston Chronicle's endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. After all as the opening sentence of the editorial states, the endorsement of Obama in 2008 was the only time in 44 years that they endorsed a Democratic candidate. But at least their endorsement could have been based on something connected to...you know...reality. Maybe that was expecting too much.

The opening paragraph hits on something that is an often-repeated Republican talking point--and one that just frosts my flakes every time I hear it:

"Like so many others, we were captivated by the Illinois senator's soaring rhetoric and energized by his promise to move American politics beyond partisan gridlock and into an era of hope and change. It hasn't happened."

And just who the hell is responsible for that inability to break the partisan gridlock? It surely couldn't be the Republicans who met on the day President Obama was inaugurated and conspired to block everything he tried to do, could it? The partisan gridlock wouldn't have anything to do with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's statement that Number One on the list of Republican priorities was to see to it that Obama was a one-term president, would it? Nah, no way. It's all Obama's fault.

The editorial goes on to decry that Obama has failed to cut the deficit, while proposing an expansive new focus by NASA on space exploration. They call for a larger focus on natural gas and shale oil production while stating "utmost care must be exercised to protect air and water resources." So they endorse the candidate who promises to gut environmental regulation and who said the EPA is "out of control?" Huh?

Pull up your hip waders, folks. Here's where the shit gets deep:

"Let us stipulate: The Mitt Romney we are endorsing is the Massachusetts moderate..."

So they're going with the Moderate Mitt of the last two weeks and ignoring the "severely conservative" Mitt of the two years prior to that? OK. And by the way, his tax plan numbers don't add up, but never mind that either. Just trust him, it'll all come out in the wash.

"Should Romney be elected, we expect him to make good on his promise to negotiate in good faith with congressional Democrats on two major issues:

Health care: Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court opinion on the Affordable Care Act clearly left room for a political solution beyond the act. That solution is self-evident: It should combine the best elements of the Democratic plan signed into the law - coverage of pre-existing conditions, mandatory participation by all, coverage of children up to age 26 - with strengths in the Republican plan that were not included, such as freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines."

So they expect that Romney would negotiate in good faith to improve the ACA, which he has repeatedly pledged to repeal on Day One of his presidency. Oh, but that was what he was saying before Moderate Mitt showed up a couple weeks ago. Never mind.

"The deficit, debt and spending: Forging a solution will require both cuts in government spending and additional sources of revenue. The opportunity for meaningful tax reform is within reach if the two sides will take it. As president, Romney would have specific responsibility for bringing true believers in the tea party wing of the GOP toward workable compromise. The challenges of the next four years leave no room for partisan triumphalism."

Yes, the man who signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes no way, no how will negotiate in good faith about additional sources of revenue. Right. Bring the Tea Party wing toward workable compromise? They are either smoking some powerful shit in the Chronicle editorial department or they've been in a coma for the last four years? Compromise is a dirty word to the TP types. Willingness to compromise gets you labeled a RINO and gets you primaried by someone from the far and farther right in the Tea Party universe. No room for partisan triumphalism? What message would Romney's election send? If you don't happen to like the results the last election, act like spoiled children and just be the biggest roadblocks you can be for the next 4 years. You will be rewarded for your efforts.

"Gov. Romney impresses us as a focused, task-oriented problem solver, both by inclination and by experience - a "fix-it" guy."

Yeah, just talk to the former employees of the companies who had the misfortune to find out first-hand about Romney's "problem solving" methods during the Bain years. Ask how he "fixed" them.

The Battle for the Middle Class

2012-10-13T15:33:34Z

If this election has shown anything it is that both parties are campaigning hard to attract the middle class. Both sides acknowledge that the middle class has taken it in the teeth over the past several years. Of course, both sides have alternative views as to why that happened and what needs to be done about it. This so far is normal in terms of elective politics.

Let me say this, I believe Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are good people. They are both smart and capable people. They both love this country. I couldn't necessarily say that about the GOP candidates the last time around. Paul Ryan did a very good job in the debate of casting himself and Romney as caring and giving people. In truth, I think they both bested their counterparts in the first go around.

Winning debates is one thing, but often we are looking at style over substance. When asking yourself who is going to best serve the middle class let's begin with a simple definition of what it means to be middle class. When asked what middle class was in the first debate, Romney was asked if someone making 200,000 to 250,000 could be considered middle class. Romney said (and twice) that someone making that much money could comfortably be considered middle class.

It's funny that this point has been glossed over in the past couple of weeks since that debate. Everyone is focusing on Big Bird. Everyone is focusing on Romney's move to the center. The first one is more towards the absurd while the second one is a more interesting discussion, but not one I want to have right now. The simple question is this: can you trust someone to help the middle class when that person can't even tell you what it means to be middle class?

I have no doubt that Romney really is interested in helping the middle class. The problem is that his middle class makes more money already than the people that really are middle class. The people that really are middle class are those that fall into his 47 percent of people that don't take responsibility for their own lives. Interestingly enough, that is where most of you reading this column are.

So, forget about tax plans that are five trillion dollar cuts for the rich and then aren't. Forget about repealing the Affordable Care Act and then somehow allowing those with preexisting conditions to continue to be covered. Let's forget about how you can cut five trillion dollars in tax revenue, increase defense spending, and still somehow cut the deficit. Even if you accept his answers on all of those concerns you still have to wonder how he can help a group that he simply can't define.

In terms of elective politics, I'm worried that Romney and Ryan's move to the center will make it a lot harder for Obama to win. As an American, I'm happy those two showed up. I think if those two are the real McCoy then the American people have a genuine choice for the first time in a long time. Yet, being smart and caring is not enough. You have to show that you have an actual grasp of the problem. When you think someone that makes 250,000 dollars is middle class then you don't have a grasp on the problem.

Battle for the soul of America

2012-09-25T17:38:30Z

"It's not the way that you say it when you do those things to me, it's more the way that you mean it when you tell me what will be." --Heyward

I often get Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman confused, so I can't remember who addressed the now infamous 47 percent first, but it is clear that the statements weren't as much gaffes per se, but Freudian slips. The statement most telling wasn't made by Mitt Romney himself, but in a tweet by Eric Cantor. Through his twitter feed, he managed to thank and honor all of the business owners and entrepreneurs on Labor Day.

That may not seem like a huge deal, but let's remember what Labor Day represents. It represents the worker. It is a day where we honor all of those who work. I suppose if they had their way they would have a holiday for all of those who own and run their own business. They would have a day for the CEOs, CFOs, and COOs. The thing is that for most of us, it seems like that day comes 364 times a year.

Conservatives often accuse progressives of playing class warfare. The bottom 47 percent comments from Mitt Romney crystallize that progressives aren't the ones playing that game. To be sure, there are those that have a hand out. They have tried nothing and they are at their wit's end. However, to suggest that the number is anywhere close to 47 percent is beyond insulting. It demonstrates the thoughts of someone that has absolutely no clue what is going on in America and honestly doesn't really care.

Moreover, it sets a bad example for those that happen to be of means. There are a number of wealthy people that don't feel that way. There are a number of wealthy people that feel they could pay more. There are a number of people that give of their time, talent, and excess to help those in need. Romney's comments were insulting to them as well because it insinuated that we do have a divide in this country.

There is a divide and there is a very definite choice in this election. It doesn't necessarily have to come on financial lines, but it looks like it will for the most part. It is a battle for the soul of this country. What do we envision when we envision the very best of what this country has to offer? Is it those that used their blood, sweat, tears, and inheritance to build a successful business and become a part of the affluent? Or, is it those that work the 40 hour work week and maybe a little bit more to provide a comfortable living for themselves and their family?

The sad thing is that there shouldn't have to be a choice. There is nothing wrong with the first person or the second person. Both are a huge part of the American tapestry. One party wants to preserve both dreams for Americans. One party wants to give one a little more help and doesn't really care about the other. They are lazy they say. There is nothing they can do that is going to convince them that they need to take personal responsibility.

Well, most of the 47 percent would like to knock you on your prissy little ass Mitt. How is that for personal responsibility? Of course, we can't do that literally with enough secret service to play an NFL football game, but we can do it symbolically on election day by giving them the beat down of their nightmares. Americans should not be forced to choose between hard work and entrepreneurship. When you force us to make a choice you usually won't like where that ends up.