Archive - May 2008

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than loopy liberals a recent study found, because they’ve been conditioned to rationalize social and economic inequalities. In spite of marital status, income or religious allegiance, right-wingers affirmed more life satisfaction than lefties, but they also scored highest on the tendency to explain away and justify inequalities. "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," they believe, or, "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are." Conservatives support the idea of Meritocracy, meaning that if you climb the ladder of success through hard work, whatever position in society you reach is perceived as completely fair.

If your mind-set doesn't justify status gaps, however, you might feel frustrated and disheartened, according to New York University’s Jaime Napier and John Jost in the journal Psychological Science. "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater [mental] toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results mirror a 2006 Pew Research project where 47% of U. S. conservative Republicans described themselves as "very happy," while only 28% of liberal Democrats indicated such a state of brainwashed bliss.

And incidently, a U.S. General Social Surveys study has revealed that people tend to become more liberal as they age, putting to rest another long accepted myth, mister right-winger.

And finally, researchers at the University of British Columbia and Harvard Business School have determined that "Regardless of how much income each person [makes], those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not.” 

The buzz around Capitol Hill has been about former President Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan's upcoming book “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” Many liberals have embraced the courage that it took McClellan to speak out. Conservatives on the other side, view him a mediocre press secretary that has to sell out and become a traitor to his old boss in order to make a quick buck.

But what is the real story? This book is not the first one to be critical of Bush. George Tenet, William Clark, Alan Greenspan and Paul O'Neil have all released books offering their opinions about Bush's shortcomings.

The book will not offer any evidence that directly implicates Bush and Company of any wrong doing. It only legitimizes those claims because it comes from a former loyalist of Bush. White House reporters are not surprised by the books reaction. Newsweeks's White House correspondent Richard Wolfe claims, "He promised when he first started writing this book that he’d engage in some truth-telling.”

I do not find the actual book intresting as much as I find the reactions from the Bush camp. The memo has been sent out and the talking point was established. They would treat McClellan as a naive person that should have stood up and spoken out if he felt at odds.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino claims, “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew.”

President Bush's reaction according to Perino was that, "He is puzzled, and he doesn't recognize this as the Scott McClellan that he hired and confided in and worked with for so many years; and disappointed that if he had these concerns and these thoughts he never came to him or anyone else on the staff that we know of."

Karl Rove chimes in, “This doesn’t sound like Scott; it really doesn’t.”

The book will not be available until the first Tuesday in June. It is already #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers list. I find it intresting how the Right chose to defend Bush by attacking McClellan's character. Will this do anything to change some American's opinions about Bush? I find it unlikely, those individuals that still romanticize this President are part of the crowd that perhaps do not engage in book reading. But, what do I know?

McCain loves to toot his horn on how he is an "expert" when it comes to Iraq. He even has the audacity to criticize Senator Clinton on Obama on their position on the War in Iraq. He claims that they do not have what it takes to lead this nation in the struggle. Surprisingly, it is McCain who has been wrong about Iraq this whole time. Anyone that has been this incompetent for this long cannot and should not be trusted with leading our military through this war. Rosa Brooks of the Los Angeles Times illustrates with some examples of how wrong has been about Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein [is] developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can," he informed Fox News in November 2001. By February 2003, McCain had upgraded Hussein's capabilities and was warning Americans that "Hussein has the ability to ... [turn] Iraq into a weapons assembly line for Al Qaeda's network."

This statement was far from truth, in fact 5 years after the entering Iraq, we still have not found any weapons of mass destruction. Instead of acknowledging a mistake, McCain and the GOP have shifted the debate to Hussein could and would have developed weapons of mass destruction, if allowed to.

"We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting," he scoffed to Wolf Blitzer in 2002. "We're not going to have a bloodletting." In fact, by March 2003, McCain was positively giddy with Rumsfeldian enthusiasm: "There's no doubt in my mind ... we will be welcomed as liberators."

This would be excusable from 23 year old with no military experience but McCain made these claims so it is not okay. How can someone who claims to be knowledgeable about the military? Because, McCain, like Bush, is incompetent and would not know the difference between Iraq and Iran if someone did not spoon feed him the talking points.

When it came to predicting the sectarian conflicts that have wracked Iraq since we "liberated" it, McCain was equally off target. "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias," he explained confidently on MSNBC in April 2003, "so I think they can probably get along."

There is absolutely NO excuse for this claim. In fact, all McCain had to do was open up a textbook about the inner conflicts that Iraq experienced in the 50s. Oh wait, he was alive during that decade, perhaps he should have been more keen on foreign affairs. The ongoing issue between Sunnis and Shias is not new, in fact it has been a source of problems for a while.

Brooks offers other examples of how off McCain is from reality. How can McCain be so wrong about Iraq? How can someone with the "decorated" military service be so unqualified when it comes to war- in Iraq? But, that is not as important as how can half of the country still buy into his crap and support him? Am I suppose to entertain the idea that Americans are just as incompetent as McCain? Perhaps, stupid people do deserve a stupid President, but not again . . . four more years of this nonsense is uncalled for.

The Boston Herald reported yesterday that a local TV journalist on CN8, part of the Comcast network, has been effectively terminated after a two-week paid suspension. The shennigans began after Barry Nolan publicly protest the decision by the local Emmy Awards to honor Fox News' Bill O’Reilly.

CN8 released a statement claiming, "Effective May 20, Barry Nolan is no longer employed by CN8, The Comcast Network." Although, they did not indicate why they fired Nolan, it does not take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

I have taken matters into my own hands and have terminated Comcast as well. They no longer provide Cable, Internet and Telephone services in my domicile. Comcast may have the last say in the career of Nolan but I will have the last say in choosing to do business with Comcast.

I do not support nor endorse the manner that Comcast decided to handle this given situation. Regardless of Nolan's opinion towards O'Reilly, it was his right to protest and as journalist it is his requirement to inform the public about the nonsense that may be occurring. Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist. He is parrot with talking points spoon fed to him from the GOP. Any human being with a functioning brain that can send electric synapses and can make logical/rational decisions would know better.

I recommend everyone and anyone that currently is subscribed to Comcast or knows someone that relies on Comcast for services to cancel as soon as possible. I have sent Comcast a personal email indicating my decision and I recommend you do as well. Comcast . . . you are fired!

Chip Heath and Dan Heath of Fast Company Magazine wrote an interesting piece offering great social commentary the way ad agencies implement and sell their propaganda in this consumer world. I had always contemplated the ethics of the manner that ad agencies pushed a clients agenda for the all mighty dollar. Pharmaceutical adverts come to mind as attractive people share their experiences of a medical condition and how that given medication has improved their life.

Heath approach this article by explaining how adverts create social stigmas that otherwise did not exist before that given ad. There is the infamous VISA ad that portrays individuals that pay with cash not as hip as those that slide their card during point of sale transactions. The subtle commentary that they are trying to indoctrinate in the masses is that cash is a hassle and paying with a card is not. The sheeple seem to buy it as revenues have climbed for VISA.

Then there is the way that they sold the Chinese people on the stigma of dandruff. Procter & Gamble scored when they were able to market Head & Shoulders in a non-existent market. Before this propaganda, Chinese culture did not associate any negativity to individuals with dandruff.

From tanning, to straight white teeth, the media has been successful in pushing certain messages of how individuals of that society should be or behave. The impact on society may not seem detrimental on the surface but one may experience backlash when they accidentally violate a societal norm that they otherwise did not know existed. I recommend checking out the article “Dirty Marketing Campaigns” for some insightful observations.

It may seem that Obama is invincible or that his charm may just be enough to carry him through the general election but if one reviews the lead that either Democratic candidate has, one would think that nothing has really changed since 2004, let alone 2000.

Recent polls put McCain behind both Democratic hopefuls but by not a large margin. In fact, McCain is only a handful of percentage points behind which translates to not much of advantage for the Democrats. The last eight years under the GOP have been dismal. Americans are concerned about every aspect of American life. The mortgage crisis, national security risks, economy, weak dollar, ill-managed war efforts, dubious justification for the war in Iraq and gasoline prices increases have devastated Americans trust in the competency of our government. The GOP has made a great case to literally hand over this election on a silver platter to Democrats. So, why is that McCain even has a viable chance. Logic would indicate that Americans are ready for change, yet half of the country seems to think otherwise as they support McCain. That means that half the voting population have not been sold on the concept that four more years of Republicans rule will result in negative ramifications for everyone.

I would surmise that the longer than usual primary has hurt Democrats from hitting home with the message that Republicans are incompetent to be trusted with another 4 years. If Obama were to win the nomination, he would have to initiate a campaign that illustrates how McCain is not different from Bush.

McCain has actually made it easy for Democrats to portray him as a continuation of Bush’s dismal policies. McCain makes it no secret about his  fondness of the Bush doctrine and Democrats need to explain how this means bad news for Americans. Polls indicate that McCain's biggest issue are his ties to President Bush. If you thought the last 4 years got pretty bad, well entertain the possibility of another 4 years of the same.

This election has landslide written all over it only if the Democrats can capitalize and are successful in branding McCain as a continuation of Bush. This election should not be hard for Obama or Clinton to win but if they are not able to logically illustrate how the last 8 years have been detrimental to Americans then we risk another 4 years of GOP ineptitude and we have Democrats only to blame for.

Hillary Clinton should not quit the race. I made this argument last month but this time I will entertain it with a different approach. Mark Leibovich of The New York Times wrote a great piece on this perspective arguing that Obama has benefited from the Clinton rivalry.

Obama’s campaign has been tested and prepped for a challenge from McCain (if Obama is the nominee) in the Democratic Presidential nomination by Clinton. Over the past weeks many have claimed that Clinton has had a negative impact on Obama but most importantly the Democrats opportunity to take back the White House in November. The negative ramifications imposed include but are not limited to prolonging the Primary debate and weakening Obama’s chances of beating McCain. I beg to differ. Obama has been trained by the best rival in order to overcome the GOP opponent this fall.

The challenge that Clinton has posed has made Obama stronger and a more formidable candidate. Obama has held his own against Clinton, helping him prepare for what ever McCain will bring for the Presidential election. Clinton is and was not an easy candidate to compete with. Obama has been able to establish his own base and support to garner the support to edge out Clinton. Obama has learned a lot and this was all due to his opponent. I recall advice from a high school coach that recommended I always train with people that are better in skill than me in order to improve my own skills.

Clinton has legitimized the Obama campaign. For the first time in countless years, Democrats have had two strong candidates to choose from. This has caused both Clinton and Obama to work harder to attract and retain voters that they would otherwise not seek if challenged by weaker opponents. Whoever ends up with the nomination, the other will benefit from the voter support garnered due to the Primary.

The Wright Effect should be non-existent in November. Obama should benefit from the Wright issue being an issue during the Primary season then in November. This has allowed Obama and company to prepare and orchestrate an effective damage control strategy should it come up in November. The McCain camp would be foolish to bring up an non issue again in November but if they do, at least Obama will be prepared.

Obama has indeed benefited from Clintons challenge. Let’s not forget though, Clinton has done a tremendous job in order to compete with Obama. Even though she was a favorite at the beginning, Obama was the populist once the Primary season began. One may claim that Obama was the underdog but it was Clinton who had work harder to get the support and funding for her campaign. Clinton has been scrutinized and under a microscope as the presumed nominee by the media. Clinton has had to overcome many obstacles in order to stay float with Obama. Obama like McCain may have benefited from a love affair by the media. Clinton has also had to distinguish herself from the former President Clinton and shine by herself. Whatever the outcome this June, one thing is for sure . . . the Democratic nominee will be better prepared for the general election than McCain.

The California Supreme Court struck down a same-sex marriage ban with 4-3 decision claiming, "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional," and that so-called "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples are discriminatory and not "constitutionally valid" in place of marriage. The California Supreme Court had a lot to say about the issue, in fact here are three examples of arguments included in the 30,000 worded decision as documented by John Cloud of TIME Magazine.

What gays really want is a wholly new right, the right to "gay marriage." The court answered by citing Perez v. Sharp, its own 1948 decision legalizing interracial marriage: "The court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as 'a right to interracial marriage,' and did not dismiss the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California. Instead, the Perez decision focused on... the importance to an individual of the freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice... It is a fundamental right of free men."

Marriage exists mainly for the purpose of protecting society by encouraging stable homes for children. The obvious retort to this position is that plenty of straight couples don't have children, and yet they can still marry. Those opposed to gay marriage answer this objection by saying that the state can't go around inquiring which straight couples are fertile and which are infertile; they do know, though, that no gay couple can have kids on its own. The California court's wonderfully dismissive response: "If that were an accurate and adequate explanation for the absence of such a limitation, it would follow that in instances in which the state is able to make a determination of an individual's fertility without such an inquiry, it would be constitutionally permissible for the state to preclude an individual who is incapable of bearing children from entering into marriage." Not even the most hard-core opponent of marriage equality takes that position.

If gays are allowed to marry, it will send a message to straight people not only that having children isn't important, but that it doesn't really matter whether kids are raised by their biological parents. The court's response: "Although we appreciate the genuine concern for the well-being of children underlying that position, we conclude this claim lacks merit... Our recognition that the core substantive rights encompassed by the constitutional right to marry apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples does not imply in any way that it is unimportant or immaterial to the state whether a child is raised by his or her biological mother and father. We do not alter or diminish either the legal responsibilities that biological parents owe to their children or the substantial incentives that the state provides to a child's biological parents to enter into and raise their child in a stable, long-term committed relationship."

This decision may become a hot button again as it was played out by the GOP two years ago. The issue is at times attributed to helping President Bush receive the support from his Christian base to edge out John Kerry in 2004. Whether this topic becomes an issue will truly be up to McCain. If they decide to take such route, it may just be enough to rally the troops to support him over one issue.

But, is that really likely? I do not think so. In fact, I believe it would be foolhardy for the GOP to make this an issue again. Cultural norms have changed enough to alienate young voters from the party but more importantly this issue has no federal relevancy. In 2004 and 2006, many states including, Texas, passed bans of same-sex marriages approved by voters. Thus, it does not make sense how one state can make this a national issue again. Nonetheless, it ill be intresting to see how this plays out.

So, many of you may have heard of rumors around how the IRS will be distributing your stimulus check this May and I did some digging around to get the right story. It is true that the IRS has a system set up for the checks they shall start distributing under the Economic Stimulus Package Act signed into law by President Bush.

Here is the scoop . . . if you get your rebates via direct deposit then you are in luck because you should be getting your money by the end of next week at the latest.

Now if you are still old fashion then expect a delay . . . and by delay I mean some of you will not see your check until after the 4th of July. This could be good or bad depending on how you want to see it. You will not have any disposable income for the Memorial Sale but at least you will have that extra cash for your summer vacation.

You can check out the IRS site for a personal disclosure of your Stimulus payment . . . but do not expect anything as detailed as tracking a package via FedEx.