Who's Paying Attention? Anyone?

I've been chewing on this thought for a while.

My wife and I purchased a new home in June. As we went through the mortgage process, we found out something interesting; we make too much collectively to have qualified for 100% financing.

Huh?

That's right, kids. Since she and I both hold steady jobs and make decent salaries, we had to come up with a down payment to secure our loan. Those who make less did not and obtained the 100% financing. So, in the long run, we had to show good faith for the debt prior to closing, the others just needed a pen.

Isn't this what popped the mortgage bubble before?

Forgive me for being ignorant, but I was under the impression that a down payment was intended to show good faith towards paying the debt you wished to incur. If you were willing to plop down a few hundred or grand, then you were serious about actually following through with the contract. But with immaculate credit and steady salaries (she and I have both been with our respective companies for over ten years each) we had to pony up cash. Why? We can afford it.

Okay, so the incentive is for people who may not be able to afford buying a house to be able to own one since they don't need a down payment. But aren't these the kind of risky borrowers than submarined the works not long ago? I can see the skewed logic of giving the zero down deal to someone with a lower income, but holy moly, why can't someone who PROVES they can afford the deal by virtue of their salary and credit rating get the zero down deal too?

We had to come up with around $6K to secure our mortgage. We did it, but it stopped us from being closer to our debt-free living goal (Thank you, Dave Ramsey!). We'll get there eventually, but the principle of the matter is that people who can obviously afford to pay the ticket price shouldn't have to make extra moves to get on the train.

When will we learn? Not everyone is to be a home owner. By lowering the standard we entered into the fabulous realm of the foreclosure.

125 loans? Are you serious? Didn't anyone else think that was a bad idea?

If you can afford it, you shouldn't need to pay money down unless you want to. If you're toeing the line of yes and now in the payment book, maybe you should wait a while and show up with some earnest money.

Maybe I'm dreaming.

Chip Grefski

It's the Great Let-Down, Charlie Brown!

My county decided to do the Halloween Trick-or-Treat extravaganza tonight. There was some flap about the 31st being on Sunday (this is the Baptist South, ya'll) and the fact that a late sugar-filled night for the kids before school is a bad idea. That being said...

My wife and I were one of three houses on the corner of our subdivision that were either a) home or b) giving out candy. We decided to sit on the driveway to avoid the lunatic barkings of our active dog, and also to better see the action. Here's what we saw:

The young kids had costumes. The most of the older kids weren't in costume, unless they were dressing like as psycho killers like Wednesday Addams. Parents had their infant children with them getting oodles of candy while they got dragged (at times literally) from house to house. People driving had little to no regard for the kiddies wearing mostly black costumes. One car in particular went back and forth a couple of times at a relatively high rate of speed for a kiddie-filled subdivision. We wondered if he was trying to play bumper-kids.

These observations are for one purpose: Halloween is dying, and maybe its time. Yes there is a cottage industry in costumes, candy, and other scary sell-ables, and yes most kids act excited this time of year, but it has appeared to me over the last few years to be slowly shrinking. Like a half-life.

There seems to be lackluster support in neighborhoods. Admittedly so, people are less and less thrilled about the idea of having strangers go up to their houses. I do see many organizations like churches doing "trunk or treat" in their parking lots, but that's just weird. This is the one time a kid can knock on a stranger's door. Wait... maybe that's a bad thing...

Then there's the sex offender's list.

Then there's the largely apocryphal stories about razor blades and glass in candy. Some are true, but the vast majority are hooey through and through.

Halloween can fade away as far as I'm concerned. We can reminisce about it to our grand kids like ours did about walking to school uphill both ways.

Chip Grefski

Cacooning: The Worst Political Tendency Of All

True confession: I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. My family left the religion when I was 13, dismayed by the bulk of their teachings and policies. Now while young, I didn't really see that the Witnesses behaved in any sort of odd or cult-like behavior. After all, it was the enviornment I grew up in, so I was used to it. But as I began to breathe the fresh air of a more free and open approach to learning and a less sheltering philosophy smothering me, I began to understand. Now I was outside looking in, and I saw the group for what I now believe it to be: a fearful, borderline paranoid, hypocritical and elitist group.

One of the teachings the church hammered into us was a total rejection of the society around us, as it was evil, corrupting and not to be trusted. Oh, and God was going to destroy it all soon, so don't get too attached to it. But when you have groups of people, assuring themselves that they're the annointed and the rest of the world is scary, even dangerous, they create one massive breeding ground for an echo chamber of bad, and sometimes totally false information.

Belief is an amazing thing. Belief does not require evidence, research or critical review. In this way, religious beliefs are like political beliefs to a degree. It would be nice if those beliefs were rooted in facts or reason, but more and more that doesn't seem to be all that crucial to those in politics, and moreso, in the media. But hey, when you're with your own kind, nodding in tacit agreement that you're right, the warm fuzzies that result have a way of clobbering logic.

Now, take our two glorious political parties. As I wrote in my previous piece about the Tea Party, I stated that they, above all else, have shown the parties to be out of touch with their nation, and sometimes their own party itself. This is partially to do with the echo chamber effect. It's why massively compensated executives sometimes don't know that their own company has crippling infastructure problems (example: the collapse of Sam Goody from top music retailer in the U.S. to bankrupt within a decade). It's why the Democrats think the Tea Party pose no real threat to them (assuredly, they do). It's why Republicans think abortion is a hot buttom issue, even though there hasn't been a serious challenge to Roe v. Wade in at least a decade. The echo chamber.

Now, contradict those self-reinforced beliefs, and this is what can happen: you can be physically assaulted for wanting a politician to see your sign of protest (Rand Paul's campaign manager stomping on Lauren Valle's head in Kentucky). You can also be called offensive names by a prominent TV commentator (Joy Behar's repeatedly uttered epithet "bitch" directed at Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle). Or, you can even just refuse to express yourself if you even think there might be someone there to disagree with you or challenge your views (Christine O'Donnell shockingly backing out of a scheduled and advertized Sunday morning appearance on Fox News).

The reason for this is that these people have raised their opinions to the level of belief, and in religious terms, to contradict that belief is blasphemy. And if you picture how God reportedly dealt with Sodom, you can kind of match that up with the above examples of percieved political heresy.

Based on this, I beg our media and our politicians to mix more among those who disagree with them than those that agree. Validation from within your own group of believers does not make your views stronger, it just makes them more ingrained. It's only in this way that these people can come out of their self-stiched cacoons and see what's really going on in our nation, rather than relying on the ethereal web of belief.

Mike Grefski

A Gore-y Story, Just In Time For Halloween

In another installment from the "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" category we find the mysterious and wonderful champion for all things green and fuzzy, Al Gore. Check the link, people:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation

So Capt. Planet idles his car at a speaking engagement for an hour spewing out oodles of unnecessary carbon into the atmosphere. Then, in a respect for tradition, he was invited to a fete in Stockholm as he is a Nobel laureate. Did he take the four hour train ride, the more environmentally acceptable choice (Green Bean Express)? No... he rode in a government airplane with one other passenger. Waste not want not, unless you dine on other people's expense accounts, right? Have more caviar, Albert...

I want nuclear power. I think carbon emissions and other global warming hoopla is a bunch of hooey. I believe that the environment should be preserved but not to the extent that humans become second class citizens. I believe corporations that harm the environment should be punished, but I also believe that not every corporation does or should be painted as such. But I am evil in Mr. Gore's eyes, and am now on the ELF hit list I'm sure. Still, he can do as he pleases, not as he preaches. The hypocrisy is sickening.

Live by example. In all things. Live as you would want the rest of the world to live. If that means wearing a loin cloth and eating berries, go for it, but try to remember to turn your thermostat up to save energy when you go out foraging. Let's be green until a better browner option is offered (sorry, Mike Rowe. Brown is before Green!) I love the nature bloggers who decry power generation facility construction despite the fact that the Internet runs on (drum roll...) electricity and batteries are made of (crescendo & rim shot) nasty chemicals. You can't have the wondrous tool of information sharing without power, Sparky...

Solar is nice, and wind is promising, but they are inefficient. I loved the late Ted Kennedy saying he didn't want free wind turbines spoiling his Martha's Vineyard view, regardless of the fact that the electricity would be free for residents. (refernce: http://www.homewindpowerkits.net/why-is-ted-kennedy-against-free-nantucket-wind-turbines.php) So we need to install wind turbines and solar collectors in bad real-estate locations. And I can't blame him. Who wants to see progress? That's crazy talk.

We have a power source that works. NUCLEAR. Our plants are safe. We could fix our power problems by adding a few reactors to the grid. But no. Why? Al and the Tree Huggers say no no no a million times no. But we can't burn coal or fossil fuels either. So how do we get electricity? That's a good question. Cut to the blank stare.

Maybe we should all contain our flatulence and light the methane for power generation and for the public good. That way every one gives back. I'm just saying....

I guess I shouldn't be surprised when prominent issue mongers act outside their mantras. Heck, I know a few evangelists that had  "No-Tell Motel" frequent flier miles. The list goes on, and no one's immune. Hypocrisy is everywhere. Heck, I'm guilty of it too, but I can admit it. I want a clean world for my son and his children, but I also want to not have to be subjected being made out to be some sort of radioactive dog peeing nuclear waste on every tree by the people who disagree with me.

How many people died from Three Mile Island?

Everlast said in the intro to House of Pain's first album: "The time has come for everyone to clean up their own back yard before they go knocking on their neighbors door." I'm with you, guy. I'm with you.

Chip Grefski

Here We Go! Over The Edge!

Click this link for an interesting diversion into pseudo-science

http://christwire.org/2010/10/is-my-childs-schoolteacher-a-secret-sex-addict/



Here we see Debra LaFave, convicted in 2008 for having sex with a 14 year-old student from the middle school she taught. Wow.

While this story was a tragedy, the link above is out-and-out humor. We read some appropriate biblical quotes and assorted whatnot, then find a picture of a handcuffed Pamela Rogers, another convicted teacher sex scandal perpetrator, who's image is used as a diagram for spotting the sex creeps amongst the school marms at your child's school:


You're kidding, right? This is the prototypical pervert right? What about the fact that this lovely sadomasochist was photographed in her matching silver bracelets after her arrest. Somehow I fond it hard to believe she wore these as a fashionable yet naughtily suggestive accessory. I also find it hard to swallow that these people put this much time and effort attracting attention to themselves by means of come hither dress and provocative posturing. Pedophilia is an opportunity crime.

Pedophiles are an abomination. But self-cycling hysteria and pseudo scientific trash like this isn't helping.All it does it put these very attractive and very misguided women out in the public eye again.

Or was that the point? I'm just saying....

Chip Grefski

The Daily Show Backlash Begins In...NOW!

Ah, the press. You can't live with with 'em, and you can't tie them in a sack and throw them in the river. We are now seeing a prickly backlash against The Daily Show, espcially as the planned rally this coming weekend looms near. Why, you ask? I have my own theory, and it's two pronged.

First of all, The Daily Show as well as The Colbert Report, have captured a huge audience of young viewers alientated by the tilted news reporting they recieve from other media. And in media, nobody likes losing to the competition. But what runs deeper here, is that I think a lot of newpaper writers and broadcasters resent The Daily Show because it's not owned by anyone. The program can go in any direction it wants to because it has never explicitly attached itself to any particular political view or party. It has freedom, and in that freedom they have the ability to tell the truth, or at least their version of it, far more often than CNN or Fox does.

Also, one of the great unuttered truths among media types is this: they don't want to admit that The Daily Show and Colbert teams do a better job than they do. This is embarassing because those professionals out here in the media trenches are trained journalists. To the best of my knowledge that's not true of the teams behind these shows. That means they beat them at their own game without (gasp) having a sheepskin giving them the intellectual permission slip to do what they do. And for those who want to continue to spread the smear that the programs refuse to attack the left, do me a favor and actually watch the show as opposed to taking Rush Limbaugh's word for it. Stewart has voiced dissapointment in the Obama administration (on the Bill O'Reilly show of all places) and has continually accused liberal politicians as being outright cowards. And in light of the unfettered rise of the Tea Party without any meaningful rejoinder from the left, who can argue with him? Oh, I know who...pundits who operate in their terminally reality-free biosphere.

But even they have problems with Stewart, they also seem more than a little obsessed with him, maybe due to the paradox mentioned above. From Politico.com, here's a quick condensation of what writers are wrigning their hands over regarding the rally:

David Zurawik thinks Stewart’s being too arrogant; Anne Applebaum thinks it is sad that this is the best liberals can do; James Poniewozik worries Stewart is taking himself too seriously; Rizvi Quereshi worries he’s not taking the opportunity seriously enough; Bob Samuels fears he’s making a mockery of American politics.

 My, my. Such worry and concern over a little 'ol comedy show. If Stewart has the pundits worked up into such a lather over him, then he and his team are absolutely on the right track. But thanks to journalist Ryan Kearney, who puts the backlash into focus from the perspective of those perpetrating it, we can gain some insight:

As the criticism of Stewart's rally proves, we are delusional: Writers often aren't very thoughtful at all. We're just bitter. We loved Stewart because he voiced that bitterness we felt — about politics, about television, and even about our own careers. Now that his narrative has diverged from our own, we fear he'll become just another media figure — or worse, a politician — about whom we're forced to write articles. Some of us, consequently, reject Stewart in the way we might reject a boyfriend or girlfriend who has left us for something bigger: He or she is already gone, but somehow we convince ourselves that the decision was ours to make.

I'm not going to hide behind what should already be obvious by now, and just state that I'm a very big fan of both shows. Just to call out one amazing moment from the show's history, Stewart's grilling of Jim Cramer from Mad Money is not only an interview every American concerned with the press should see, but also an outline to how all media figures, politicians included, ought to be taken to task for mis-deeds. Oh, and Bob Samuels worries that Stewart is making a mockery of American politics? Sir, I think American politics itself has done a far more complete job of that on it's own than Stewart could ever do.

Mike Grefski

Lady November: Or, Hillary Clinton Attacks!

At some point in Summer 2007, I was sitting in traffic in Dickson City, PA, listening to Hillary Clinton being interviewed (I think on NPR). She stated bluntly that she would be the Democratic nominee for president. The interviewer informed her that this wasn't certain, but Clinton insisted it was, repeating herself a few times for emphasis. I was taken aback by her arrogance (not the first time) but as the next few weeks unfolded, something changed. We now all know, that something was Barrack Obama.

Clinton hung in there until the smothering inevitability of Obama becoming the nominee was certain. So surely, the party that had raised the Clintons to American royalty, and closed ranks to protect them from the slings and arrows of scandal, surely they would bestow upon her the mantle of Vice President nominee? Nope. That honor went to a man famous for sticking his foot in his mouth on an almost daily basis, Joe Biden.

So as the orgasm of hope that was the election and inauguration of Barack Obama whipped the nation into a frenzy, Hillary, for all her years of service to the Democrats, was out in the cold. Now I don't know, or particularly like the woman. But, I think anyone who has ever had ambitions crushed by forces beyond their control, could feel more than a bit sorry for the almost violent trip to the back of the bus that the Dems served Mrs. Clinton. And then, after being appointed Secretary Of State, the president seemed to take even fairly minor diplomatic roles from her, executing them himself. Some might suggest he should have been at home, minding the shop, but there you go.

And Clinton has been moderatley busy, but imagine the dichotomy; you go from being the first lady of the nation, to being your party's front running candidate, and having huge amounts of media attention, to barely  being a player at all. Well, if I was her, I would be just a little bitter.

So, we fast forward to the middle of 2012 for a little political prognostication on my part. The GOP is edging out the Obama campaign by a couple points, because Suzy Family Values Johnson of the Tea Party has rocketed to prominence to become the Republican nominee for president. It's looking bad for the Dems, Obama's first term has been shaky at best, a failure at worst. Who can save the Democrats from this bewildering loss? (For maximum effect, hum the Superman theme to yourself here. Or Mighty Mouse, whatever blows your skirt up)

Yes, it's Super Hillary, sticking it to the Dems by pulling their fat out of the fire, and in a cosmically huge karma smackdown, effectively rescuing them from the man they shunted her aside to embrace. Maybe it'll happen that way, maybe I'm way off base. But bitterness is something that can eat away at a person, and if anyone has a right to be bitter, it's Hillary Clinton.

Mike Grefski

Elitist: The New Dirty Word

You just have to laugh at the ways folks try to paint their opposition.

"Elitist" has become a buzz word from the right describing liberals who believe their way of thinking is best and everyone should kowtow to their ideology. Or at least that's the way its presented to us. Funny thing is, these liberal elitists call themsleves "intellectuals". I've always been told an intellectual is someone who is educated beyone their intellegence.

What do conservative elitsits call themselves? Easy! Rush Limbaugh...

Anyway...

I totally agree with the concept that the people who believe that their way of thinking is so superior to every other theory to the point that all others should be abandoned, lampooned, or ignored are equivalent to supporting a move towards a dictatorship. An absolute no-go for America. But to accuse one side of quasi-depotism through intellectual property and denying your own is hypocrasy. Pure and simple. There are just as many conservative elitists, but they aren't painted as such. Why?

Simple! the Republicans have less masters to serve. If you are pro-life, in favor of less government intervention in your private affairs, fiscally conservative, and a traditional religious fundamentalist, chances are you're a republican, and your fellow republicans are motivated by the same things. The democrats however have an army of lobbies to satisfy. Homosexual rights advocates, feminists, unions, pro-choice folks, and environmentalists are just a few. There's nothing wrong with any of these movements, but it is rare that mebers of these lobbies seem to gel with others who share their side of the aisle. The rift between the Teasmters who advocated opening ANWR for drilling versus the Sierra Club was a good example of the dichotomy.

So democrats have to festoon themselves with garlands of intellectual superiority because it frankly takes a genius to keep all of these factions on the same bus. Republicans have it easy: put up an American flag, open with a word of prayer, and tell Washington DC to stay out of your personal life and you have a successful republican rally.

Republican elitisits are people who think anything that comes out of a democrats mouth is worthless. Democrat elitists are those who feel the government should do the thinking for you. Both of them are ridiculous positions to take. The truth of it is that the answers to this country's ills will come from the common working American. Race, gender, religion, age, or any other unique identifyer has no bearing. The most powerful force in the world is the motivated American.

Republicans: we need government. There are those who can't support themselves or survive without subsistence. We also need regulations and oversite for industry because not every corporation operates honestly and within environmentally sound guidelines. It's a fact. Our world is more complicated than the Founders imagined, and we need a government to keep it together. Maybe we can trim some of the more arcane fat from the meat, but it's a must that we have order.

Democrats: you don't know everything. People are allowed to disagree with you, and if they do, it doesn't make them racists, homophobes, bigots, insensitive, facisits, censors, or religious maniacs. It makes them republicans. And you know what? It's okay to be different, right? People have the right to hunt, fish, pray, fly flags, and dislike paying taxes. When the Hollywood millionaires who support your candidates fire their accountants and file taxes on a 1040EZ, maybe I'll give you more credibility. It's funny how the biggest advocates for socialism in this country are the only ones wealthy enough to do it.

Libertarians: develop a decent national candidite and support him or her, and tell your freinds that common sense comes from the free thinking people int he middle.

And no matter who you are: VOTE! If you don't, you lose your right to complain.

Chip Grefski

More Social Commentary: The Obi-Wan Kenobi Effect

The wise follower of the force asked Han Solo, "who is more foolish, the fool or the one who follows him?" That's what I'm asking right now.

Two geniuses were arrested on a tip for selling "eco-friendly" laptops in the parking lot of a hotel. How eco-friendly were they? They didn't use any electricity at all and were made from completely bio-degradeable materials. The secret? they were painted blocks of wood in bubble wrap. The budding entrepreneurs threw in some bonus cell phone chargers too. Just to make it more plausible. Brilliant!

My point: if you see some dude selling merchandise in a parking lot, chances are it's either 1) stolen, 2) fake, 3) not what it's represented to be. These two crooks set up a real decoy laptop and sold the bubble-wrapped wood blocks for $799.99 a piece. You heard right! $800 for a chunk of painted wood. Apparently a few dupes bought these things before the police were tipped. My oh my...

PT Barnum was right... there is a sucker born every minute. And thanks to the over-abundance of rubes, we've got scams-a-plenty to rope 'em in. It astounds me that there is a daily regurgitation of idiots out there who try to either get something for nothing, or give nothing for something. I remember as a young policemen taking a report for a kid getting scammed out of $1200 from a dude who used the old- newspaper in a bandanna trick.

C'mon, people. Think!

By the way, I'm selling my UFO, autographed by Big Foot and Elvis on E-Bay... bid often.

Chip Grefski

A Cruel Sign of the Times

This isn't the first tiem I've heard this story. Desperate people try to remove copper from HVAC units and other large capacity power installations to sell the valuable metal. How valuable? A recent arrest here in my town had the suspect get 10 years for $.38 a pound. Yup... that's $.38, not $38.00... This picture was the aftermath of a man who tried to cut high voltage wires out from an energized building.

The sad thing is these guys are so desperate that they risk hitting places that are still energized. There's not much hope for you if you bite your bolt cutters into a live 220 power line. Ouch.

I'll take a different tack, though. Desperation often leads to stupidity. I know the job market is abyssmal right now, but can we please have a bit of common sense before we go on an "alternative" money making venture? Maybe I'm too harsh, but I cannot possibly in my wildest dreams see how anyone could figure that this is a good idea. Potential electric death for a pennies per pound. Not good odds, my friend.

Those of us with jobs are thankful, or we should be. Perhaps we need to step up as a community and try to establish a municipal day-labor organization for out of work people to show up and do some work for the public good for whatever we can afford to pay them. That will deflect having to pay to fix the damage and repair the lives of the families who lost brothers or sisiters to a bad choice.

Chip Grefski

We're Watching You, NPR

Guam in the balance?

Rep. Hank Johnson form my great state of Georgia tried to turn a question regarding the island nation of Guam's small size and fragile environment and lack of infrastructure into what he claimed was a "hilarious" tidbit of comedy gold. He claims in an interview afterwords that he was trying to point out that the presence of the added Marines would tip the island over. He said he was concerned that the island would flip over and capsize under the weight of the big bad Marines and their families. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-DzuCPmXU&feature=related

To his credit, his delivery was so straight and natural, I had no idea he was testing some stand up material. I thought he was actually dumb enough to think that an island floated along the ocean currents like a dirty beach ball. Maybe he chose the wrong career path. On more than one level...

Let's be frank. We should be concerned about polluting the environment. For centuries, man has not reckoned with the impact our industrial and expansion-related activities have had on our ecosystem until recently. The problem is now that we've acknowledged our errors and are moving ahead with fixing the problems, we have a new class of agitator that screams that we're either not doing enough or that any further expansions into any habitat should be stopped. Progressives like progress unless it helps a corporation or land developer be more successful. If you are a corporate executive who ignores environmental regulations in this litigious and media frenzied climate, then maybe you need to have your behind sued off. I'm just saying...

To respond to Rep. Johnson's point, we're more likely watching another "evil military" show from a Democrat who doesn't want to see our armed forces' role and mission expand. I'm sure the people of Guam are at least interested if this influx of well paid folks are coming to spend their hard earned dollars on their island. True, we do tend to be the police force of the world, but the strategic importance of Guam as a military base in the Pacific is an asset to out national security especially as instability from North Korea and some of the militant groups operating out of Indonesia is becoming more of a threat to us and our allies.

I hardly think that stationing Marines on Guam will be a totally negative or burdensome thing. Challenges yes, resistance to it to be expected, oh sure. But not the cataclysmic world over-turning event that Rep. Johnson wants us to believe.

Kudos to the Admiral for keeping a straight face...

Chip Grefski

Creation Science Fiction?

The link below this post will take you to an article that describes a book by an ancient catholic bishop that gives the age of the Earth as 6014. In fact, today is Earth's birthday. Hoist a pint...

In the world of ideas, creation science stirkes me as disingenuous. I am a Christian. I believe in God and the Bible. What I don't do is take the entire creation story literally. If you follow along in Genesis, it says the world was shapless and without form, and God shaped them together. Big Bang scientists say the world began in an explosive cataclysm (let there be light?) and the dust and particles from the superdense material exploding formed into all the celestial bodies we know today. What's the difference?

The big issue is time. The Bible says six days, evolutionists say billions of years. If God is all powerful, couldn't He make a day last longer than the human understanding of what a "day" is? I wouldn't put it past Him...

Red shift, carbon dating, radio waves, and other branches of science have demonstrated strong cases for an older earth, especially now with bacteria strains that are developing resistances to antibiotics, seemingly a form of evolution.

Creation Scientists say no and stick to their belief that the Bible has it word-for-word how it happened. Today is earth's birthday to them, and it all went according to God's biblical plan in six days, with the big rest day on number seven.

The thinking man can connect the two theories. Maybe we should join in the thinking.

Chip Grefski

Special thanks to Fark.com for posting this link. Drew is the man!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/october-23-earth-will-be-6014-years-old-t11986.html

Just How Did The Tea Party Happen?

In a recent Wall Stret Journal opinion piece, Peegy Noonan stated that in her belief, the Tea party has saved the Republican Party. She writes:

"In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself."

She has a point, and in the aftermath of the party's rise to notoriety, followed swiftly by fame and prominence, the Tea Party has some powerful lessons to teach both parties. Now understand, I don't agree with a lot of what the further fringes of the movement have to say, and I know by listening to more moderate party members, that they themselves would distance the party from the frankly homophobic and seemingly racist elements there. But from a pragmatic sense, the Democrats and Republicans in power can learn from the Tea Party a very important lesson: they are woefully out of touch with their own nation.

This is especially true of the Republicans at this point in time. Think about it. When the Tea Party first emerged, camps on both sides of the political spectrum laughed them off as some kind of bastard offspring of Midwestern millitia movements (which in the minorty is true). Then Sarah Palin happened. Concurrently the right wing radio hosts began taking the movement seriously as a challenge to the listless and mostly new idea-free nature of the current Repulbican party. Then Fox News seemed to officially join the Tea Party fund drive, followed swiftly by the election of Christine O'Donnell and possible success of more Tea Party backed candidates. And while all this happened, the Republican leadership watched largely mute, not understanding what was happening to their own party. And let's not forget that even as Tea Party politicians are grabbing elected positions, the Democrat leadership still seems to regard them as a bunch of yahoos, a total non-threat.

Noonan also pointed out that the Tea Party also helped the Republicans by not going the third party route. But I feel that if they are not extended a more loving hand from the GOP, they still might. And that would spell big trouble for both parties.

The problem I have is this: Tea Partiers have some continually demonstrated habits that are inconsistent with our overall American political scene. Firstly and most importantly, they act like a cult. Sound too extreme? Consider their inherent distrust of outsiders, and oft repeated paranoia about socialism, government intervention and expansion. Many times they rail against things that aren't actually happening or wildly exaggerate things that are. Worse, they don't feel they have to answer to the press, which in a broader sense means they don't have to answer to their potential constituencies, or at least the non-conservative elements of them. The repeated requests for softball interviews from "friendly" outlets and cancelling of appearances (even on Fox, for crying out loud) suggests these people are either incredibly nervous about articulating their views in the face of debate, or they simply don't feel they need to.

The right wing noise machine has, essentially since the rise of Rush Limbaugh, created a self-fullfilling prophecy, that essentially says that the mainstream media lies to you 100% of the time. This has created packaged news as a product, a concept that helped spawn Fox News and the insular, paranoid nature of the Tea Party. Did packaged news aimed at liberals exists before? Sure it did, and conservatives decried it. Now they've created their own version of it and are basking in it's warm glow. So in the end it's not about reporting news accuratley, it's about reporting news politically, and whether the right or left is steering the ship, the american public are the ones who drown in a sea of slanted information.

It is out of this vaccuum that the Tea Party emerged, or was at least assisted by it. I'm not against Tea Party candidites running, or even winning elections. But when you refuse to speak to the press in a broad, responsible sense, you risk becoming something that conservatives are endlessly accusing liberals of being: elitist.

By Mike Grefski

Ignorance of the Law is Our Own Fault

Ever really read a criminal code? Get into the exceptions or additional penalties or conditions and it will make you wonder if what the defendant did was really a crime. What about the tax code? CPAs have different interpretations and they're trained to understand it. What's the problem?

My firm belief is legislatures have purposefully created our modern legal speak and phrasiology to purposefully confuse the average joe and force them to hire representation or to blind them into a plea deal since they really don't understand what is happening. That's a shame.

We need simplified laws and statutes. From taxes to disorderly conduct, folks need to understand what they are responsible for, and the rules need to be clear enough to eliminate confusion.

We also need to shift the public's consciousness to voluntary compliance. I know this doesn't apply to everybody; most of us are law abiding citizens. But for those who feel the only way to get customer service is to rant and rave at the individual paid to help or the person who drinks themself into oblivion and goes out on a stumbling fumbling disruption ride, this message is for you. The rest of the world doesn't need to put up with your obnoxious and uncivil behavior, and your kids are watching. How can schools and public places convince your kids to behave if you don't.

So, to the legislatures, write the laws in a way we can understand. To the obnoxious malcontents of the world, grow up and act like a free citizen should.

Chip Grefski

Don't Ciritcize it... Prop 19 It!

California's Prop 19 is really moving us into a brave new world. Legalizing marijuana? Decriminalizing possession? Are we ready for it?

In my personal opinion, yes we are. Our legal system is clogged with petty possessors that take up time, money, and resources from law enforcement, district attorneys, and counselors assigned to manage and monitor them, similar to those caught from drinking offenses. The difference is only in the perception of the user from the perspective of society in general, alcohol is legal and acceptable, pot is not. Many a drunk gets a ride home for the night without a matching pair of silver bracelets, but a pothead taking a night stroll is likely to get arrested if encountered by John Law. It's not hypocritical, its conditioning. Alcohol use is social acceptable, pot is an illegality that requires immediate intervention.

This is your brain... this is your brain on conditioning...

In my professional experience, I have never had a violent encounter with someone high on marijuana. The encounters have actually been quite funny and memorable. Drunks however have this amazing habit of wanting to fight everyone, especially people wearing polyester with various devices designed to make you say "ow" in varying and specific ways. Give me a pothead over a crackhead any day. I'm just saying...

The social stigma about marijuana use is wearing off too. Pot is mainstream, but the mainstream users won't admit it. There's is still a social shyness about marijuana use that keeps it a covert conversation, the legal ramifications not withstanding. Some folks just don't want it to be known that they indulge in pot even though they may be getting some highly efficacious results form use. Prop 19, for Californians any way, might relax social tensions and make the effects more lasting. It also might make the "taboo" quality go away like when underground fads go mainstream and thus lose their flair with the original players.

The problem is those who can't handle being high. The same goes for people who can't handle being drunk. It boils down to responsibility. What a person does behind closed doors is no business of mine. Unless it's in plain view and my responsibility as a law enforcer kicks in, I have no reason (or desire) to kick in a door because someone is lighting up a joint.

Let's put the skunk on the table: marijuana is in more bloodstreams right now than any government or private anti-drug organization would either acknowledge or want to hear. Legalization of marijuana is not pragmatic, its practical. We all know there is big money in drug enforcement, but maybe saving the taxpayers from the burden on the front end would allow us to use enforcement assets to combat real killers like meth, cocaine, heroin, and steroids. A clean, reliable, and regulated source would shift the revenue from court fines to tax collections, and would create a cottage industry overnight.

Package it and punish it like alcohol. Kids don't get it until 21. Driving high is still bad, and the sentences need to hurt. Being high and irresponsible in public should cause you some retribution. But having some friends over around a bong instead of a bourbon bottle might not be the end of the world.

Chip Grefski

Reloading Gun Laws?

A recent change to Georgia's laws for possesing firearms in school zones has my internal "cop vs. citizen" battle heating up. Again...

First of all, the legislature saw fit to remove the 1000 foot Safe School Zone within which possessing a weapon fitting the definition was a felony. This zone meant the police had a very effective means of making sure armed persons could not get near a public school. Why did they take it away? I can only assume my colleagues around the state abused the statute, perhaps making arrests using this code well after school hours. Abuse a code or stretch it and it will go away.

So now the law reads if you have a permit, you can bring your weapon, particularly a firearm, into the school parkinglot if you are dropping off or picking up your child. You can leave it in a locked container or locked in the gunrack of your truck. If you try to bring it inside, then your guilty of a misdemeanor. If you don't have a permit, it's a felony to bring a weapon in your car into a school zone, even though the law regarding firearms possession says you don't need a concealed carry permit to have a firearm in your house, business or vehicle. Okay, so the permit is the key, but does it prevent problems beter than the Safety Zone did? I think not.

The Second Amendment is the law of the land, controversially so, but it seems to be counterintuitive to relax the law about the proximity of dangerous weapons and school children. Especially when we look at another recent requirement has all law enforcement officers not assigned to court security lock out their weapons prior to entering court.

Huh?

That's right. A professional trained in the use of firearms, especially in hostile situations has to lock up their weapons when going into a court house but a 21 year-old who passed a background check for his permit  can bring a loaded firearm onto a school campus. At least South Carolina requires people wanting to carry a gun to pass a training course. That would make me a little more comfortable with this concept.

I have no problem with a responsible citizen owning a firearm. I enourage it. But let's focus on the word responsible. Is your world so dangerous that you need your fire-breathing hog leg (gotta love that Southern phrase!) close to you at all times, even when picking the kids up at school? If it is, I don't think having your piece nearby will really solve your problem. In fact, it just might add more problems to your pile.

Chip Grefski

NPR Should Reconsider The Firing Of Juan Williams

NPR fired longtime reporter Juan Williams on Oct. 20, 2010, after he said the following on Bill O'Reilly's television program two days prior:

 I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts. But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam.

For saying that, NPR fired him for being "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

So you can be fired for inconsistency? And was Williams representing merely himself when he said those or words, or NPR in general? I think it's clear he was simply talking about himself and his own feelings. They further state that by saying what he felt, he became non-credible. Let's muse on this for a moment.

I am a free speech advocate. Some of the most difficult things Glenn Beck has said that seem to have directly resulted in violence, are abhorrent, but he's protected under the first ammendment. And here's what NPR needs to consider: while their programs are covered under the catch-all dislcaimer of "commentary," there is no doubt that there are many people who take the inflammatory language of the right wing noise machine as fact. The proof is simple; time after time mis-information doled out by the commentators have often re-entered the news cycle as if they were real in the first place. Williams hardly even encroached on that territory.

Glenn Beck has predicted blood covered streets as the only way for Americans to "take back" their government. All Juan Williams did was state that extremists make him nervous. Bit of a dichotomy there, eh?

This is a political move on NPR's part, to make sure the hyper liberal segment of their audience doesn't stop sending them dough. And this, my friends, are words coming from an NPR fan, who listens to several shows on the network every day. I'm not against NPR. I'm against this action.

But the bigger issue for me is this: I do not share Mr. William's feelings, but he is entitled to express them, and indeed to have them. Also, will this encourage other NPR reports to feel less free about expressing their views? What good would that do? I have already seen applause for the network's move popping up on blogs, and to those people who have, I ask them to consider the following. I have heard many liberals saying literally despicable things about George W. Bush and his administration. Violent rheroic that I was frankly shocked by. By the logic employed by NPR, if your boss didn't agree with your views, he'd have the right to fire you. Let's all take a deep breath and think about that.

The real snafu here is that later in the same interview, Juan Willams spoke of the neccessity for all citizens, regardless of their views, to be protected by Constitutional law. Hardly the ramblings of non-credible racist.

MIke Grefski

Hey, Third Time's A Charm

The Compost Diaries Manifesto

At a time when American politics have devolved into a self-serving noise machine of pundits and professional politicians, the US public is being ignored, insulted and frankly preyed upon by both the Democrat and Republican parties. At the Compost Diaries, we hope to be able to bring sensible, respectful and most of all civil political views from all sides together, in order to restore the sense of reasonable debate so absent from modern political discourse. And if we can be funny while doing it, so much the better. Our collective background as the founders of this site is generally conservative libertarians, but we encourage content from anyone willing to follow the template above. We feel the polarization of political views as portrayed by the US media is not only unproductive but destructive. There must be more to the discussion than gainsay and filling up 24 news networks with “content” to create ad revenue.

We hope you can join us in our quest to bring a little sanity and maybe even a little fun into this now joyless terrain.

Mike & Chip Grefski

The Great Gray Abortion Debate

I heard a recent report regarding the endorsement of a Republican Gubernatorial candidate here in Georgia that led me to take up my pen. It centered on a highly regarded right-to-life organization’s non-endorsement of Karen Handel since she agrees with the woman’s right to choose to abort a pregnancy in the case of rape or incest. This non-endorsement is seen as a “kiss of death” moment for any GOP candidate, and the report made a point to emphasize it as such.

The issue of abortion is contentious to say the least. This issue is so incredibly divisive that the lines that separate the schools of thought cross party, religion, socio-economic status, and education. There does seem to be a pattern for the majority of the right to life and pro-choice movements politically, but it is far from absolute. I personally feel that this schism over abortion when you include the two additionally unspeakable acts of rape and incest that blur the black and white of the abortion issue into a very tenuous gray.

Let me be clear: I firmly believe abortion should not be used or regarded birth control, and I don’t believe the majority of pro-choice advocates see it as so. Perhaps the extremists in their camp see the option as usable in any circumstance, but I cannot see any rational thinking human regarding the termination of what has been proven to be a living organism just because someone had a lapse of judgment or precaution as acceptable.

However, if under the vile circumstances where a woman’s sanctity has been violated beyond reason by a human animal, why should that woman be forced to bear not only the pain of the violation but the trauma of carrying the seed of the encounter, even if the child is to be given for adoption? Does the absolute pro-life stance regard the psychological state of the mother in this instance? What kind of life would that mother and her child have after enduring the months of torment brought on by absolutely no choice of her own?

The concept of forcing a woman who has been impregnated by force or without her consent to carry that child full term amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. If she is emotionally and spiritually strong enough to carry the child to term, she should absolutely have no barriers to do so, but let it be her choice. To have a living breathing person who has had her sanctity ripped from forced to see the results of violence come to fruition is even more inhumane. By doing so we would have two lives that are in potential turmoil, and one needs someone’s care for their very survival. In a way, they both do.

Going to the abortion clinic after a night of irresponsibility is not where I am on this issue. Having the ability to ensure life can go on for the violated by the simple right to choose what one does with one’s body is. Ultimately, the burden is on the individual, whether they act or not, and there are consequences for either path.

Chip Grefski

Who Cares What The Media Thinks About The Gorund Zero Mosque?

The current flap over the “ground zero mosque,” which seems to have largely run the usual course of discovery, hysteria, disinformation and dissipation at this point, revealed an interesting thing about the modern media and its arrogance. It was particularly hard on this story to separate the whirlwind of borderline racist rhetoric coming from the right, with hard facts about exactly what the building was, and most importantly, did the general community in NYC themselves have a problem with the planned structure. Because here’s the thing… I don’t care what anyone in the media think about it, unless they live in the community. I care no more what Jon Stewart thinks about it, than I do Glenn Beck. I know that because we have 24 hour news networks, so many tempests in teapots are quickly ballooned to being genocide level threat bombs, that feelings, more than facts drive the media. But the whirlwind of rhetoric that exploded on this issue seemed to forget about actually asking the people in the community if they wanted it there in the first damn place. And I’m not insinuating that anyone shouldn’t have the right to comment on it, but it struck me how arrogant it was for people who don’t actually live there to decide the morality of the issue.  And you know what; if the people of NYC don’t want it, it shouldn’t be there. If they do, it should. But I don’t think Keith Olbermann or Ann Coulter should be the ones to decide. Unless they’re going to be the people who walk past it day after day.

Oh, and in the name of fairness, let’s take a look at the polling numbers from NYC itself, as gathered by Wikipedia:

By a margin of 52%–31% New York City voters opposed the construction, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll carried out in June 2010.^{[32][124][125][126]} At the same time, 46% of Manhattanites supported it, while 36% opposed it. Opposition was strongest in Staten Island, where 73% opposed it while only 14% supported it.^[32][33] A higher percentage of Republicans (82%) than Democrats (45%) opposed the plan.^[127]

OK, the people have spoken, take it as you will. It honestly looks like the general community does not want the structure. But since the right went out of their way to continually brand this building as simply a mosque, or more inflammatorily as a “victory mosque,” let’s take a look at some of the proposed accoutrement this building is supposed to include:

The proposed facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, September 11 memorial, and Muslim prayer space that would accommodate 1,000–2,000 people.

Wow, imagine all the recruiting extremists can do while going to gourmet school, or shooting hoops.

And did anyone on Fox point out there’s a damn 9-11 Memorial planned in the space? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess no, unless they reported it as a concession (wink, nudge) to those who’d be opposed to the plan.

But you know what…I don’t live there. This is one of those issues that I can really, truly see both sides of the argument on. But for me, it simply boils down to letting the public decide, hopefully civilly, what their community consists of. Not Washington, not media spin, but the community itself. Period.

Mike Grefski

Mike's Favorite Political Cartoon Of The Day

Republicans and Democrats: Too Big To Fail?

A question I’ve been asking myself over the past few months, as Fox News and the Tea Party seem to have usurped the Republican Party is: where’s the RNC? Even seasoned veterans of the media wars like Rush Limbaugh seem to have doubled down on the (mildly) hostile takeover of their party. Similarly, the leadership on the Left is blatantly asking the public to “ignore the man behind that curtain,” and insultingly telling voters that if they’re displeased with the president, they’re wrong. Clearly, both parties are in trouble, the Republicans more so, because the insurgency in their party is already in full effect. The revolution on the left, though, feels like it’s just out of reach, but lurking all the same.

I can remember hearing Mr. Limbaugh rail against the very possibility of a third party candidate upsetting the established order. I say to Mr. Limbaugh, that not only has it happened, but he helped make it so. When Christine O’Donnell was elected, technically she was running as a Republican, but credited the Tea Party for so successfully backing her election. And when mainline Repubs questioned her competence, the conservative noise machine delivered a bully-like smack-down on them, from Fox (Hannity, Beck etc.) to Limbaugh and bloggers beyond.

So, with media figures as prominent as Jon Stewart coming very close to calling this administration an outright failure, and a growing majority of conservatives virtually ignoring their own party’s leadership, the emergence of a strong third party candidate seems not only possible, but downright inevitable. For the Tea Party to successfully make a run at the presidency, they will either have to do one of two things. One, admit they are in fact a part of the Republican Party, and allow themselves to be mainstreamed into it. Two, form a more cohesive structure and run as a third party ticket, which to me seems more likely given their very much established distrust and displeasure with the RNC.

The more radical possibility is that a centrist, possibly soon to be former Democrat will emerge, and with a more Libertarian agenda, silence both the elites on the left and the senseless noise machine on the right by simply refusing to engage in hyperbole. I know this sounds insane in our current climate, but the foundations of both parties are fractured, and voters are becoming more dissatisfied than ever with our limited choice system.

So, too big to fail? Maybe not.  

Mike Grefski