The Scoper

Hoodies

The shooting of Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. An innocent unarmed young man was walking through a neighborhood and was shot by George Zimmerman, a member of a local citizen watch group who was also licensed to carry a concealed weapon. His involvement with the citizens watch group and his permit to carry were unrelated and I would further guess that if the group was police sanctioned, carrying a weapon while on patrol would have been prohibited.

Geraldo Rivera wrote a column (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/23/trayvon-martins-hoodie-and-george-zimmerman-share-blame/) stating that Trayvon would have been alive today if he were not wearing a hoodie. He stated that hoodies are associated with being a member of a gang and that would make you a dangerous person, one that makes others fearful of you. He actually sent a direct message through his column to the parents of all young people to not allow their children to wear hoodies, that if Trayvon's parents had not allowed him to wear a hoodie he would still be alive.

Some direct quotes from Rivera's article:

"His hoodie killed Trayvon Martin as surely as George Zimmerman did."

"If you dress like a hoodlum eventually some schmuck is going to take you at your word."

I wonder how Trayvon's parents felt when they heard that message. If this was a valid warning with substance, the fact that it made the parents feel bad but in doing so saved lives would be a worthwhile exchange. But really, Geraldo. Perhaps like cigarettes there should be a warning on every hoodie sold, "Warning - wearing by ethnic minority could be harmful to your health."

More to the point, I found this to be virtually parallel to the concept that woman should not wear provocative clothes to prevent them from being raped. Like Rivera said about Trayvon, if the girl got raped, it wasn't her fault but she could have prevented it by wearing unattractive attire. Hell, why stop there? Perhaps women should stop wearing perfume and makeup. Every little bit will help decrease the odds of being raped.

Likewise, Trayvon should have not just left the hoodie at home. He should have worn white sox and oxford shoes with flood pants. Throw in some thick glasses and that would have protected him. But make sure that he did not wear a bow tie. That might have made him then resemble a follower of Malcolm X and bam, from nerd to fear inducing menace.

Adding to the absurdity, gun control proponents are using this as an example why conceal carry laws should be repealed and even stating this is proof that all guns should be turned into police. That is food for another column but suffice to say that using this as reason to remove guns from law abiding citizens is like issuing a prohibition on consensual sex because someone was raped.

Bottom line, this was a bad shooting and George Zimmerman should be prosecuted. He had no business even leaving his car, as a community watch member. He should have stayed in the auto and called 911.

And this is also proof that Geraldo Rivera has, like the episode where Fonz jumped the shark on a jet ski, provided proof that this is his evolutionary moment where his decline in quality is beyond recovery.

Louis C.K.

Way back in 2003 almost on the eve of the Iraq invasion, Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks said at a concert in London, that the Dixie Chicks were, “…ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.”

The Dixie Chicks appealed to an upscale C&W crowd which had its fair share of Republicans, many of whom became very vocal about their objection to the comment and that they would never listen to the Dixie Chicks again and certainly would never buy one of their CD’s or concert tickets.

While neither a big supporter nor hater of President Bush, their comment would not have changed my opinion of their musical talents no more that I would stop supporting any President who could not sing the Star Spangled Banner acapella without missing a note. The President is supposed to be our Commander in Chief and The Dixie Chicks are supposed to cause me to tap my toe and get frustrated that I can’t get their hit, Sin Wagon, from playing in my head like an infinite do-loop 8-track.

I have always been amazed at how much attention the public pays to celebrities’ political opinions. I am not saying they lack in political acumen but do I really care what Nick Cage says about the deficit? I mean have you seen Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance? Sheesh, what a mess.

I care that an actor transports me into the film in which he is acting. I want him to provide an experience that will make me laugh, cry, or become oh-so-thoughtful. I really don’t care that he thinks the velocity in growth of M1 and M2 will lead us to an era of hyper-inflation.

So I separate my politics from entertainment. I did not seek Ted Nugent’s opinion on foreign policy nor did I care that Ben Bernanke’s arabesque was a bit shaky as a result of the elevated leg having an undesirable bend in the knee.

Now I have to admit I came close with the Mel Gibson rants on Jews and women. But I confess that I would still watch Mad Max with no prodding.

But my philosophy of separating entertainment from politics has been permanently altered after I learned some of the things Louis C.K. has said about Sarah Palin and her child Trig (who has Down syndrome).

As some of you may know I am the Board President of GiGI’s Playhouse McHenry, a Down syndrome awareness and advocacy organization. So I have a dog in this hunt. But I have also been a big Louis C.K. fan. I think he is very creative and funny. Until now.

Here are some of what he has said, with heavy use of * to hide words that may be offensive to some readers.

Louis C.K. says of Palin: “her f** retard making c” and “the baby that just came out of her f* disgusting c**.”

To Palin: just “stick your t** in its mouth and shut up.” Here is what he says on twitter: “I want to rub my father’s c** all over Sarah Palin’s fat t**”

And one final tweet: “people think that sarah Paalin is really mean but she has a family of chinese poor people living in her c*** hole. Sorry”

Now I also admit to not understanding the passion against Sarah Palin. Not like her politics? Got that? Don’t want her as a VP, one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Understood. But why the hatred? More to the point, how can anyone rave about a child who has Down syndrome? He said some awful things about her child Trig, things I could not even copy above.

So I reach out to you, dear readers. Am I wrong for placing Louis C.K. on my permanent shun list?

And the hits keep coming from Rick.

From The Huffington Post, ""Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society," Santorum told the Ohio Christian Alliance conference.

Asked by Schieffer about his claims that prenatal testing leads to more abortions, Santorum insisted that this was "a fact."

"We're talking about specifically prenatal testing, and specifically amniocentesis, which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it, and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. And in many cases -- and in fact in most cases -- most physicians recommend, if there is a problem, they recommend abortion," Santorum said.

Please Vote for Rick Santorum

I am declaring my full and unqualified support for Rick Santorum as the Republican Presidential candidate. Rather then blather on about why I think this is such an obvious decision to anyone but the most severely limited, I will list direct quotes and facts about Senator Santorum that will guide you, like a squeeze chute and a head gate, to exactly the same conclusion.

1. Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against confirming the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Santorum stated that his objection was to Gates's support for talking with Iran and Syria, because it would be an error to talk with radical Islamists.

2. A supporter of enhanced interrogation, he said in 2011 that John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war, did not understand how the process works.

3. In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America." “All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

4. In June 2011, Santorum said he would continue to "fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement. In an NPR interview in the summer of 2005, Santorum discussed what he called the "libertarianish right," saying "they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone.” (bold is mine)

5. Santorum has stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" is part of the Constitution; he has been critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed that right, and overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives to married couples. He has described contraception as "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,"(bold mine) and stated in 2003 that laws should exist against polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" since they were harmful to society.

6. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

7. “There are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore. I don’t know if that’s the similar situation or that’s the case for anyone that’s black. It’s a behavioral issue as opposed to a color of the skin issue, and that’s the diff for serving in the military.” ~Rick Santorum, comparing homosexuality to being black.”

8. “There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.” ~Rick Santorum, falsely claiming that there are no Palestinians living on the West Bank.

9. “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.” ~Rick Santorum, opposing contraception and frighteningly suggesting that he would make pre-marital sex illegal.

10. “You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father. I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?” ~Rick Santorum, comparing his fight against homosexuality to the war against terror.

11. “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide.” ~Rick Santorum, declaring that states have the right to outlaw all forms of birth control.

12. “This is an issue just like 9-11. We didn’t decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?” ~Rick Santorum, comparing legalizing same-sex marriage to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

13. “Let’s look at what’s going to be taught in our schools because now we have same sex couples being the same and their sexual activity being seen as equal and being affirmed by society as heterosexual couples and their activity. So what is going to be taught to our people in health class in our schools? What is going to be taught to our children about who in our stories, even to little children — what are married couples? What families look like in America? So, you are going to have in our curriculum spread throughout our curriculum worldview that is fundamentally different than what is taught in schools today? Is that not a consequence of gay marriage?” ~Rick Santorum, warning that homosexuality will indoctrinate our children in schools.

14. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.” ~Rick Santorum, declaring that government has the right to limit people from pursuing their dreams.

15. “I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.” ~Rick Santorum, advocating for arresting doctors that provide crucial medical services to women.

16. “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.” ~Rick Santorum, claiming Christians played no role in starting the Crusades.

17. “I don’t want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.”

18. “Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom. Average Americans, the very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust to make a decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.”

The reason I am such a devotee of Ricky is that I am an optimist about the capability of the American people and have lost all faith in the Republican Party. If Romney is the Republican candidate, I believe he will lose by a couple of percentage points. It will be close, but he will lose. And nothing will change for the next election.

If the Rickster wins the Republican nod, his loss to Obama will make the bomb at Nagasaki look like a Black Cat. And why would I want that? Because I am a classical liberal.

Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

This used to be the mantra of the Republican Party. But an unholy concentration in the Grand Old Party of intolerant religious zealots and neo conservatives who believe the most righteous of activities is to spread “the American Way” by whatever means necessary, has generated a list of candidates for 2012 that are fringe lunatics (see Ricky and Ron) or who lack the personal integrity to stand up to the Town Elders for what he believes in (see Mitt).

So if Rick wins the nomination, he will get annihilated and as a result, once and for all, those Christian Crusaders and itchy finger neo-conservatives will be purged from the GOP ranks and we can return to civility in politics and finally have an election process that encourages true leaders to participate. I did say I was optimistic about the American people.

(thanks to the people at www.Addictinginfo.org for some of these quotes)

Gay Parents

We are spending way too much time on issues regarding homosexuality. Really. And now I am writing about it which will likely eliminate my chances of ever getting hired by some homophobic imbecile. So be it.

I’m not sure why this pisses me off so much. The fact that we are spending time and energy on issues regarding people’s private lives, issues between two consenting adults, is absolutely beyond me when we have several thousand more important things on the Pareto list to deal with. In fact, this shouldn’t even be on the Pareto list. It is a non-issue. It is normal regular stuff. Why can’t we get this through our collective heads? We have the economy. We have world hunger. We have a society that is slowly morphing into simplistic epsilon semi-morons (look that up in Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World). We have 98 degrees outside with a heat index of 110. That and the fact that McDonalds refuses to carry the McRib as a regular part of its menu are ALL more important and, dare I say, more controversial, issues. I dare.

Anyway, there are lots of things about Franken that irritate me. One is I think he lost his sense of humor back in his 40’s (and he had a wicked brilliant sense of humor). But in this case, I applaud him. He heard testimony and READ THE DATA! Take a look at his performance at

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/20/274032/franken-destoys-focus-on-the-family-witness-exposes-misuse-of-hhs-study/.

Click on the video. He eviscerated Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery. This guy is a homophobic imbecile.

Thank you Al. By the way, loved you in Trading Places.

SAM's the Man

Philadelphia has implemented a plan called SAM, The Small Amount of Marijuana Program and it makes so much sense I double and triple checked to make sure it was actually a government program. It treats arrests for marijuana possession of up to 30 grams - slightly more than an ounce - as a summary offense, rather than a misdemeanor.

The old misdemeanor charge carried a maximum penalty of 30 days' probation or jail time and a $500 fine.

Even under the old system there were not many pot arrests that resulted in a jail sentence. But if you were caught with a joint, you had a permanent criminal record, kind of like that horrid tattoo you got of some Chinese symbols except unlike the tattoo, you can’t hid it from a potential employer under a long sleeved shirt.

The new program has offenders (as defined by possession of 30 grams or less) pay $200 for a three-hour class about drug abuse. After that their record is expunged. No trial, no judge, no court-appointed defense attorneys, no prosecutor, no lab tests to confirm the "leafy green substance" is actually marijuana, no cops getting paid overtime to testify.

"We were spending thousands of dollars for when someone possessed $10 or $15 worth of weed," Seth Williams said of the way marijuana cases were prosecuted when he was elected. "It just didn't make any sense." Seth is the new District Attorney and is responsible for this little fresh breath of common sense.

Approximately 4,160 defendants enrolled in the SAM program during its first year, according to Jodi Lobel, deputy of the D.A.'s Pretrial Division. "We decided to design a smarter way," Lobel said.

Think how much money was saved.

In a related story, there is a chronic (pun intended) shortage of Pringles and snickedoodles in the Philadelphia area. But I digress.

A 2005 study by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor of Economics that was endorsed by over 500 economists identified that between $10 – 14 billion of annual savings and revenues if we replace the prohibition of pot with a system of taxation and regulation similar to what we use for liquor.

The fact that we would rather make laws eliminating toys from Happy Meals and not deal with legislation that is costing billions of dollars, has no victims, disrupts lives of average Americans, and is totally ineffective in its intent is just another sign of our society’s perverse avoidance of the sane and rational.

I am a Libertarian and I Live to Crush the Helpless

As we have discussed in previous postings, I belong to no group and especially any that have subjective definitions such as Conservative, Liberal, Communist or Socialist. In fact, there are very few “groups” with which I accept any direct association perhaps with the exception of male, and my love of antiques, music and theater combined with my disdain for any organized athletic event makes that suspect as well.

So I am careful not to call myself a Libertarian. Do I share some philosophy with their formal platform or “statement of principles?” You bet. And the fact that they have a defined set of principles is kind of neat.

So before I talk about crushing the helpless, let’s take a moment and look at some of those principles. These were taken right from The Libertarian Party web site, www.lp.org. Take a saunter over there and give it a tumble. I promise it will not give you the cooties or corrupt your moral sense of right.

1.0 Personal Liberty Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Can ya argue with that one…really?

1.1 Expression and Communication We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

Come on…kind of attractive don’t you think?

1.2 Personal Privacy Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

Yeah, I know. This is what gets many. Legal drugs….legal prostitution…. Grow up. Think about the reality of eliminating victimless crimes from the books and get back to me. But only after you have really fired up a couple of million synapses working it.

1.3 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Sounds pure and simple. Is it really more complicated than that?

1.4 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Sure. Ron Paul is really against this. He’s delivered a few babies in his time and has a thing about it. And this makes my point. Ron Paul is not the Libertarian Party. He is one person. But we tend to take one, or a couple of usually very vocal people, and paint everyone within arm’s reach with the same paint. Please give us few thoughtful souls a bit more credit. Either we agree with the formal platform and realize Ron has strayed a bit from the reservation on this one, or we are individual free thinkers that do not accept the pure dogma of any one group.

There are 22 other principles that are worth your time to take a look at. You may be surprised that they involve such matters as the fact that the government should not subsidize any form of energy, property rights are very important, immigration should be much, much more open, and no discrimination of any type is to be tolerated.

I am betting that if you read these principles with an open mind, you will agree with virtually all of them.

So let’s get to the part that I love to crush the helpless. When people come to their own erroneous conclusion and want to label me a Libertarian, the next reflexive response is that as a Libertarian I love to crush the helpless. Well, maybe not crush them but certainly they think we believe we should ignore them and let them wither away. Thin the herd. Let the strongest survive. Cast the weak to the side.

I guess the only question I can ask is how do you get there from here? What is it in the credo that leads people to think that people who subscribe to the Libertarian philosophy must be heartless when it comes to the helpless? Libertarians simply believe that it's wrong to take by force money from one group of people and give it to another group of people. It’s that simple. In fact, any privately funded charity would qualify as Libertarian because it is based on people giving voluntarily.

Some people like to be affiliated with a group and will follow that group’s entire philosophy without question. Kind of like religion. There are some fundamentalists that believe what the bible says word for word. Then there are others that don’t. And like most things, my money would bet that the vast majority of people that consider themselves religious do not take the bible word for word as legit. Then there are some people who do not associate with any specific group, but pick and choose from what they think is right. They form their beliefs based on the buffet of life’s knowledge. I like to think of myself in this group.

A quote from Ayn Rand is so appropriate here. She is so maligned by people who have not read her books or studied her philosophy. This ignorance leads people to associate her with the Libertarian cause. Nothing could be further from the truth. To make several of my points in one swoop, I will quote Ms. Rand;

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

So let’s form our opinions about a person or even a particular group based on finding out what that person really believes or actually studying the group’s philosophies. Let’s not take other people’s rash generalizations about a group as fact. Let’s engage in dialog, be thoughtful, and form our own opinions.

Sad Times for Happy Meals

Circumstances, or more specifically Monet Parham-Lee is forcing me to write again about a subject I have already harangued you about, twice, and that is the government getting involved in telling us what to eat. Monet has initiated a lawsuit against McDonalds claiming they use toys to market directly to children. Helping her in this waste of our time and tax dollars is the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). You have to look up this group on your own to learn about the size and the special type of their battiness.

Monet seems to have a problem with some of the most fundamental parenting skills. But I cannot possibly explain how inept she is better than she can herself. Here is what she said, "We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat."

Not to be “out dimwitted” by Monet, the executive director of CSPI, Michael Jackson accused McDonald's of "one of the most insidious marketing practices–dangling a toy in front of a small child." Jacobson called the practice "unfair, deceptive and illegal' in California and many other states. "The food industry has a responsibility not to intrude into families by using sleazy marketing techniques getting kids to pester their parents."

Cry...laugh...your choice.

DREAM On...

Since the Republican election “landslide” of 2010 it has never been clearer that I am neither a Democrat nor Republican.

Nor a Libertarian, socialist, communist, Green Party or Red Hat member, Freemason, Symbionese Liberation Army soldier or Mousketeer.

But I digress.

I have written before about the concept of absolute value. In mathematical terms, the absolute value of a real number is the numerical value of the number regardless of its sign. And in sign, I mean + or – not Sagittarius or Aries.

The Republicans and Democrats are both, in absolute value terms, idiots. One is blue, one is red. One is a donkey and one is an elephant. But take away the husk, that hard candy coating, and what do you have? Idiots. Simple. Or at the risk of being redundant, simple idiots.

Both parties, most of the major news outlets and I dare say most of you, dear reader(s) have thrown away careful thought and relied on how “our team” positions themselves to determine what we think.

I say this after seeing another piece of half-way decent legislation suppressed by a group of sheep-like politicians. The Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) would offer legal status to students who came to the United States illegally before they turned 16 and have lived here for more than five years. To gain legal status they would need to complete high school, and then two years of college or military service. Once implemented the act would legalize about 65,000 students a year.

65,000 students a year! And for that the Republicans are stonewalling the effort to get this passed.

Our birth rate is barely, just barely, keeping up with the mortality rate. We have taken direct actions to limit immigration by ridiculously low quotas and making the process incredibly lengthy and expensive. We have taken indirect action to limit immigration by ignoring constitutional rights, doubling our unemployment rate through fiscal mismanagement and creating an environment that discourages entrepreneurial risks, making this a less fun place to live.

So instead, let’s do everything we can to become a European-like land of inbred knuckleheads with carpel tunnel syndrome that is a result of our hands constantly being outstretched for a handout.

How can we forget what made this country as great as it is/was (you select)? We had people who were hard working appreciative risk takers come to this country to establish a new base of roots. We had a bunch of people from different places come to our country and have to work hard to overcome the local biases and prejudices that all of them faced. And this created character. And now we have the ability to have a group of 65000 select themselves every year. These will be people who have lived here at least 5 years and completed either 2 years of college or military service. I don’t know about you but I want more people like that I don’t give a damn where they come from.

Getting back to the idiots, please don’t take my word for it. Allow the cretins to speak for themselves.

Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said: “It is not being cold-hearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is one dollar less that’s spent on our own children, our own senior citizens and for all those who entered this society who played by the rules, who paid their taxes and expect their government to watch out for their needs before it bestows privileges and scarce resources on illegals.”

Dana must have graduated from the Zero Sum Game School of Malthusian Economics.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, said the act “exploits our broken system. … It opens the door to criminal aliens.”

Yep…all those criminal aliens that went to two years of college. Oh yeah, I forgot about those felons that completed military service.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said the act would take jobs away from American citizens, especially legal minorities struggling for work.

Based on Lamar and Dana’s thinking, I bet they would support abortion rights. That would limit the population increase and reduce the amount of people we have to “support” with jobs. Oh wait, they are Republicans. Let me check my scorecard. Right, they’re against that one.

If our immigration policy was more enlightened we would be a better country with a larger population of creative people that wanted to work hard. I am certain of this.

Immigrants remain a source of economic and social vitality for the United States today as they have throughout our history. We sometimes forget where we came from or where our fathers and father’s fathers came from. The DREAM ACT is just a small step in the right direction. I hope we can look beyond the rhetoric of small thinking people, disregard the “team” we are on, and get this legislation approved. But I fear that the only way this will happen is if the Democrats trade something of equal or higher political value. Perhaps I am a graduate of the Zero Sum Game College.

Charles Grassley Should Get a Real Job

Several national newspapers today reported that Charles Grassley, the ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee was placing “under scrutiny” Dr. Stephen Ondra, recently appointed by the Obama administration as the Senior Policy Advisor to the VA.

Before I prattle on about Chuck, I must issue a disclaimer. Dr. Ondra performed surgery on my spinal column that corrected a birth defect. At the very least this surgery allowed me the continued use of my legs (which I have grown quite accustomed to and enjoy on a daily basis) and possibly saved my life (which I have also have become quite accustomed to and enjoy on a more sporadic basis). It was surgery that the head of neurosurgery at Evanston Hospital determined too complex for him and consequently referred me to “the only surgeon he knew that could do it.” That surgeon was Dr. Ondra. He told me that Ondra would only take on surgery that other surgeons deemed too difficult. He would also accept new patients that had previous “botched” surgeries. In other words, this is one highly skilled and respected surgeon.

So forgive me my bias.

Grassley is concerned that Dr. Ondra received fees for consulting from Medtronics. And by “fees” I mean a pile of it, about $3.7 million to be precise.

Medtronics is a very large medical device manufacturer with headquarters in Minnesota. They pay many leading scientists and physicians consulting fees. In fact, they pay out a huge amount. As reported by Medtronics themselves, they paid out $15.7 million to various doctors in the fourth quarter of 2009 alone. If you want some details take a look at http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/medtronic-divulges-it-paid-docs-over-15-7-million-royalties-and-consulting-fees/2010-06-01.

Why or why didn’t I stay in the pre-med program? Oh yeah, I would have never made it into medical school.

But I digress.

Grassley says “such payments are legal, but says they raise questions about whether Ondra's advice at the VA is vulnerable to potential conflict of interest.” He is still concerned despite the fact that Ondra ended his relationship with Medtronics 11 months before he became the VA’s senior policy advisor.

Eleven months!

After Chuck requested information about Ondra, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki responded in writing stating that “before taking the VA job, Dr. Ondra correctly and fully disclosed his finances under the rules of the Office of Government Ethics, had no conflicts regarding Medtronic or any other firm when he assumed his VA duties and has none since."

Let’s take a moment to learn more about the man Grassley is targeting.

Stephen Ondra was born in 1957 in Bellville Illinois to Shirley and Duane. Attended the United States Military Academy at West Point. Continued military service while attending Rush Medical College in Chicago. Completed his internship and residency training in neurological surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC. In 1990-91, he was deployed to Saudi Arabia where he served with distinction during the 1st Gulf War winning a Bronze Star and Army Commendation medals. After returning from the war, he was transferred to Walter Reed where he eventually served as Director of Spine Surgery. Leaving the service in 1994, Dr. Ondra pursued private practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan and served on the Clinical Faculty at the University of Michigan. In 1996, he joined the faculty of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Ondra served as the Residency Program Director, Vice Chair, Director of Spine Surgery in Neurosurgery, Director of the Spinal Deformity Fellowship, Director of Spine Research, Medical Director of the Neuro-Spine Intensive Care Unit and is an Associate Professor of Neurological Surgery. Dr. Ondra has authored numerous papers and book chapters. He is a highly sought after speaker and is considered a world expert in many areas of spine surgery. Highly regarded for his expertise in the treatment of spine conditions, Dr. Ondra has served as a Board Member of the American Association of Spine Physicians, on the Executive Committee of the AANS/CNS Joint Section of Spine and Peripheral Nerves and Education Committee of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. In 2004, Dr. Ondra became the first neurosurgeon to be granted membership in the Scoliosis Research Society.

Dr. Ondra is currently directing several research projects, including: 1) finite element modeling of the spine, 2) motion analysis of the spine in gait, and 3) sagittal alignment of the skull and cervical spine and its relationship to overall spinal pelvic balance and function. These three projects combine to improve the understanding of the spine as a complex part of the locomotor unit, with a goal of developing a better understanding of spinal disease and its impact on function. In addition to basic science projects, Dr. Ondra has developed a technique for precise correction of spinal deformity based on basic trigonometric calculations. Other clinical research projects include alternative bone graft methods, the use of osteobiologics in the surgical setting and in new pedicle access technology.

Now, let’s take a look at Chuckie’s accomplishments.

Born in 1933 in New Hartford, Iowa to Ruth and Louis.
Graduated in 1955 from Northern Iowa State and got his MA there in 1956. Hmmm…one year, must have been a rigorous program. During the 50’s he worked as a sheet metal worker and in various factories. Then he went into politics.

Story over.

Really, he was in state government from 1958 to 1974. He then served three terms as a congressman and since then, a Senator. Yep, that’s it.

Oh wait, there was more. See what prejudicial reporting can leave out.

He has five children and is a member of The Family, the Christian political organization that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast.

Take a moment to compare and contrast the accomplishments of these two men. One is currently holding the other accountable for his actions. It is a crime that he can do it. It is a crime that he is taking tax payers’ money to do it. It is a crime he is not focusing on things more important than this, like learning if he could ever really survive by some other method than suckling at the government teat.

But again, I admit that I left something out of Chuckie’s oh-so-impressive vitae. Chuck has raised over $7.5M in contributions since 2005. Who are his five largest contributors? According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the industries that have been the largest contributors to Grassley during his political career are health professionals ($1 million in contributions), insurance industry ($997,674), lawyers/law firms ($625,543) and pharmaceuticals/health products ($538,680). His largest corporate donors have been Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, Amgen biotech company and Wells Fargo bank.

Could that list impact his effectiveness as one of the leading members of the Senate Finance Committee?

But let’s be fair and look at some more of Grassley’s accomplishments.

1. In March 2009, amid the scandal involving various AIG executives receiving large salary bonuses from the taxpayer-funded bailout of the corporate giant, Grassley sparked controversy by suggesting that those AIG employees receiving large bonuses should follow the so-called 'Japanese example', resign immediately or commit suicide. After much criticism he has not backed off of those comments, dismissing them as rhetoric

2. In 2005, Charles Grassley received a 7 percent rating on the Republicans for Environmental Protection's (REP) environmental scorecard.

3. Senator Grassley received a 10 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard for his pro-environment votes on the issues of renewable energy and farm conservation programs.

4. According to the Disabled American Veterans, Senator Grassley has the third-worst voting record in the entire US Congress (both House and Senate combined) on veterans issues, earning a 40 rating.

5. In May 2009, Grassley cosponsored a resolution to amend the US Constitution to prohibit flag-burning. (screw that 1St Amendment thing…)

Uh, Chuck…about that Japanese example…