When a Blond Teaches You a Lesson.

As I do on most mornings on my way to work, I stopped in to the Starbucks on Alicia Parkway for my Grande Skinny Cinnamon Dulce Latte. I understand that if one could measure a person's masculinity by the type morning coffee they drink I'd probably rank among the lower portion of the scale, but let's move one. Anyway, as I walked into the coffee house I noticed a young blonde woman, who I assumed was an employee greeting all incoming patrons. My mind is still in the typical pre-caffeine haze that is the morning commute, so I didn't really pay attention to the friendly blonde that greeted me.  I simply approached the counter, muttered the order for my drink of choice, paid the lady and took a seat on one of those comfy leather chairs where hipsters usually stare into their netbooks, or the tailored-suit types peruse the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte

I was once again approached by the welcoming blond that I casually dismissed moments earlier.  She took a seat next to me, and instantly explained that she noticed so many people buying ham and turkey at the supermarket next door.  I avoided eye contact and pulled out my blackberry to scan through my work e-mails; mostly to get an idea of what I was to expect upon arrival at work but partly to indicate to this talkative blond woman that I was not in the mood for chatter. It appeared that my social artifice worked and she quickly turned her attention to another arriving patron.

While I wait patiently for the announcement of my name to indicate that my drink was ready, I observe this blond greeting machine of a woman. She greets everyone in exactly the same manner and if anyone responds or lingers nearby after the greeting, she instantly goes into the same one-way conversation she tried to start with me. The one about all the hams and turkeys being sold at Ralph's Market. At that moment I noticed her face.

I'm not sure what her condition is called, but the features on her face indicate to me that she was a person with special needs.  Perhaps a mental disorder of some kind, I'm not sure, but it's one of those things you can call just by looking at a person, sort of like Down Syndrome, but not quite. I thought back on how only moments earlier, I coldly dismissed this woman who greeted me so happily and felt a bit guilty.

Normally, when my order is complete I grab it and continue on to the office but today I stayed and returned to the comfy leather chair.  I waited to make eye contact with the blond and when she did her eyes lit up and I noticed they were green. Perhaps all of her greeting is her little way of fishing for someone willing to engage her in conversation and eye contact was the sign that I took a bite at the hook. In any case, she quickly took a seat next to me and unloaded barrage of amusing ramblings. I got the sense that she was trying to unload as much as she could before the clock expired. The conversation was fairly one-sided but I listened intently for five minutes or so.

I learned that her name was Lindsey, but she prefers to be called Linn. She is a stock clerk at Ralph's Supermarket next door.  Her dad is very rich and drives a nice Mercedes Benz that she accidentally scratched with her bike in the garage. Her mother doesn't work, but she stays at home and cooks lunch for her every day. Lindsey is also 19 years old and her job at Ralph's is the first time she's ever worked.  She wants to work there until she is twenty-five and then she is going to try to get a job at Alberston's (a competing grocer) because they have better cakes.

Lindsey asked if I had any kids so I showed her a picture on my phone of my two girls.  She commented on their curly hair and how she liked curly hair. She offered to help me buy a ham at Ralph's with her employee discount, but I politely declined. As it was time for me to leave, I shook her hand and told her to stay out of the rain. She replied by informing me that she was ready for the rain and was wearing and extra shirt underneath because she had gotten wet a day earlier and she doesn't want to get sick.  I said goodbye and she wished me a merry Christmas.

As I walked out, several new patrons were coming in and I could hear Linn's familiar greetings once again. I got in my car and for the rest of the ride I thought about Linn.  I thought about all of the rush most people endure during these holidays. The ridiculous expectations of what you'll receive or what you need to buy for the mindless gift exchange year after year. Thoughts about unemployment, bills, the economy, health care, politics, war, and how all the follies of life in general consume our lives. Yet, a simple girl like Linn finds victory in getting someone to listen to her stories about her bike and her obsessions with Christmas ham.

Even after her little victories, she doesn't just contently retreat into the crowd. Instead with exponentially renewed confidence she undertakes her next adventure. Surely she will share her little stories with a few more folks before her shift at Ralph's Supermarket begins. Hopefully, through that process she will show a few more people what I learned from Linn today: To be winner you sometimes have to be a little retarded.

Ultimately, that is what life is all about, right? A measure of all the little lessons you've learned and how they have come to shape you as an individual. Sometimes those lessons come from the most peculiar places and today I want to thank Linn for teaching something new.

Wikileaks + 1st Ammendment = Apples & Oranges.

The brumous cauldron of controversy over Julian Assange and his Wikileaks' disclosure of classified diplomatic cables, has been served up for consumption like tomato soup at a New Jersey truck stop. We, the patrons of the "fine" Diner-like establishment that is the mainstream media, enjoy the company of the waitress named "Flo" (AKA - Cable News) and are more than willing to shell out for a second serving.

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange

On a personal note, I had opted to remain on the sidelines of this debate, content with letting it play out the natural course of events until I started to hear the proclamations that Julian Assange and his enterprise were heroes of a reborn international free speech movement.  Worse still are the affirmations by some in the US media that Assange is the herald of 1st Amendment rights. Well here's a news flash:  I  hate tomato soup and Flo will not obtain my gratuity!

First let me stage the real framework of this debate.  There are basically two schools of thought on this matter here in the US.  The first school of thought is that Assange and his Wikileaks are a direct attempt to undermine our military and diplomatic operations abroad. This in itself would constitute a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the US Attorney should seek to prosecute the offenders.  The the second school of thought believes that the only "real" freedom is absolute freedom of speech and that Assange is a hero for that cause. Yes, I'd say they're taking their tomato soup with a bologna sandwich as well.

Assange is not a hero. The truth is he is a promoter of anti-American sentiment who is exploiting the righteous principles of free speech.  Sadly many folks are really naive or just too stupid to see past his artifice. Others are simply too invested in a grotesque mutation of liberal ideology that subscribes to the idea that anything American is automatically evil.

These folks seem almost surprised by the actions described in some of these leaked cables as if it is not presumed that the US government thinks little of the Afghan President or that Iran's neighbors detest its pursuit of nuclear capabilities. Or the confirmation in the cables that US military forces are indeed secretly operating in Pakistani territory.  I even find it amusing that some people are astonished at the level of gossip that takes part in international diplomacy.

Michael Moore

Keith Olberman invited ersatz documentary filmmaker Michael Moore on his show to discuss Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange.  As I expected, Mr. Moore believes Assange and his endeavors are a heroic venture for which we "owe him a great debt" he's even contributed $20,000 dollars towards Assange's bail fund..  Moore also went on to compare the publishing of these leaks to the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsburg in 1971.  Just like the quasi-factual exposition that sets the tone to much of his film work, Michael Moore is form-fitting the facts to provide cohesion for his argument.

Daniel Ensberg did not acquire the documents illegally.  He was granted access to them by the very individuals in charge of the Vietnam Study Task Force that was commissioned to write the study in 1967 by then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Also, Ensberg's decision to have the New York Times publish the study was his final option after approaching several members of Congress and certain individuals within the Nixon administration with his findings. After failing to convince these officials to bring these documents to light, he sought out the aid of a New York Times reporter who then published the documents in June of '71. Even after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Ensburg had a Democratic Congressman enter 4000 pages entered into the official record at Congressional committee meeting.

This is not the case with Wikileaks.  Although in the case of the Diplomatic cables there seems to be little harm done, Assange's publishing of records related to the war in Iraq may have already threatened the lives of foreign collaborators to the US Military both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The manner in which Assange obtained these documents is also illicit.  They were stolen by Army Specialist Bradley Manning and made available to Assange who released their contents with little or no vetting.

Organizations who have previously praised Assange have been critical of his most recent atrocity. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that; "Amnesty International joined several other human rights groups criticising WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names of Afghan civilians working as U.S. military informants from files they had released. Julian Assange responded by offering Amnesty International staff the opportunity to assist in the document vetting process. When Amnesty International appeared to express reservations in accepting the offer, Assange dismissed the group as 'people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses.'" 

I would like to note that it was only a year ago that Assange was awarded Amnesty International's Media Award for exposing "extra judicial killings and disappearances" in Kenya. A noble acknowledgment I suppose, but in his recent response to criticism, Assange doesn't seem to be pursuing noble causes.

John Young who previously formed part of Wikileaks' board of directors left the organization and accused the group of "...a lack of transparency regarding their fundraising and financial management". He went on to state his belief that WikiLeaks could not guarantee whistleblowers the anonymity or confidentiality they claimed and that he "would not trust them with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk". All this according to a CNET 2010 interview. Others have been critical of Assange's handling of confidential information of the Non-Government kind as in the leaking of secret Sorority Rituals and Sarah Palin's hacked personal Yahoo e-mail account which of course had no intrinsic journalism value. He definitely is not an investigative journalist as he has often released information without checking for factual evidence.

"Let us not forget that Julian Assange is a convicted computer hacker".

 Let us not forget that Julian Assange is a convicted computer hacker.  Hacker's are what I like to call, "Recreational Criminals", meaning that they do not necessarily undertake their activities for lucrative gains.  The biggest factor into what they do is the fame that accompanies their notoriety and egotistical gratification that is achieved by "beating the system" and breaking into a network, node or computer where great effort has been taken to keep them out.  So it is not surprising that Assange is irresponsible with the materials he has leaked. After all, he's not doing any of this for some righteous cause. However, just like we should not be fooled by his attempts to justify his actions behind the free speech excuse, Assange is a symptom and not the problem.

Sure he's exposed some of the atrocities of war like civilian casualties, mistakes by military personnel and even illegal deliberate actions by some of our troops.  He's also unmasked lots of corruption in countries other than the United States.  Every government has a justifiable reason to maintain secrets.  The real problem is our governments inability to protect its secrets.  Most people would agree that it was in our best interest that information about our nuclear capabilities were not disclosed to the Nazi's despite numerous attempts by German spies.  I think that concealing the truth about the infeasibility of Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense program helped us win the decades old Cold War with the Soviets.

A realistic view of the world will concede that war is a horrible thing and probably the worst part of human nature.  That same view will also concede that sometimes the worst parts of human nature are necessary, whether it be to make progress as a society or to simply preserve our existence. The point that I am trying to make is that although many would like to crucify Assange, he is only really a scapegoat for a number of American insecurities. Nailing him to the stake might feel good but it won't fix any problems.

"...our government officials are more corrupt than a fat kid guarding a chocolate cake".

It won't change the fact that there are corrupt politicians in our government.  Or that it doesn't appear that our work in Iraq or Afghanistan will end any time soon. It won't change the fact that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, that our economy is still in trouble or that the world no longer respects our government. Above all, it won't change the fact that Bradley Manning was able to access classified information and pass it along. The Pentagon is leakier than the rotting hull of an old sail boat and many of our government officials are more corrupt than a fat kid guarding a chocolate cake a birthday party.

I have a friend who always reminds not to fall off the side of the cliff when everyone else around me seems to be doing it.  We as American's need to grow up, we need to learn that occasionally we'll get "punched in the face". That it isn't all unicorns and strawberry cupcakes and that you clean your house from the inside out. We've got a lot of growing up to do before we can right this ship.

Assange is not a hero.  He's not even worthy of being called a villain. He's not a champion for the free speech movement and the comparison is like apples & oranges.  He is an Ego-indulging buffoon and the more we talk about him the more we feed his indulgences.  We will pass him like a painful kidney stone but he will be forgotten.  The important things to make sure our own government never empowers creeps like him ever again.

Bush Tax Cuts AKA The Congressional Three Ring Circus.

Mitch McConnell and GOP Leadership

"The Dow Jones industrial average soared 249 points, or 2.3%. It was the biggest one-day gain for the Dow since early September, and came after stocks ended November on a sour note, with all three major gauges marking declines for the month." - CNNMoney.com

There is still some resilience in our economy and it will recover...eventually.  To distract us, the idle spectators of the Three Ring Circus that is congress, the GOP took a stand today (Grandstand to some) and pledged to block any bills until there is resolution to the Bush tax cuts set to expire on December 31st.  Normally, I object to these kind of tactics which we have come to expect from politicians, but on this particular occurrence I have to side with the GOP.

Today's uptick in the DJIA proves what most economist have been expounding for ages: Stability or the appearance of stability will move markets.

"The rally gained momentum after economists at Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) raised their forecast for U.S. growth next year to 2.7% from 1.9%. The Federal Reserve's latest snapshot of economic conditions showed the nation's gradual recovery continued in October and November." - CNNMoney.com

Coupled with news that the European Central Bank may pump more money into the European economy and indications that Chinese markets are performing well made for a day of "creamed" tailored trousers in Wall Street. Extending the Bush tax cuts permanently or temporarily will stabilize at least a single variable that factors into the short-term strategies for most investors.

Personally, I don't think the government alone has the ability to "create" jobs in the free market place.  The market can self-sustain if there is a stable framework that will allow it to run its course.  Now, before you liberals go on a tirade over how the bailouts prove that the free-market system doesn't work, STOP!  Take a sip from your Gingerbread Latte, take your head out of the New York Times for a bit and pay attention.  CALM DOWN!  The recent downturn in the economy will be attributed several causes, many of which are of the human factor. We will understand these factors more clearly as time passes and we can study the annals of recent history.

For now, all everyone needs to know is that our economy is very short-sighted.  Even when long term bets are placed now, the decisions are made by circumstances that can be predicted today. This is why stability, or at least the appearance of stability needs to be the focus of the current lame duck Congress and even more so for the next session.  Investors need to know right now what their tax rates will be in 2011, so they can start making their moves today.

There are many studies that point to average household incomes as proof that the Bush Tax cuts did not work. Prior to Bush in 2000 the average income was $61,517, in 2008 the year our economy tanked it was, $58,005.  Most opponents of the cuts like to point to those two numbers and ignore many other facts and factors. For example, they always fail to mention that average incomes in 2006 and 2007 were higher than even the 2000 figure.  They fail to mention that since 2001 we've seen the 9/11 terror attacks, two wars, the bursting of a housing bubble, a bank bailout, and an auto bailout, not to mention huge losses in manufacturing industries exported overseas.  None of these factors were a result of the tax cuts and attempting to link them is outright deceptive.  None of these factors were present during the higher tax rate years in the 90's.

Opponents also lament over the 2.7 trillion dollars that government did not obtain in revenue since the tax cuts went into effect but always ignore how the amount of spending in the last two years alone would have easily squandered those 2.7 trillion twice over. When Reagan cut the marginal tax rates he created incentive for the highest earners to spend well past their previous tax ceilings.  This sparked growth.  Unfortunately, Reagan failed to curb spending and borrowed heavily against the economic gains. Of course, the highest marginal tax rate during the Reagan Era was 91% and the incentives were much greater with a 40% cut than the 3%-5% figures congress is currently debating.  Regardless of the numbers, a precedent was set that cutting taxes can spark growth.  To be honest, I'm less inclined to give our expanding government any more revenue and I'm more inclined towards forcing them to administer more properly the billions of dollars they are already receiving.

Ultimately, our economy needs jobs, but when Joe Schmo says; "We want Jobs", what he is really asking for are conditions that promote job creation.  Joe Schmo probably understands that jobs aren't created out of thin air, unless he's a Federal Employee or a Union member.  A stabilizing variable in the long list of variables that determine stability is taxation. Congress needs to get that wrinkle ironed out first.  Hey, I'm all for gays in the military and immigration reform, but none of those things is going to help create jobs. Stabilizing the tax issue, might have more influence in that regard and should be on the center ring of this three ring circus.

Oh No! The TSA Wants to "Touch Your Junk" and Make Babies Cry

Oh no! Airport security scanners make babies cry! San Diegans are in an uproar because they refuse to have the TSA touch their "junk".

Surely by now you've have seen all the coverage about two viral videos which have created quite a buzz.  The first video shows a San Diego man refusing to go through the full body scan machines. (See Embedded
AP video)  As TSA procedure dictates, a refusal on the body scans will result in a mandatory pat down, up close and personal, by a TSA agent.  The man also somewhat objected to the pat down with the now famous line, "don't touch my junk".

There is also another viral video of a poor little three year old toddler who had to undergo a pat down by a TSA agent after the little girl set off a metal detector twice. Two videos like this and the debate on airport security has resurfaced.  Fox News, MSNBC and CNN have been talking about it on almost every program they aired yesterday.  I have to admit, that on this subject, I'm content that the media is providing extensive commentary.

Full Body Scan in progress.

There are many different arguments on this one, but I'll filter it down to just a few.  The first argument, is one sponsored by Ann Coulter on The Factor today, claims that the TSA has gone too far with their security scans.  Coulter argued that the intrusive body scanners would not have detected to the explosive materials used during the December 2009 attempt to bring down a Northwest Airliner en-route from Amsterdam. Therefore, the body scans really are more of a nuisance than an effective method for protecting passengers.


The second argument states that types of scanning methods currently being implemented are necessary to protect the lives of American citizens. Many folks agree that in the name of safety we may all have to sacrifice some convenience. Today, the TSA Chief John Pistole defended his agency's tactics before the Senate Committee on Commerce by affirming that the TSA is "using technology and protocols to stay ahead of the threat and keep you safe." Who can argue with that statement?

The TSA and John Pistole have been keelhauled by politicians and the media as of late for their earnest attempts at ensuring our own safety.  The very same politicians who demanded more security and almost unanimously supported the formation of the TSA after the 9/11 terror attacks. Once again, political opportunities to score brownie points with constituents instead of trying to resolve real issues.

I'm not implying that the TSA has come up with the best method to provide for our security or that the general public's concern about their right to privacy is a merit-less claim. In fact, some journalist have raised legitimate concerns about the perceived effectiveness of these methods and even the possible health risks posed by those body scanners. All of these are concerns that I believe should be up for debate and analysis.  However, I also believe that we should also review the accomplishments that these enhanced security measures have achieved over the last nine years.

We should ask ourselves, since September 11th  Have we had any further terror attacks on our airways on flights that originated domestically? Note: that the Richard Reid Shoe Bomb incident and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's Underwear bomb incident both occurred on flights which originated overseas. Are there longer lines and more inconvenience when we travel? The ultimate question is:  Are our airways safer? The answer of course is yes.

My point is that the focus of the dialogue needs to be on making the process for ensuring our safety more efficient and safer instead of a method to gain political advantage or face time with the media. Whether that means privatizing most TSA functions like John Stossel suggests or finding  more effective and less intrusive technology like Coulter blabs about. All these things should be considered, but let us not blast the guys tasked with protecting us, especially when, thus far, they have done a fairly decent job.

The Immigration Problem, Requires An American Solution.

Last night, MSNBC aired a Town Hall Format discussion called Beyond Borderlines hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell which tackled the issue of illegal immigration. The event was hosted by the University of San Diego and invited several immigration reform proponents, celebrities, an Immigration Enforcement Director and even actual illegal immigrants on stage to discuss their views.

For the most part, the presentation was honest and fair with special care to ensure that all sides of the argument had an opportunity to openly support their positions.  O'Donnell made a case for illegal immigrants with the presentation of an illegal immigrant who was brought here by his family as a child. He explained how this kid had attended US schools, and universities and obtained a degree in business management but was now unable to seek employment in his field of study because of his legal status.  He then presented the question to viewers about whether in this special case, the young non-documented man could be considered an American.

O'Donnell also presented the story about a meat packing town in Nebraska which has seen a recent flood mexican immigrants and experienced job displacements and increases in costs for emergency services, school lunch programs, education and even increases in criminal activity.  They also took a trip in history with the story of the Irish immigration experience, and the gateway that was Ellis Island in New York all the way to the culmination of Irish acceptance in mainstream America with the election of President Kennedy. 

I think both sides of the debate presented legitimate arguments in support of their cause, but the truth is that illegal immigration in this country remains very sensitive topic for many Americans.  Like many of our countries previous conundrums, there is an opportunity to flex some ingenious muscle and show some genuine American grit.  The type of emblematic problem solving capabilities that made us the first atomic superpower, won us the race to moon and made is the victors of a decades long cold war.  

Ok, I may be fluffing the issues a bit, but if all the coverage over Arizona's legislation and the recent supreme court decision is any indication of how relevant this topic is, then there may some merit to my fluffing. What kind of American solution will it take to fix this American problem? 

First, this problem will require general acceptance that a paradigm shift is required by all before we find deliverance. The "Send'em All Back-ers" and "Amnesty-Callers" have to understand that their approach is exclusionary and out of date.  Sending them all back, is simply unrealistic, and offering amnesty to all really is a slap in the face to our laws and by affiliation, every law abiding citizen of our country.  A true solution will have to incorporate ideas and concessions by both sides.  In our country, changing popular ideologies is a painstakingly slow process. Do you recall the abolition of slavery, woman's suffrage, and the modern civil rights movement?

Second, we cannot condone violations of our federal laws, but as Americans, we're inheritors of a country founded on immigration and descendants of people who sailed entires oceans for the opportunity to find prosperity.  For this reason, though we cannot condone illegal immigration we should understand why it occurs.  After all, illegal immigrants are here because even the most low-paying, low-skilled job is a substantial upgrade in the quality of life back at home.

With those two statements out of the way, here's how we fix it.  Cut $50 Billion dollars out of the defense budget and use it to hire more border agents and increase measures to secure the border.  Stopping the influx of illegal immigrants at the border is crucial.  Congress has already been presented with an option to cut the defense budget by $100 Billion.  This simply redirects some of that money towards immigration.  Sure, it takes $50 Billion away from the overall savings reduction on our deficit, but it is for a cause that will likely have large support from the voting public. That in itself may be enough political leverage to get both Democrats and the GOP to agree on the allocation.

Next, we have to address the illegal immigrant population already within our borders.  Americans have legitimate concerns about the dangerous criminals that have made it into our cities.  The gang violence and its connections to the Mexican drug cartels is well documented in cities like El Paso, TX and Phoenix, AZ.  However, this is strictly a law enforcement issue. We need to empower these law enforcement agencies with funding and technology to enforce existing federal laws, and when I say "we" this especially refers to Obama's Administration and US Attorney's Office.  This presents another dilemma.

Arizona passed legislation  this past year that sent everyone across the country into a frenzy. Its true that the law simply enforces existing laws but some citizens, especially those with hispanic features, feared that they would be experience harassment by the authorities. How do you get these people on board with  increasing the crackdown on illegal immigrants?  My suggestion is to offer a pathway to citizenship that is comprehensive.  I know, I know, all my conservative friends are removing me from their Facebook friends list at this point, but wait.

Illegal immigrants are already here, they are earning tax free salaries and sending billions of dollars back into Mexico virtually supporting significant percentages of the southern country's economy.  If we offer these individuals conditional amnesty we can ease the economic burden illegal aliens case on our economy.  The conditions would be that they would have to prove that they've been in this country for more than five years. They would have to register with the federal government and submit to fingerprint scans, and background checks domestically and from their country of origin. As penalty for entering the country illegally they will forfeit all income taxes paid according to their rate of taxation and are not entitled to any tax refunds or unemployment benefits for 5 years.  Place a 10% tariff on money sent into Mexico.

If the number of illegal immigrants really is 12 million and only half that amount participate in this amnesty program that's 6 million people providing practically free revenue to the Federal Government for at least five years.  This could help offset some of that health care bill cost and possibly even contribute the deficit reduction.  Not to mention that it creates a legal tax paying low-skilled, low-cost work force to perform jobs that most Americans are unwilling to do anyway.

I'm pretty sure my idea may seem simplistic, but I'm hoping it gets some ideas flowing so that the good ones trickle up to our lawmakers.  What are you ideas?

Tips to Watching Cable News Shows

Mathews, Olberman, Maddow

There is a good chance the historic nature of the last Presidential race transformed many politically idle citizens into active participants. At first, reading an Op-Ed piece in the local newspaper was enough to assuage the thirst caused by your political angst. Eventually, to escape the daily drudgery of the typical "day at the office" some discovered the quenching delight provided by all the news agency websites. Finally, when your friends and family are no longer lured to the bait you set to trick them into a charged debate on the "issues"; the only thing that will satiate your desire for human discourse are cable news shows.

Beck and O'Reilly

Shows like Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olberman are pseudo-interactive in the sense that they're speaking to you and you may even actually respond, but guess what? They can't hear you! I'll confess my personal addiction to these cable news show. And the political inclinations of the host has little bearing on which shows I'll watch. In fact, the only reason I may choose to watch one show over another is because some of them hit the airwaves at the same time.  I thank God for the advent of the DVR.

So if you've finally admitted that you're also addicted to cable new shows then you have taken an enormous step. Actually, it's pretty much the only step required to confirm that you haven't completely lost your wits when you find yourself talking back to the head on your brand spanking new, forty-two inch LED-TV. The rest of this blog will consist of quick tips to make sure you don't become another lemming of the mainstream media. You know, an antidote against the "purple kool-aid" if you will oblige me.

Tip #1:  It's Not Really a Cable "News" Show

Understanding this fact is vital, as this narrows the scope to shows I've already mentioned.  Although the subject matter addressed by the hosts are in fact current events, they aren't actually delivering "News".  You may even notice during some of their live broadcasts that if there is an urgent newsflash or update on some real-time event, they usually cut to an anchor-person on the actual newsroom. Some may argue that these shows are in fact news programs and that they are simply presenting the news in an editorial format, but I feel the need to highlight their distinction from traditional newscasts.

Traditional newscasts are supposed to be objective (yeah right!) and intended to transmit the facts as they are perceived at the moment (don't confuse this with accuracy).  Opinions are usually deferred to subject experts or witnesses, but never offered by the journalist/anchor. When we watch the likes of O'Reilly, Beck or Maddow, their personal opinions (or their Producer's) are brought to the forefront of the analysis. The may allow for countering opinions by guests and pundits but the exchange is tilted towards the idealistic inclination of the host at all times.

For viewers, this should trigger a natural instinct to scrutinize everything that is said.  Don't simply accept what comes out of your 7.1 Dolby Surround Sound system as fact simply because your political inclinations are in-tune to that of your favorite host.  We've got to keep them honest.  Check your facts.  Follow up and read a little more about the subject matter.  Consider at least three different sources before you jump on any bandwagons.  Guys like O'Reilly and Matthews often test the knowledge of their guest with political or historical trivia to make sure they're not just smacking their lips for the sake of air time.  We should do the same.  So before you make their opinions your own, or even worse, write a blog about it, make sure you research, read and read and read some more.

Tip #2:  Don't Get Angry

Have you ever stood up from your couch and yelled: "That Rachel Maddow is such a bitch"? Or perhaps you've announced: "Bill O'Reilly can be the biggest asshole sometimes". Certainly your spouse or mate has asked you the inevitable question; "If you hate them so much, why do you always watch the show"?  If you're nodding your head right now then tip number two is definitely for you. You have to understand that the main reason you are hooked to these shows is because you are being entertained.

Ultimately, the news network's main goal is to get you to watch their programming. For them it means better ratings and more advertising revenue. For the producers and TV personalities it means that they have to be more "in-your-face" and edgy. If they can rise an emotion out of you, especially anger, they will get you to tune in again the next day. 

People like Mathews and O'Reilly have mastered the art of challenging opponents directly. At times sincerely, but often for dramatic effect. Beck has cornered the market as a doomsayer with his predictions of impending calamity. Olberman and Maddow tend to be more sarcastic and facetious in nature. Maddow manages to remain pleasant and has obviously perfected her craft. Olberman on the other hand is obnoxious to the point of being insulting and degrading. I've questioned why he's still on the air.

The point is: Don't get angry.  If you're yelling at the TV you've become the "lowest common denominator". Essentially, you've entered the realm of the lowbrow audience that advertisers drool over because they know you're emotional and will probably buy whatever it is they are hocking with their ads.

Tip #3:  Ask Yourself: What Am I Learning?

It is perfectly acceptable to admit that these show are entertaining. But the truth is that if you're goal is strictly to be entertained, you'll get more bang for your buck with Bugs Bunny or a Jim Carey movie. We watch cable news because we also expect to learn something new. If you're a geek like me, subjects like History, Political Science, Economics and Government are as fun as any carnival ride. It is for that effect that cable news shows are at times very much like a three-ring circus.

Another way to filter the good shows from the less-good shows, is to ask yourself; What am I learning? For example, Glenn Beck will take you through very informative lessons in history to make his points about some current talking point.  You may not agree with his assertions, but you will learn a lot about things that aren't covered in your high school history text book. If you're smart, and refuse to accept his presentation of history, you will, at the very least, do your own research in an attempt to debunk him.  In any case, you will learn something.

 Bill O'Reilly has a little "Word of the Day" segment where he presents the definitions of obscure and obsolete words of the English language.  Rachel Maddow has allowed viewers to follow her as she documents her trips to Iraq and Afghanistan where she meets with locals and presents an alternative perspective to our views on foreign events.  I've yet to learn something from Keith Olberman, which is why, once again I'll admit: I've questioned why he's still on the air.

 

Tip #4:  Don't Repeat What You Hear on TV?

Don't regurgitate talking points you've heard on cable news shows and attempt to pass them off as your own. The hosts of these programs have teams of researchers, producers, assistants and teleprompters to make what they do look easy. That is not a knock on their intelligence or sincerity but an acknowledgment that these TV personalities are performing a job. They are paid to express opinions and moderate debates on their shows. They are creating a product that we consume. 

We, on the contrary, have to go to work, school or manage a household and have limited opportunities to do the research and the studying that is required to have enough data to provide quality commentary on  a breadth of different issues. For instance, Maddow and O'Reilly are very well educated and highly intelligent individuals.  The opinions they express did not develop overnight.  I'm sure they are hardened with years of experience, personal reflection and tested through numerous debates. They have remarkable credibility and are often recognized not only by their peers but often by their counterparts.

That is why it would be foolish to simply incorporate their opinions in our own exchanges without baking them in our own minds first.  It could be that even after a short meditative process we may actually share the same ideas as our TV personalities, but they will be our own and not a product of watching a little too much TV.

Tip #5:  Check-In with Reality

This one is short and sweet. If you're kids refer to Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow as "Uncle Bill" and "Auntie Rachel" or if you gained twelve pounds because you didn't leave the couch until after election day; Then you are not just watching way too many cable news shows, you're watching way too much TV.  

Get off your butt, go play with your kids and fondle your wife.  Get some air and do some exercise.  Ultimately, TV isn't good for your physical health anyway. Don't worry, O'Reilly will be there when you return and Beck will find another crisis that will threaten to destroy the universe.

Conclusion

I'll end this list here for now. I'm pretty sure it will grow as I get some feedback or discover some more on my own. I hope you have enjoyed this list. Feel free to suggest some ideas of your own

Free Trade Agreements in Asia, Good or Bad?

Ever since Bill Clinton put his presidential seal on NAFTA back in 1994, the media occasionally revisits the topic.  The usual parade of nominal experts will march past our television screens delving into the pros and cons of the agreement.  Of course we can't do without the local reporter's interview with a former union worker whose job in the textile industry was shipped across the southern border into Mexico. We might also hear from a prominent environmentalist reflecting on how the use of pesticides by Mexican farmers put our nation's food supply at risk or the pro-immigrant community organizer who is concerned over the exploitation of Mexican workers in the makeshift sweatshops that have popped up to satisfy the demand for cheap exports to the US.

Fortunately, there will be plenty of time to anatomize the agreement that has been in place for well over a decade with another blog.  I've only mentioned NAFTA as I was reminded of it during all the coverage of President Obama's recent trip to the Asian continent. Our President has made pit-stops in India, Indonesia and is currently in Seoul, South Korea for the G20 summit.  He will also make a stop in Japan later this week and a few other countries before the tour is over.  His focus at all the stops thus far has been to weaken restrictions and open up trade doors for American ventures into emerging Asian markets.

All this makes sense of course after the electoral "shellacking" that Obama's party experienced during the mid-term elections. It is obvious that the calls for more jobs and more growth are still fresh on his mind as he appears to be putting forth a good faith effort to respond to his fellow countrymen.  This evening the conservative press has jumped all over the story that the administration as failed to seal a trade deal with South Korea. The sealing of this deal was expected to coincide with Obama's visit with Prime Minister Lee Myung-Bak today in Seoul.  Of course, this is a blatant attempt by journalist to magnify any perceived weakness in Obama's international influence after the setbacks at home.  Everyone knows that a deal will be finalized, at least in practice, if not by law (a trade deal would require US Congressional approval) in a relatively short amount of time.

The real question is; Would a free trade agreement with Asia help our weakened economy? In my humble opinion the answer is; Yes! And I'll give you my reasons. First, it is hard to quantify exactly how much existing trade agreements like NAFTA have helped our economy.  Some of the best efforts at measuring its effects (like Congressional Budget Office reports) show that the results are not as enthusiastic as the proponents of these agreements would like to admit. That is not necessarily a bad thing since one could at least make the argument that NAFTA was not a horrible idea like many of it's detractors claim.  Even modest reports indicate that, minus a few specific industries like textile, for the most part, NAFTA was beneficial to our overall economy. Again, I don't want to get into specifics about NAFTA, but I need the comparison to make my point that trade agreements aren't bad but the question remains; Are they good?

The second reason is that dozens of trade agreements already in place between Asian nations will make the Asian Bloc the world's largest economic bloc at some point over the next five years. It will be larger than NAFTA and the European Union as well. This means that unless we put a tap into that Asian keg of trade goodies we will find ourselves sipping light beer (or Canadian Moonshine) and stale bar nuts on the unemployment lines back home.

A third reason is that over the years, as Asian economies have taken on many of the manufacturing jobs that moved away from industrialized nations in the west, they have created and expanding middle class.  In countries like India and China. Combined, that new middle class is about 600 million members strong. As we have learned in our economy, consumption is driven by a large middle class.  Asian governments are very much aware of this and have taken great measures to ensure that their middle class consumes home grown products by minimizing their consumption of foreign exports resulting in the enormous trade deficits that are now all over the news.

Tapping into that Asian middle class will prove crucial to creating or maintaining jobs in the US. Companies like Ford here in the US have already made public comments about how important it will be to their businesses to gain access to the Asian marketplace. McDonald's, KFC, and other restaurant chains have found enormous success in Asia which proves that Asian consumers have a growing appetite for western commerce.

Even if Obama can secure a significant trade agreement, let's be real. We're probably not going to see a flood of old GM plants suddenly spring back to life. In fact the US will probably have to lift some of our own tariffs on Asian imports like the current 35% tariff on cheap tires and radials from China.  This of course will invite stiff opposition from the big labor unions, and smaller auto supplier businesses that are already feeling the economic crunch due to the near collapse of the auto industry in Detroit.

Obama will surely face some setbacks....correction! Obama has already faced some setbacks.  As I am writing this blog, news about the President's failure in gathering the support of other G20 countries to push China to boost its currency value has surfaced.  Again, no surprise here.  China is well aware of it own mass and displacement in the global economy.  They have been more willing to flex their muscle as of late. For example, they recently banned the shipment of rare minerals used by Japanese computer chip manufacturers over some minor territorial dispute.  Not to mention the most of these G20 countries now see feasibility in bridging the gap of economic prowess with the United States, even if they have to hitch their wagons to China's for now.

Lastly, I believe the most important reason to support the President as he seeks these trade agreements is that it's pro-business.  Most of his policies, like tax hikes, Health Insurance requirements, financial reform, are mostly anti-business.  Now he is seeking to open up new markets in pursuit of creating jobs back home.  The reality is that with his fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, and the all the stimulus initiatives have failed to spark job growth. Therefore, foreign policy is quite honestly, the next option on the list.

"...kicking a man while he is down".

I am surprised that conservative media and even more surprised that the liberal media has been critical of the timeliness of this recent trip overseas.  Some have even questioned whether or not the enormous cost of the trip is justifiable in the face of all the economic trouble back home and the talk of reducing government spending.

In this case, I think everyone should support his efforts and avoid the temptation of "kicking a man while he is down".  Even if his attempts at seeking pro-business and free market opportunities seem tardy, they are, after all, a subliminal admission that his prior positions were not serviceable. Whether his effort spurs the growth of a small industry or only creates a few thousand American jobs, it is a step in right direction. The roadblocks Obama has already encountered in Korea and the G20 summit should serve to galvanize the opposition to facilitate policy creation that will fortify our international economic presence. It surely should not to politicized into ammunition to be used in 2012.