Evening the "score"

Today, Judge Roger Vinson became the 2nd US Judge to strike down the new healthcare law as unconstitutional, evening the "score" at two judges apiece finding for and against the law. Predictably, both judges who found for the law were appointed by a Democratic president, and both judges who found against the law were appointed by a Republican president. In other words, all four rulings are relatively meaningless and the fate of the law is certain to be decided by the Supreme Court which boasts five conservative judges and four liberal judges. The new law may very well be overturned.

And if that's the case, then it will certainly be a sad day for America and Americans. Not only will all Americans lose the protection against insurance companies provided by the law, but millions of Americans will lose insurance and that means that those people will have their care paid for by taxpayers. As Americans without health insurance continue to receive the most expensive kind of care (emergency care), the rest of us will foot the bill with rising costs and thus rising insurance premiums.

But that's not even the real issue. The economics behind the healthcare law are sound and simple. Health insurance may not be a right (or a mandate), but healthcare is...plain and simple. Walk into any emergency room in the country and there will be a sign explaining that you can be treated regardless of your ability to pay. So as I've already laid out, people without insurance get healthcare that often does not get paid for, so providers raise prices for others which is reflected in unnecessarily high costs and rising insurance premiums.

But back to constitutionality. I'm not a judge; I'm not a lawyer; and most importantly, as a private citizen I don't think the government should be involved in what I can and cannot purchase. If I want an Xbox 360 instead of a Playstation 3, that's fine. If I want a Toyota instead of a Kia, that's fine. If I want a Nike basketball instead of a Spalding, so be it. But here's where healthcare is a little different, if I choose the Nike over the Spalding, no one else is paying extra money to provide me with healthcare. If I get a Toyota instead of Honda or Ford or whatever, then no one else is going to pay extra so I can get healthcare. There's a common theme here. My decision NOT to buy healthcare actually makes things worse and more expensive for others.

That doesn't make the new law Constitutional, but it does make it practical. Furthermore, the mandate doesn't require that you purchase something harmful. Most people agree that health insurance is a good thing. Most people have it already, some of those people buy it voluntarily, many people who don't have it wish they did. It's not as though we're being required to buy peanuts when some of us are allergic to them; it's not as though we're being required to buy a rabid dog; we're talking about health insurance, it's beneficial. We're not even talking about a specific kind of health insurance. The government isn't selling it, the government isn't designing the plans and packages, you still get to choose. And finally, you don't actually have to buy the insurance. You can choose not to and pay a fee instead. And you know what? That's fine with me, because if you choose not to buy the insurance and then need healthcare then I'm footing part of the bill.

Ultimately this battle will be decided by America's highest court, and unless the make-up of the court changes before the law reaches said court, it will probably be overturned. The result of that decision will be higher costs for everyone.

Save NASA!

Last night in his State of the Union Address, President Obama did a fine job of highlighting some of the things America will need to do to maintain it's position as the world's greatest country as we move forward in the new millennium.

Mr. Obama's proposals, especially at the beginning of his speech, calling for investments in education and clean energy were especially encouraging. And the president, while not being specific enough about cutting the deficit in the future, understands that America's long term economic prospects rest on our ability to grow the economy today.

However, the part of the president's speech that most captivated me came at the end. After all the talk about the economy, about the deficit, about Iraq and Afghanistan, and even after well-deserved shout outs to both Joe Biden and (yes, I said it) John Boehner, the president had this to say about America, "we do big things."

It was a simple phrase that is just a repackaged version of American exceptionalism, but it was delivered poignantly. "We do big things." This is America; we do big things. In laying out his vision for America's future (a vision that only one party seems to have, the other has a vision of America's past), the president touched on some of those big things: high speed internet; high speed trains; cleaner and greener energy, but it's something that he barely mentioned at all last night that has inspired me to write today.

Save NASA! We've heard a lot lately about America's new "Sputnik moment." In fact I've used the term myself. In the 1960s it was NASA doing big things, responding to the Soviet's challenge by putting a man on the moon and capturing the attention and will of a nation, spurring us to be the best.

It is a sad thing to see that NASA today is more of an afterthought than a part of America's vision for the 21st century. The nation of big things, the nation that put a man on the moon is neglecting the biggest thing. As the president mentioned last night, the space race unleashed a wave of innovation and technology that spurred economic growth for decades. If we want to keep doing big things in America, we can't neglect looking outward towards the unknown. Like many government agencies, NASA needs to become more efficient. Reallocating funds to cut the deficit means NASA shares the burden. But it would be a true national tragedy for America to forget it's past endeavors into space and neglect looking to the stars in the future.

We do big things. Don't forget it, and don't forget NASA.

2nd Amendment Sensibility

It was less than three weeks ago that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot in Tucson, Arizona. In the wake of that tragedy there has been a lot of grief, a lot of finger pointing, a wonderful speech from the President, and of course talk about the need for a different approach to gun laws.

As a native Mississippian, I experience some cognitive dissonance when it comes to guns. Don't get me wrong, guns - when used appropriately and safely - can be a lot of fun. I think that Americans should have the right to bear arms as protected by our Constitution. However I think that the 2nd Amendment needs a little revisiting. We've interpreted "arms" - which used to mean flintlock muskets - to mean fully automatic assault weapons the sole function of which is to inflict death.

America's gun laws need significant reform, and they need to be stricter. If the assassination attempt of Gabrielle Giffords and the tragic and senseless deaths of six other innocent people isn't enough to convince you of that then maybe this article is. In the last 24 hours, 11 police officers have been shot nationwide. The police. These are the people whose job it is to protect us, and in just over a day, 11 of them have been shot. That's a problem.

Americans should have the right to bear arms, but our interpretation of arms has gone too far and needs scaling back. I'm sorry but you don't need an assault weapon if you're not in the military. You just don't and no sane person believes otherwise. You may have fun with an assault weapon, but you do not NEED one. You also don't need a clip that lets you fire 30 rounds or a stainless steel weapon that is effectively fingerprint proof. The founding fathers would be horrified if they could see what we have done to the 2nd Amendment. Imagine Thomas Jefferson being faced with the prospect of a private citizen stockpiling canons the way some people today stockpile assault rifles and ammunition. It's tough to imagine because that's not what the founding fathers had in mine when they guaranteed our right to keep weapons.

If we believe that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we should start asking ourselves, what about the right to life? Is the life of a 9 year old girl less important that the "right" to bear an assault weapon? The answer is no. How many innocent people and police officers are going to be shot before we realize that the point of rights is to protect people, and when the right bear arms starts to impinge on people's livelihoods, then that right has been taken too far.

To make matters worse, the NRA has taken steps to prevent research on the topic of gun safety from taking place because studies have shown that guns actually makes situations more dangerous rather than safer. So the people lobbying for assault weapons have undermined the ability of scientists to comment on the claim that weapons make us safer because, in fact, findings showed that weapons did not make us safer. Chew on the irony and then spit it out in disgust.

Americans have the right to bear arms and they can and should exercise that right. But things have gone too far and the conversation on the 2nd Amendment has been dominated by the wrong side for too long. It's ok to own a handgun, it's ok to own a shotgun or a rifle. It's ok to shoot for pleasure and it's ok to hunt. It's not ok to have an assault rifle and it's obviously not ok to use any weapon against other people. I can only hope that all the senseless shootings over the last decade have made people realize that the obsession with gun rights has made our country more dangerous. The law-abiding gun wielders of NRA myth aren't stepping up to prevent crime, but the people who should be preventing crime, the police, are in danger everyday because of how easy it is to buy an outrageous weapon. And not just the police, but innocent people in every state in the nation. It's time for a sensible change to a safer culture of guns.

When Doves Cry

Because Prince, or whatever he calls himself these days is one of the most bizarrely cool people I've never met, and unfortunately, his aptly named song reflects the situation of the world's biodiversity because of climate change and global warming.

Scientists predict that anywhere from 20-30% of species could go extinct over the next century if temperatures continue to rise. There are high profile poster boys for these die-offs, but it's more likely that humanity will be hurt by the extinction of species that we don't really think about.

I happen to be someone who values biodiversity just because I find it cool and beautiful, but I get that not everyone is like that. But even if hiking or camping or snorkeling isn't your thing, and even if you know that the extinction of the polar bear isn't the end of the world (you're right by the way), abundant and flourishing biodiversity is extremely important for the survival of people.

All of what we eat as well as many of the medicines we take come from animal and plant life. A loss in biodiversity could have terrible consequences for humanity. As the linked article mentioned, the loss of seemingly insignificant bird species could mean massive problems with pollination of plant species vital to human life.

Now I'm not crazy, I know that most of the species that have ever existed are now extinct and I know that extinction is a natural thing. However, evolution of new species is much more difficult today than it once was, and so a high and unnatural number of die-offs would be a blow to humanity, not to mention a tragic loss in its own right.

So what can we do to prevent this potential tragic disaster? Well you already know the answer to that question, we can invest in and transition to alternative forms of energy. If my repeated mention of this issue means anything it's simply that there are too many opportunities to discuss it because it is such a big deal. For a nation dealing with a depressed economy and near record snowfalls caused by global warming, not to mention the worst "natural" disaster in our nation's history - which of course was only natural because it was horrible for nature, it was in every sense a manmade disaster - it would only make sense for us to throw our weight behind the drive to greenify our economy and our country, taking the lead in the issue like the global leader we are. Alas, it may take a few more extinct species and a few more inches of snow before we realize that we are creating a monster.

And there you have it

House Republicans today passed their repeal of "Obamacare." Mark my words when I say that what is now a pejorative term will one day be mark of pride. That's not really the point though. The point is that maybe now this "debate" will be over with; now that House Republicans have fulfilled their campaign promise maybe they'll give up on their mission to undermine the well being of Americans.

I've spent enough time defending the law and I've spent enough time bashing Republican hypocrisy and disdain for Americans, so instead of doing either of those things AGAIN, I'll offer a simple question, or perhaps a challenge to Republicans.

Now that you've passed a repeal bill that will give insurance companies the right to steal from and screw over Americans and that theoretically will cost the government hundred of billions over the next decade, what's your plan?

I get the complaints. I get that the law may cost more than advertised. I get that it may be unconstitutional to force people to buy healthcare. It's fair to question the Constitutionality of the law, it's even fair to disagree with the CBO's analysis of the cost of the law. I get it. I disagree, and as you well know, I'm disgusted by the often blatant displays of hypocrisy, but I get it.

So you disagree, and now that you have a majority in the House of Representatives, you've passed a repeal bill that seems doomed to die. I'd like to think this will be the end of the debate, but maybe there is going to be more debate and maybe there will even be more reform. Maybe that reform will be a good thing, but again, Republicans, I ask you, now what?

Do you actually have a plan? I hear about "repeal and replace," but I haven't heard anything about the replacement. What does it look like? What is it going to do? Do you have any actual ideas or have you simply tried to save face, or rather save grandma from those...death panels!

I'm growing tired of the healthcare debate because it simply hasn't been a debate. It's been a set of ideas offered by Democrats and a refusal to cooperate or legislate by Republicans. The "debate" so far has been Democrats offering ideas and Republicans brushing them aside. So we ended up with a law that isn't perfect and now Republicans want to undo all the good parts of that law and replace them with...

I won't hold my breath.

But this leads me to my next and final point which is really the topic for a whole new post. I'm realizing that my frustration with the Republican party is due to the fact that they don't seem to have ANY ideas. What's the Republican plan for weening us off oil and coal and transitioning us to green and alternative energy? What's the Republican plan for reforming healthcare? What's the Republican plan for fixing the economy? These questions don't have answers. There doesn't seem to be a plan.

Maybe Republicans will prove me wrong and come up with a plan for some of these thorny and pressing issues. I certainly hope so, because the only idea they've offered so far involves giving insurance companies the right to revoke my coverage if I get sick.

Back to business...

...as usual? It remains to be seen, but it appears that way. As Congress reconvened today, the hot issue is exactly what we knew it would be, "repealing the job-killing healthcare law," or something along those lines.

In my last posts, in the wake of the Arizona shootings, I have, like many others, acknowledged the need for civility. I've also noted that when Republicans do silly things, we should call them silly.

So that's what I'll be doing now. It's a reality that the House of Representatives will pass a repeal bill and that said bill will die as soon as it leaves the House. That's well and good for America since the CBO estimated that the new law will save over $100 billion while the Republican repeal plan will COST over $200 billion. I'm not sure how Republicans managed to come up with a repeal that is MORE EXPENSIVE than the new law, but my hat is off to them. It's quite a feat to make yourself look that silly.

I could spend the next few paragraphs laying out all the reasons we need the new law. It saves money, it helps Americans, etc, etc, etc. I can also freely admit that I'm not sure if it will stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, but that as a practical matter, the law is a necessity. I could talk about Republican hypocrisy and how they want to cut the budget with a repeal bill that will cost $200 billion dollars, and I could laugh and the irony that they're willing to accuse the CBO of unfair play when the CBO evaluated a Republican proposal and found that it would increase the budget.

I could do this, or I could look past this and try to find something important for our law makers to do. It has nothing to do with healthcare which is a fight that is going to end for good soon anyhow. The healthcare law was passed and will only grow more popular as time passes and people realize that the GOP complaints about it aren't true. While the law may need some tweaking, the idea is right and the economics - as laid out and tested - don't add to the deficit. This should be a non-starter, but politics are getting in the way.

In the meantime, America is doing nothing to create jobs and technology in the next great field, the one I've been harping about since I started blogging almost a year ago. But there are other things that can be done, consider this great piece, sent to me by a good friend, about the positive and money-saving effect of technology on government operations.

It's a new year, and it's time for a new conversation, the healthcare battle has been fought and won by the right side. Now that we've taken one positive step for America's future, let's find another area that we can improve rather than repealing the good we've already done.

The road from Tucson

Where does the road from Tucson lead us? In the aftermath of Saturday's horrific shooting and the rancor and healing that has followed, perhaps our country does, as Sheriff Dupnik suggested, have some soul searching to do.

In an op-ed piece today, Paul Krugman, a brilliant economist whose economic advice should be taken more seriously, suggests that America is on a path of split moralities. In his view, despite President Obama's inspirational speech on Wednesday, there is little we can do to reconcile ourselves with people who hold opposing views because liberals and conservatives just have completely opposite views on morality and that's that.

I disagree. At the end of the day, this is America and we are all Americans. What we all want is for America to remain great and become greater. President Obama talked a lot about dialogue, and certainly that has been a hot topic since the shooting as people have commented on the shooter's motivation (which may never be determined). There has been perhaps unwarranted criticism from the left and uber-defensiveness from the right, but on Wednesday the president stepped above it all and called for real dialogue.

I will admit to my fair share of Republican bashing, although I've never wished for anything worse than for Glenn Beck to stub his toe, but I also believe in a civil discourse and a bipartisan attempt to improve America. For all the semi-nasty things I've said about Republicans, anyone who reads this blog (does anyone read this blog?) will know that I think they do have good ideas.

America is a nation that needs leadership and new ideas. If we're going to make real progress it's going to take bipartisan agreement and spirited discourse on important issues, like how to transition to an economy that relies on and produces the technology for alternative energy while remaining competitive during that transition. What about immigration? America needs to secure it's borders, but we also need to attract the best and brightest without making it seem like America is a nation of xenophobes.

There is room for debate on how best to achieve these aims, but there is no denying that both sides have some good ideas about how to go about doing what needs to be done. Furthermore, while there is a need for civil rhetoric, there's no need to end impassioned debate and I will continue to call Republicans hypocrites when they behave as such.

It should be obvious to everyone that Democrats and Republicans aren't going to start hugging it out when they resume legislative business, and there will still be plenty of posturing and negativity from both sides. But I'd like to think that the road from Tucson will at least lead us to place where our disagreements force us to cooperate, calculate and compromise and not to a place where we let our emotions take hold of our senses and say something potentially harmful.

Playing the blame game

In the aftermath of Saturday's tragic shooting, I've noticed in both the New York Times and Faux News an abundance of he said, she said.

The Times has openly questioned how the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the like, while Faux News has complained about how unfair that is and has gotten defensive about it. The truth is, both sides are right to some extent, but neither is being very productive.

Let's start with the few "facts" we do know. Many people have pointed to Loughner's list of favorite books as proof positive that he is either a crazy liberal or a crazy conservative. The only crazy thing about trying to decipher this guy based on his book list is the attempt itself. Because he listed "Mein Kampf" does not make him a Nazi, and because he listed "The Communist Manifesto" does not make him a Communist. Hell both of those books might be listed as favorites by a nonpartisan historian or philosophy professor as favorites.

However, Loughner did attempt to assassinate a democratic politician and killed a judge who was known to be against Arizona's new immigration laws. Of course, neither of those things makes him a conservative nut necessarily, but the speculation that he is a right wing crazy makes more sense than the alternative. Nevertheless, it is still speculation. And of course even if this guy is a conservative nut, doesn't the Faux News stipulation that he's crazy still hold true? Can we absolve political leaders of violent rhetoric because the guy who pulled the trigger has a few screws loose? After all, for all the crazy liberals and crazy conservatives who exist, the guy who committed the crime seems to be loco. I'm pretty unabashedly against the conservative movement and the Republican party, but I'm not out to kill anyone.

The problem with this is that people with other issues are the most likely to fall for this kind of spew. People angry about the new healthcare law's death panels aren't out shooting politicians. Those people, mislead though they may be, aren't crazy enough to kill. However when we send a silly, perhaps violent message to EVERYONE, some of the crazies are going to hear it. Sending a message that may be violent to everyone and then having only the crazy people act on it does not absolve the message sender. It's not fair to say, "It's not my fault, that guy is crazy." Toning down the message may be a good idea.

At the same time, it's also not fair to blame Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and the Tea Party for this mess. America would be better off without them, but none of them ordered this assault, and dumb and reprehensible as they may be, they do have a right to promote their stupidity. Sarah Palin's infamous crosshair map wasn't a coded message to shoot politicians. It has been pointed out that Democrats did the same thing. Any map with someone in the crosshairs is a bad idea, but it's also allowed to make such a map, and the existence of said map is not a veiled order to assassinate. It's a childish way of getting people riled up to make a point.

What we're left with is this. It seems that Jared Loughner is crazy, and no one, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party included would ever advocate for this. I actually believe both Palin and Beck when they say they're praying for the victims. Having said that, we routinely pick on athletes when they compare themselves to soldiers and rightfully so. It is important to differentiate between something like a football game and a war. It's also important to differentiate between a political election, issue, or figure and an actual battle.

We would also be wise to remember that our words do have an impact. I generally like cliches, but "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," is a quite terrible one. Charles Manson is in prison for having ordered the killing of people without ever killing someone himself. Our words can do quite a bit of damage, and though we do have the right to free speech, sometimes taking it too far can convince the wrong people to do the wrong thing.

Saturday's events were nothing short of a national tragedy. Anytime an innocent person dies a senseless death death is tragic. And while I agree that this event shouldn't be used for political gains, it should make us face a stark reality: people, even Americans, can be influenced by words, ideas and people, and they will do terrible things in the name of those words, ideas and people. I'm not here to comment on who Jared Loughner listened to, what he believed in, or why he did what he did. I am here to lament the deaths of six innocent people and to hope that this tragedy will serve a reminder that no matter what a person's beliefs or words, there is no justification for killing them.

An American Tragedy

A moment of silence and respect for all of those killed in the tragic Arizona shooting. It is a sad day for our country when these kinds of things happen, and unfortunately they happen far too often.

All my thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.

Why are we still debating healthcare?

Last year, Republicans hammered President Obama for not focusing on job creation and instead worrying about healthcare. Then they got themselves elected in droves by talking about how they were going to fix the economy by cutting the deficit.

A day after they've taken over the House of Representatives, what do you think Republicans have done? They've started talking about healthcare. Remember how important job creation was? Remember how important closing the deficit was? Are Republicans hypocrites or simply forgetful?

Despite the fact that repealing the healthcare law has nothing to do with job creation - the Republicans have farcically called their proposition "Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Act" - and that the repeal of the law would actually increase the deficit substantially over the next decade, Republicans have plowed ahead. Imagine lambasting Democrats because they focused on healthcare rather than jobs and then doing the same thing. Like Democrats, Republicans are trying to focus on healthcare as an aspect of the economy, which it certainly is. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have their story wrong.

The answer to the question, why are we still debating healthcare is simple: Republicans must save face. After all, communist healthcare was supposed to mean the death of America, or at the very least the death of grandma. Fiscal armageddon meets death panels. It was a grim prospect for sure.

Instead we got reform of the insurance companies that happens to be extremely popular. Forecasts of the laws effect on the budget estimate that it will save over 100 billion over the next decade. These forecasts, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, drew the ire of Representative Eric Cantor who accused the CBO of catering to Democrat's wishes. The Congressional Budget Office is apparently only nonpartisan when it suits Republican needs, when forecasting budget reduction for a Democratic president it another left-leaning group of communists.

Put simply, the healthcare law in its first year has been nothing but a success. The laws protecting the rights of sick Americans who in the past have been screwed by insurance companies are not only popular but necessary. The contentious part of the law, the mandate on insurance doesn't kick in until 2014 and the fate of that mandate will probably be decided by the Supreme Court, though it's worth pointing out that the mandate is the focal point of all the projected savings. By repealing the healthcare law, Republicans add to the deficit and repeal the new found rights of America's sick and ailing.

So we'll continue to debate what is now a law that aids Americans and cuts our deficit. As I write, the CBO released a new report citing that repeal of the healthcare law would cost the country over 200 billion dollars. The law saved 100 billion, repealing it would add 200 billion to the deficit, you do the math, unless your name is John Boehner or Eric Cantor. Meanwhile, out of work Americans will continue to wonder when and how their government will help them out.

So while Cantor and Boehner live in a dream world in which the Congressional Budget Office only plays by the rules when it finds in their favor, in which forcing insurance companies to end the practice of pre-existing conditions constitutes "fiscal armageddon," and in which their plan for America's future is to...oh wait, they don't have a plan for America's future. Scratch all that. While Republicans continue to debate a healthcare law that is everything they said it wouldn't be, isn't it time they started doing what the accused Democrats of not doing all along and focus on the economy?

Of course, I should be careful what I wish for as it seems likely that Republicans will only find a way to make that mess worse too.

America's sacred document

I'm talking of course about the holy tome that is "America the Book, A Guide to Democracy Inaction." Actually, I'm talking about the Constitution, the framework for the world's greatest nation.

Depending on who you ask, the Constitution is either a living document, open to interpretation and adaptable to the times we live in, or a rigid framework that dictates slaves count as 3/5th of a person for purposes of determining Congressional representation.

If you're a Republican, particularly of the Tea Party variety, you've probably somehow managed to construct a magical world in which the Constitution is both.

Though an incredible document, the Constitution is one that has in the past needed amending and certainly one that doesn't necessarily provide all the answers to the complex world in which we live. The people who wrote it certainly realized this when they changed it almost immediately after it was written to protect our freedoms. That "Bill of Rights" protects our most basic liberties, and to Republicans, is rock solid on the issue of freedom of religion except when it comes to mosques in New York, and yet still open to interpretation when it comes to bearing arms.

As originally penned, the Constitution created the basis for the greatest nation ever, but it certainly wasn't perfect. Slaves were mentioned frequently and counted among the population as their subhuman condition dictated and women had the same voting rights as cows.

The authors recognized that the Constitution would need amending which is why they not only made it possible to do so but did so themselves.

Now we're facing the prospect of it being amended again, this time out of fear and xenophobia. In the past when we've changed the Constitution, we've done it to guarantee rights and protect people. Take for example, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments abolishing slavery and granting citizenship and rights to former slaves, and the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Most people would agree these were good changes. Most people. Enter Republicans.

Apparently Republicans do not agree that all of these were good changes. The 14th Amendment in particular has drawn scrutiny as it guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, thus leading to the derogatory term "anchor babies" for the children of illegal immigrants who become American citizens. The term stems from the idea that by having these children, illegal immigrants will be able to stay here permanently and become citizens. Like many things Republicans have to say this is a lie. Children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they're 21 years old, so if an illegal immigrant is hoping to acquire citizenship by having a child, it's quite a long term investment.

Republicans don't have time for that inconvenient truth, but they do have what appears to be a healthy dose of racial prejudice. Republicans are out to take the 14th Amendment down because, according to Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) "We're saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what in our souls."

Duncan's right, it does take more than walking across the border. You actually have to be born here. I also didn't realize the guy was a spiritual man who can peer inside us and find the difference between the souls of brown-skinned people born in Mexico and white-skinned people born in the United States. What a gift!

This dismissible silliness, fear-mongering and xenophobia is the kind of spew that undermines America at home and abroad. How fortunate that the Statue of Liberty isn't in Arizona, the exemplar of intolerance.

The very people who purport to be beholden to our Constitution openly flaunt their hypocrisy. The 2nd Amendment, one of their favorites, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. When it was written that meant flintlock muskets, today apparently it means assault rifles with fingerprint-proof triggers. This right is bullet proof. The 14th Amendment however needs fixing. You see how this works? These people are actually picking and choosing which parts of the document they support and are somehow doing it under the guise of the Constitutional infallibility. How they've gotten anyone to buy into this ludicrous act is beyond me.

And so the Republican Party, who will be holding a reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives - a symbolically farcical move - will at least get to chew on the hypocrisy of sticking rigidly to the document when they feel it benefits them politically and finding it open to interpretation when it means deporting people.

The Constitution and our country deserve better than the hypocrisy these people have to offer.

Talk loudly but still carry a big stick

Tomorrow America will welcome the Tea Party into the 112th Congress, a classic example of be careful what you wish for because we got it, and if these people somehow get their way (doubtful), we'll be looking up at the rest of the world.

The thing the Tea Party really wants is a decrease in spending. The truth is, cuts will be necessary in the future because America's spending (or lax of taxing) is unsustainable. Tax revenues will increase as we come out of the recession, not to mention if and hopefully when we allow taxes on rich people to rise. So the Tea Party does want something necessary, they just want it at a time when doing it would presumably sink our economy.

But here's the real kicker; at a time when America faces more global economic competition than ever, at a time when we are being out-educated by multiple countries, at a time when our military is engaged in an entirely new type of warfare that calls for fewer traditional weapons than ever, guess what the Tea Party has decided to cut and guess what they've labeled sacrosanct. You've figured it out haven't you? Because you're smart and the Tea Party, well not so much.

Republicans have declared military spending off limits even though the Secretary of Defense had decided that we're spending too much money on the development of weapons that are outdated. Yes that's right, the top military man in the country is trying to make the military more efficient, but the Tea Party deficit hawks are willing to extend 700 billion in tax cuts to rich people, but they won't cut military spending even a tiny bit.

Worse than that, what is on their chopping block? Try these key areas: education and research. Here are the latest international test results, and while America's unemployment sits near 10% and Americans will need to be increasingly educated to compete in a global economy, the Tea Party has decided to go after education. Ask and ye shall receive.

How about cutting spending on research, after all, America already lags woefully behind China and other countries in the development of green and alternative energy technologies. If we're really trying to reduce unemployment and fix the economy shouldn't we be investing in the technology of the future? Shouldn't we want to put money into fields that will create jobs and wealth here in America? Does logic not exist in the world of the Tea Party?

These questions baffle me as I'm sure they baffle most intelligent Americans, but the Tea Party is long on words but short on smarts. They're talking loudly, but they're not going to carry a smaller stick. America's military will still spend money like we're racing the Soviets to build that next big nuke even though we could slash military spending significantly and still maintain the greatest military force on the planet (perhaps that's the one area where I can find common ground with the Tea Party).

If we really want to reduce the deficit we're going to have to reallocate spending in a way that spurs the economy. The magical reduction of the deficit that the Tea Party thinks is possible by increasing said deficit by over 700 billion bucks isn't just going to happen. Tax revenues will increase as the economy improves, but the economy is only going to improve when we start paying attention to it by investing in human capital via education and research and development in new industries. Cutting funding for those things sets us backwards and actually impedes the military because they'll be losing out on important technologies. But hey, at least we'll have lots of tanks.

Looking forward

2010 was a pretty good year, but I've got an even better feeling about 2011. After recapping the good, the bad and the ugly from 2010, I'm going to start 2011 off on a positive note by offering my optimistic outlook for the year.

2011 will begin with a new political landscape that may make it difficult for our government to legislate efficiently, and I do fear that the Tea Party will make every effort to impose their radical, silly views on our country.

Nonetheless, I'm encouraged by the high level of cooperation shown by the Senate during the not-so-lame lame duck session. With bipartisan support, tax cuts were extended, a second stimulus was passed, DADT was repealed and an important arms control treaty was passed. In just over a month, Congress was arguably more productive and more cooperative than they had been for the rest of the year.

This is a good omen, and while I do expect the Tea Party to do their utmost to disrupt this tenuous unity, I also expect that the reality of the world will be more of an incentive to continue enacting policies that will push our country forward. What will some of those policies be?

1. Green Energy. It's not like I've been screaming this since I began blogging last February, but every passing day means America is losing ground in the all-important technology of the future. Each day the planet gets a little dirtier, and each day other countries invest more in alternative energy which the world is already clamoring for. The time for denying climate change and refusing to acknowledge that America is already losing the race for the world's next technology is long past. Congress MUST enact legislation to encourage growth in the field of alternative energy and curb the emission of fossil fuels.

2. The economy. I list green energy ahead of the economy because I truly believe that if America will begin to fully invest in and explore alternative energy then we'll begin to create jobs. I'm a big supporter of T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oil man who understands the importance of alternative energy. Mr. Pickens envisions a belt of wind farms stretching from the states by the lakes all the way down through Texas. Imagine the jobs that we be created building technology and machinery and operating those farms.

In order for the economy to recover, we're going to need to produce things that people need and want, less and less those things have to do with oil and coal. The economy needs fixing and there's a simple way to do it, invest in the future.

3. Which leads me to my next point, investing in the future means educating Americans. If we want jobs in America, we need Americans who are capable of doing things in a world that is increasingly competitive. Cheap labor has established itself overseas, let's make sure the same thing doesn't happen to more expensive, high-tech labor. We're a smart bunch in America, but the rest of the world has realized that educating people means jobs. They're taking the steps to educate people, and according the recent test scores, they're now out-educating America. That's a problem we need to fix. President Obama knows this, but some of the Tea Party nuts are out to put the Dept. of Ed on the fiscal chopping block, because, you know, they want to make America better.

Education in a massive and diverse country like America isn't a simple thing to handle, but Congress should take serious steps to help fix American education by creating serious incentives to encourage education. Some of these steps have already been taken, like the race to the top. Other steps in the process will be taken by NGOs such as Teach For America and The New Teacher Project, but the government needs to encourage and support these groups and take steps to reform public schools by following their lead.

If America can take serious steps towards reinvesting in itself and its infrastructure and open up new fields of technology in green and alternative energy then our country can take serious and real steps towards putting itself back on the path of economic preeminence. Those should be the serious goals for 2011. Now let's see if we can get everyone on board.