Response to Penn Jilette

This wall photo just started circulating on Facebook. 

(The left half of the above image.) 

I added my 2 cents to Penn's thoughts, put them side by side with the wall photo and posted the resulting image above to my Facebook account. Clicking the image should enlarge it enough to read it.
         Below is what I wrote:

         

         I like Penn, but this part of his thought process I always thought showed him to be an idiot. Yes. An idiot. To believe that simply leaving "compassion" or safety nets to the sole responsibility of the individual or small non-profit group will ever be either adequate or consistent is pure fantasy. To leave the social and moral responsibility of offering a hand-up to those who are in desperate need to the whims of prevailing public perception and fluctuations of an individual's compelling sense to act is grossly insufficient. Subjecting critical assistance for an individual or family to the judgement of their neighbors, wether conscious or not, invariably leaves many unhelped. We once followed that path in America. The results made tough times not only tough but beyond disastrous. It is correct to say that helping poor people yourself is compassion. Regardless of what minimal safety nets against absolute poverty we may instill via government, the individual can always show true compassion by helping poor and suffering people themselves. Nothing stops anyone from doing so. Yet such individualized help proves woefully incapable of meeting the basic challenge. Despite any and all attempts to find common ground with opposing thought, when I am faced with such libertarian absolutes, I have no choice but to call them idiotic.

Response to fictional OWS day in the life

A friend recently sent me this link of a gentleman offering his perspective on the Occupy Wall Street movement. Below the link to the video is my response to mattwillwork's video post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qqRFYv3ao&feature=player_embedded


Some good very relevant points are brought up here. Mostly however, he obviously doesn't even get what he himself says - these people must be unemployed if they have the time to be protesting so much. Exactly! If this large lack of jobs weren't the case, OWS would not be such a large movement. 


Despite the diversity of economic issues being raised with OWS, if there were jobs - even minimum wage jobs - available to everyone seeking work, then people would not risk losing that work by going to rallies, and the numbers of people turning up to protest could never reach the levels that they do. Realize, OWS is not a one-day rally. It is an ongoing movement growing quite rapidly and it has spread across the nation (and further). It has been going on for over a month non-stop. 


Nonetheless, the vlogger here later comes back to the point of large scale unemployment by saying that the 90% of us who have jobs are laughing at you. That mentality - the ignorant willful whitewashing in one's own mind of the plight of the jobless who need help - brings to mind that classic Bruce Hornsby song. The one where the people waiting in an unemployment line because they can't find work are being belittled by passersby who yell "Get a job!". The vlogger even repeats this very belittlement. Not just an insensitive remark, but one showing a complete lack of understanding of what is driving the OWS movement. 

He also chooses to assume that OWS is about simply demonizing corporations for the sake of considering capitalism a bad thing. That's where most OWS detractors are making awfully big and wildly inaccurate assumptions. I am not the only who has been writing that capitalism is not the enemy - greed gone unchecked is the enemy. It is the prime directive of business to maximize profits. Greed is a given. That's why balance is designed within the regulations that keep capitalism in check rather than allow it to consume and destroy an entire economy.

When our regulations and trade agreements (or lack thereof) offer a big profit bump by eliminating 2.4 million US jobs, replacing them with 2.7 million foreign jobs at a fraction of the cost, then that is what US business is going to do. Even the most "American" of big business still has profit maximization as the prime directive rather than greater American economic good. But the point is, no one (well no one who is honestly thinking about why they protest) is protesting to try to end business or destroy capitalism. The overwhelming majority realize that capitalism itself is one crucial piece of the American Dream. No one is going to make their own footwear or clothes. No one can deny that so many things we all rely upon on a daily basis are made easily available through a combination of business, and the national infrastructure that we all pay for. 

But there is something else that cannot be denied - something at the very core of the OWS movement - the fact that greed of big business has gone unchecked. In America, CEOs average 475 times the pay of the average worker they "oversee". Next is Venezuela where CEOs make 50 times the average pay of the workers they "oversee". Big banks get free loans from our government while they turn around and throw people out of their homes by the millions rather than restructure crazy underwater loans. Apple makes all its products overseas so that they can pay a few dollars per hour to the people who actually make their goods, rather than paying American workers living wages to do so. All in the name of following the prime directive - maximize profits. A prime directive that is limited ONLY by what system of regulatory checks is placed upon it.

The only thing that keeps capitalism functioning smoothly is well-designed checks. Checks that do not allow the greed to grow so rampant that it actually eats the system that feeds it - like is happening now. Checks that do not allow Wall Streeters to bundle sub-prime loans and do large scale credit default swaps, selling moderate to high risk goods they created as low risk high value goods, thus collapsing the economy. No one has been taken to task for this. Probably because our regulators in the name of right-leaning ideology dismantled the regulations that used to protect our economy from that very risk. But even if it was legal, it doesn't change the fact that no one has been held accountable for this. We simply live with millions of foreclosures, higher jobless rates and allow those who made hundreds of millions off of this destruction to continue hoarding that ill-gained and destructive wealth.

No. No one in their right mind is saying business in itself is bad or that capitalism doesn't work. Just like the guy here points out, we all rely on business for the goods and services of modern day life. The overwhelming majority of OWS protesters though are saying that we have allowed greed to go unchecked for too long amidst our great system of capitalism, and we want balance restored. Exactly how to restore that balance is the big question. It will undoubtedly be fought over with great passion. But balance must be, and will be, just as it always does, eventually be somehow regained.

In the meantime, creating moment by moment events of fictional protesters is just one more distraction. Especially when the fictionalized characters suffer no effects of joblessness or poverty. The one jobless recent college grad in his example is lucky enough to be alright because his father makes plenty of money to support a whole family. For millions of real jobless Americans, no such financial backup scenario exists. This is the biggest fallacy of OWS criticism. There ARE millions of Americans who are not only without a good paying salary large enough to support an entire family, but even without low-wage work. There ARE millions of examples of fellow American citizens who through no fault of their own are jobless simply because there are far fewer jobs in America than there are citizens. Simply yelling at them to "Get a job!" does nothing to address the issue and only further demonstrates YOUR lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

The vlogger here starts his day-in-the-life scenario by calling the OWS protesters "...self-righteous and morally indignant hypocrites" for speaking out against corporate greed. The irony is that such a label applies to all of us speaking our minds through only one view of any issue at the exclusion of others. No matter how much I may seek to understand and take into account different perspectives before getting on my own soapbox, I accept that the phrase would have to apply to me. It clearly applies to the vlogger himself in his reduction of OWS protesters to being "all a bunch of fucking litterbugs" who are "young, stoned and unemployed" who fail to help others who have less than themselves. This despite the outpouring of food, water and more that so many protesters bring in bulk to give away to others. This despite the diversity of politico-economic issues so cogently addressed by so many protesters. No. Between this vlogger, myself, and the majority of the OWS protesters, the least "self-righteous and morally indignant hypocrites" are the protesters. 

We can either realize that there are multiple economic issues being addressed through OWS protests, the least of which is the fact that America has far fewer jobs than it does citizens. Or, if it makes us feel better, we can simply dismiss the whole OWS movement by claiming that they are all dirty stoners who are protesting for "causes [they] don't understand." If that's the choice you make, don't forget to tell them all to "Just go out and get a job!"

Andy Harris on AMERICAN jobs

Andy Harris released a statement arguing against Obama’s jobs bill proposal. Andy writes: “Over Labor Day weekend I met with many small business owners on the Ocean City Boardwalk – a common theme I heard from those potential job creators was their desire to get government out of the way so that they could do what they do best: grow their businesses and create American jobs.”

He HAS to be kidding! Create AMERICAN jobs on the boardwalk by simply getting government out of the way? The Dispatch noted Harris commenting that Labor Day is the last weekend for many OC businesses to make money. Where is government standing in the way of boardwalk businesses creating American jobs if they won’t be open for business until roughly Easter of next year? Did Harris just conveniently forget that the Ocean City business model of employment is 3-5 months of work, followed by unemployment benefits for the remainder of the year for those workers who actually ARE Americans? Given his Party's strong objection to sustained unemployment benefits, I’m really surprised he would try to paint OC boardwalk businesses as an example of potential American jobs. Does he not realize that Ocean City now actively recruits a FOREIGN workforce to fill most of these seasonal jobs? No longer do we see American college students filling the bulk of these seasonal positions at OC retail stores and restaurants. Now they are primarily Russian speaking workers. (Hop on the bus in Ocean City in the summer and see if English is spoken as much as Russian.)

I’ll try to give Harris some credit in his statement. Maybe what he means by getting government out of the way for boardwalk businesses is eliminating the burden of Social Security and Medicare taxes. Business owners don't have to pay this when hiring temporary foreign workers like they do when they hire American workers. Maybe if we just eliminate Social Security, we could have Ocean City boardwalk businesses create American jobs again – at least for a few months per year. Or maybe he is referring to the burden of having to pay a worker the outrageous minimum of $7.25 per hour worked. Maybe that is the governmental burden he is referring to. Maybe it's both. 

Whatever government regulations he may be eluding to, it is clear he has no idea of the economic realities regarding American jobs. Not on the seasonal Ocean City boardwalk, and not on the national scale.

Letter to Congressman Andy Harris

Dear Congressman Harris,

I realize this may fall on deaf ears given your campaign focus of not only repeal, but belittlement of the Affordable Care Act by constantly referring to it as "Obamacare". I realize your predecessor also voted against the ACA when the final vote came. I realize you believe there are elements in the ACA that you do not like. Despite knowing this, I strongly urge you to reconsider the real impact of repeal on the average American.

Entire life savings and home ownerships drained away in a flash to help a family member in serious medical need. Denial of coverage for "pre-existing conditions". Denials of coverage that breach the coverage contract, yet fit some bizarre unrelated loophole that insurers use to justify denial of service. Denial of a reasonable appeal system for such denials while simultaneously combating life-draining illness. A return to a focus on emergency room as first contact for minimally tens of millions of Americans, repeal would reinstate the denial of actual health care and replace it once again with the failed system of overburdened, inefficient and neglectful emergency management.

The ACA is not perfect. It does however provide massive improvements to patient protections that have been overlooked and passed on to future Congresses for decades. The GOP call for repeal and replace has been replaced by a call for just repeal. Not too shocking really given the history of a primarily Republican-led Congress and White House over the last decade. All we got was a drugs for seniors program that left the donut hole gap in the wake of the greatest gift to drug companies - taxpayer dollars for national scale drug purchases at exorbitant prices. Hell, I get a better deal by buying a month's worth of toilet paper at Sam's Club. That's small scale bulk rate. National scale drug buys with no discount is inexcusable fiscal irresponsibility. I realize you were not part of that Congressional process. But given your rhetoric on "Obamacare" and your campaign of repeal, I have no reason to trust you would fight to replace a repeal with anything offering comparable patient protections as the ACA. I have no reason to trust you would even work for any type of replacement, period.

Now let's look at the despicable way this Senate repeal attempt is wormed into other bills. It is a practice that no party is innocent of, but a practice that constantly distorts or destroys the benefits of good legislation. To attach this repeal attempt in the Senate to an aviation bill is a reprehensible act.

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act will drastically affect tens of millions of Americans in very negative ways. Far more than the simple inconvenience of a one month lapse of coverage while in transition from one job to the next. Before voting to repeal or even fighting towards that goal any further, I implore you to seriously compare that one month inconvenience to not only the tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford a single month of COBRA, but who will lose life savings, homes and dignity once seriously ill. Repeal affects more than short-term political gains. Actual repeal would be disastrous to tens of millions of our fellow Americans. If you want to be productive, work to tweak the ACA for the better. We all know a repeal would not be replaced with any comparably secured patient protections for another 100 years.

SPUTNIK MOMENT?... OUR “SUPERPOWER LABEL DEMANDS IT

It’s just over an hour before Obama’s second SOTU is scheduled to begin, and an excerpt of his speech is released.  The theme of the excerpt? “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.” I couldn’t agree more.

The buildup to that line describes our commitment to not only developing the space technology that we were just beginning to advance, but our unified national effort to exceed basic human potential and take us all the way to the moon. NASA was created, our scientific knowledge expanded exponentially, and American ingenuity turned this unified national goal into success story with massive positive repercussions. Had we not only failed to win the space race , but failed to even invest brainpower, agreement of a worthy national goal, and huge sums of money, today’s world would be dramatically different. Had we failed to encourage, support and invest in scientific curiosity and exploration of our dreamable potential, we would be dramatically worse for such lack of national unified drive. The major surge in scientific knowledge, the emerging civilian goods derived from that knowledge, and the resulting economic boost bettered all our lives in ways we rarely acknowledge. From ball point pens, to the internet, in ways both little and huge, we all benefit daily from the innovations derived from our rising as a nation to meet the challenge of our “Sputnik moment”.

On an even larger scale, our national accomplishment helped in no small way to help secure our status as a “superpower” – a status that time puts to the smell test roughly every generation.  To meet the status of superpower requires more than a huge population. It requires more than one of the largest world economies. It requires leadership in the new horizons of each generation. The United States of America has held the status of superpower for the majority of its history. In recent times the test of that label has been met through leading the way to nuclear power, through winning the space race, and through developing the internet. These scientific arenas in which we have led the world over the last few generations all build upon one another. Each one requires not only maintaining our wealth of leading scientific knowledge, but expanding upon it.

But it requires more than just brilliant minds applying their greatness to the national good. It requires vision, perception, and foresight. National leadership must have the vision to see where socio-economic trends are leading the next huge scientific impact.

Today, that path is green energy solutions. Now matter how much credence you may give to the seriousness of man-made climate change, global economies are moving exponentially faster towards green energy. THIS is our current “Sputnik moment”. Unfortunately, we are failing in not only resolve to win this energy race, but even the national acknowledgement that green energy is undeniably the future of global politico-economic competition.

The Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave a large boost to the energy race compared to our past national commitment. However, the funds apportioned to this effort fell far short of an honest “moonshot” effort to win this global race. The effort was not even focued well enough to have reasonable success. Obama pproposed high speed national rail system. However, despite the large sum of billions applied to that goal, it was but a drop in the bucket require to accomplish it. And not even accomplish an equivalent of Japanese high speed rail. The massive amount of money was to create a high speed rail that would be the American turtle to the Japanese hare. US high speed rail is an admirable goal, but to pursue it given the cost and the benefit, it is a distraction that wildly drains intensely needed funds and focus from the global race for green energy leadership. Yes, there were funds within the Recovery Act for green energy companies, but it was insufficient, and it only covered newly formed companies, leaving those struggling to stay afloat despite the lack of proper national support to survive or die on their own. One such company just ended 800 American jobs in Massachusetts  as they packed up and moved the solar panel manufacturing plant to China. Massachusetts gave them 43 million dollars in help to build the company there. But that was roughly 10 percent of their investment costs. China has offered them two-thirds of their costs. Not to mention virtual guarantee of customers and continued subsidies.

This is one recent update in the energy race that so many Americans have yet to even realize that we are competing in. Yes. this is our “Sputnik moment”. So far we are failing it. Big time.

Seek out air cars, solar, bio-fuels, etc. etc. etc. There are so many areas to address….. but for now, President Obama has just entered the chamber. I’m not even proofing this essay so I can see how he addresses our current Sputnik moment.

GOP hypocrisy - repeal and.....hey where's MY healthcare!

• 
  
  

  
  

  [The following entry originates from two contributions I made to a thread on Facebook. The thread was about the hypocrisy of GOP Congressional members selling "repeal and replace”. As "repeal and replace" has now been replaced by simply "repeal.... and ...... well, maybe we'll have a different idea later.....", the hypocrisy is even more pronounced]:

  
  

  The Congressional GOP stance on healthcare reform is one of absolute hypocrisy. Despite all the good in the new law, they are hell-bent on repealing the entire Affordable Care Act (the health care reform Obama signed into law last year). And why not? THEIR healthcare access will not suffer if they do somehow succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act. They have the power to ensure that. They MAKE the laws. Given that only one or two members of Congress opt out of taking the healthcare they are offered via Congress' health care plans, it is very safe to say that any action by Congress on health care issues will not negatively affect the healthcare that members of Congress receive. This is a dramatic difference compared to so many other average Americans - fellow citizens who's access to health care will suffer if the new laws are repealed. Many American's life savings will be drained away once again if they want to keep a family member alive. Many Americans will simply be ignored, having no access to health care at all. We will return to the good old days of denying health care and replacing it with an offering of only minimal immediate medical needs at the emergency room after a long wait. This inefficient, immoral approach is not free. (Nor can it be called health care.) Patients denied health care but offered minimal life-saving intervention at the emergency room still receive a bill for these services. A large percentage of these patients can never pay those bills any more than Congress can pay off the national debt. But one way or another, that cost will be covered. It forces up every one else's premiums in order to cover the difference. Again, why should Congressional Republicans worry about that fact? They won't be affected by the lack of care. The financial devastation won't affect their families. The health care provided to members of Congress will not suffer either way.

  
  

  There is however, one inconvenience that can hit some newer Congressional members. It is a major shortcoming that the Congressional health care plans have in common with the health plans of most Americans. Lapse of coverage while transitioning from one job to the next is a foundational flaw in the construction of our health care system. It affects most of the nation. It can wreak havoc on a family of low to moderate means. It is but an inconvenience for a family of a higher station.

  
  

  When Congressional "repeal and replace" chanters start bitching about THEIR job-provided healthcare not being immediate (like my new representative Andy Harris), then the hypocrisy is just pathetic. Andy Harris campaigned on killing any government involvement in healthcare, even though the blue-dog Dem he just beat voted against the Affordable Care Act. Andy was upset because he had to wait about a month before he could be enrolled in Congress' health care plan. Hell, "REAL" Americans (to borrow a term from Palin and others) would be considered pretty lucky to be immediately covered under the health care plan of a new employer. For most of America, receiving coverage while only in orientation for a new job is a huge perk. Bitching about not getting immediate healthcare coverage after campaigning so hard on repealing “Obamacare” just makes the hypocrisy absolute. Way to go Andy!

  
  

  Despite the blatant hypocrisy, an article on Andy Harris in the local paper may have shed some light on his perspective. The reason Andy was upset about not having immediate coverage was that this is the first job he ever had that did not offer it. It’s just another example of how nearly all lawmakers really do live in different realities than the average citizen (except maybe Joe Biden in his days in Congress). I'm guessing the reason for Andy's history of immediate coverage with all of his previous employers has to do with him being an anesthesiologist. My guess would be that doctors of virtually all forms working in hospitals would be covered immediately through the hospital's own plan. I haven't researched it, but it sure would seem odd to me for that to be any other way. The last thing a hospital would want is one of their doctors to have an emergency but not be covered. Imagine the bad press and the potential resentment from one of their own doctors. No. I doubt doctors associated with hospitals would experience this all too common lapse in coverage while transitioning from one employer to another. Certainly not when transitioning from one hospital to another.

  
  

  Despite how logical it seems, maybe I'm wrong in that assumption. I don't know. But whatever the reason for Andy never having to experience any lapse in healthcare coverage for him and his family in the past, the point is one of blatant hypocrisy. Andy Harris campaigned on repealing health care reform (or "Obamacare" as he put it). Then he complains when HIS government-provided healthcare is not immediate. Thanks to Bill Clinton's administration, at least Andy has the option of COBRA. Even though it is wildly unaffordable for the average US citizen, I'm guessing Andy would be able to digest the financial burden of COBRA for one month without destroying his financial future, or having to sacrifice any basics like food and shelter to pay for that one month of coverage. Despite the month-long wait for his Congressional coverage to kick in, the new "Obamacare" now allows his whole family to still be covered through his plan. He has 5 children with ages running from 11 to 26. Prior to "Obamacare" he would not have the option to keep his oldest offspring covered under his employer-provided healthcare. Maybe he doesn't want his oldest on his coverage. That is purely his business. The point is - if his oldest child found no other employment offering reasonable healthcare - the option is now there. Thanks to “Obamacare”.

  
  

  But there is the devil’s advocate argument against criticizing Harris for complaining about his transitional lapse of health care coverage. An argument that fails to consider him hypocritical for accepting the federally funded health coverage Congress offers him. Being a Congressman IS his new job after all, and that is where we Americans secure our health coverage – through our jobs. That is the foundation of our system. The argument would be credible if it weren’t for the very fact that Andy’s job IS to make laws governing the nation. And to get that job, his focus was vowing to eliminate new health care security for millions. Security that he not only expects from his job as a Congressman, but which he hypocritically takes for granted and finds insufficient for himself.

  
  

  If it weren't for this power they have to make laws affecting all other Americans' access to healthcare, while being able to secure their access through their legislative powers, then this argument WOULD be one reasonable perspective. But it misses the big picture - that simply having a job does not automatically provide health insurance. And the even bigger picture, that our health care SYSTEM is one of the worst. Linking affordable health care access to jobs that do actually offer it is frankly a form of indentured servitude. Sure COBRA sounded like a step in the right direction - allowing a worker to choose his or her career path more freely by not being afraid to lose health care coverage if taking the plunge to change careers or start a new venture on their own... but COBRA failed miserably in that regard. COBRA coverage itself is more than the average income. Not only not affordable, but for all but a few, it’s literally impossible to maintain.

  
  

  The BIG, big picture is one that should question this structure of health care. This structure that links provision of health care to employment by another more wealthy individual or company. A link that makes the basic needs of the average individual so dependent upon what wages and health care coverage an employer will offer that the relationship goes beyond that of basic worker/employer, but enters the realm of submissive and/or destructive co-dependence.

  
  

  Again, this BIG picture is blatant. Despite Andy's lucky history of immediate and continual coverage from one employer to the next, he is a marked exception to the average citizen. The average citizen does not have the luxury of not even considering healthcare coverage in making career decisions. For most, the consideration of healthcare and any potential lapse in coverage is a major impedance to career mobility. The freedom to quit a civilian job may be there for all, but the risk of financial devastation over health care costs trumps that freedom far, FAR too often.

  
  

  The Affordable Care Act fails to properly address this foundational flaw of the system.  It leaves the for-profit market-based system of health care intact. Yes, it mandates that everyone purchase insurance from private companies, and it fails to offer any public option for the millions who have no job, or are self-employed, or have a pathetic wage job that can’t offer health care in any form. Yes, I have a problem with all of this. It is far from ideal. But in return, it does offer patient protections that have been unheard of in my lifetime. Pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, etc. can no longer be the legal catchphrases to excuse an insurance company’s breach of responsibility.

  
  

  Despite it’s leaving the market-based system of health care intact, Republicans label the Affordable Care Act a “government takeover”.

  Despite its original offering of more personal decision over end-of-life care issues, Republicans yelled “Death Panels!”

  
  

  Despite the law moving aside the largest middlemen so doctor and patient can decide the best path of care, Republicans insist that an agent of Obama, and not the insurance company will stand between you and your doctor.

  
  

  Despite the CBO (the NON-partisan budget scoring panel) consistently running results that show the Affordable Care Act saves billions of dollars, Republicans insist on calling it “job-killing” (At least until a week after the Arizona tragedy when the word “killing” was removed.)

  
  

  Despite complaints over not being covered under Congress’ health plans prior to officially starting the job of Congressman, we hear chants of “repeal Obamacare”.

  
  

  Despite the imperfection of the Affordable Care Act, and despite having already repealed the “replace” portion of “repeal and replace”, Congressional Republicans want to take away these powerful new patient rights that the law created.

  
  

  Yet they still say they can do better.

  
  

  Blatant hypocrisy. What dials up the hypocrisy-meter even more is that the GOP have HAD power. The only health care reform they created with that power was unpaid-for drugs for seniors with no taxpayer discount bulk rate. That change was a huge taxpayer giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and a large box of donut holes to many of our grandparents.

  
  

  Whether looking at the large scale foundational flaws of our health care system, or simply looking at the coverage of individual members of Congress, the GOP steadfast opposition to any government involvement in healthcare, and simultaneous dependence on it for their OWN families, is absolute pure hypocrisy.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

A better way to post...?

From e-mail to facebook to blog. An inevitable progression.

It started with my friend Dylan. An occasional reply to a forwarded political e-mail. It grew to include detailed fact-checking, and quickly evolved into mini-editorials. I finally joined the world of Facebook  and the political dialogue entered a wider sphere. My fact-checking, my thoughts, my voice grew as I had conversations with more of my friends. From music to politics. Most often, most complex, and most passionate however were the conversations on politics. Though I may sometimes smile at a clever twist of words, bumper sticker slogans tend to be insanely insufficient for discussions of politics. Usually the thoughts bouncing around in my little brain cannot be expressed in 120 characters or less. Nor could they typically be done any justice in just one paragraph. The extent of my comments oft seem out of place buried within the reply comments of various Facebook content. (I've even had some comments too big to fit.) The point is, I've grown to enjoy writing. Despite sporadic output, despite it being more cathartic for me than it is entertaining or informative for those who read it, I do believe it is time. It is time to start my own blog.

This is simply an introduction and a welcome. The majority of the blog entries will likely be political in nature. The title gives a clue into my nature. I am liberal in heart. It is balanced by a moderate mind. Others may peg me differently. That's the nature of politics. But liberal heart, moderate mind should give a clue as to where my perspectives will lead me. Entries will be sporadic, depending on available time, and feeling I have something to say. I do not plan on leaving Facebook, but I suspect that I may blog ideas here, and post links rather than continue to post mini-editorials on Facebook. The first few posts here may even be re-edited postings of previous Facebook content I posted on other's pages. (Like I said, some posts were essentially editorials already.)

I chose blogger.com because it is free, and it appears to have everything needed to get started, including  the ability for readers to comment. That brings up a key point. The idea of censorship and free speech. I have written on this earlier a few times, especially in the political aftermath of Jared Loughner. (Reposting some of that writing here will most likely happen soon.) Though I argue the responsibility of free speech must lie within the individual and society at large to pushback against irresponsible language in order for free speech to survive, the rules will be slightly different here. I ask that foul language be left out if possible, or severely minimized if felt it is really needed to make a particular point. I want this site to be one that does not devolve into the vile troll mentality that so permeates far too much of the cyber-world. I want the content here to viewable by all ages capable of reading. I have no desire to have to play the role of civil police or censor to this word or that. I have no desire to, but if it becomes necessary in order to keep the site amicable to all ages, then I won't hesitate.

Well, I think I now have the basics in place here. I'm sure I've got more to learn about layout, site upkeep, etc., but I should have content coming soon. I hope you enjoy reading my rants. If you want to see what I do musically, then visit my website www.didjbusker.com.

Best wishes,

didjbusker