Let’s be clear, I am not an alarmist, extremist, or any kind of -ist for that matter.  I tend to tread in the middle road on many things.  Even though I am a conservative politically and morally speaking, I am very much one to mix with all types and be happy with the melting pot.

I think we can all pretty clearly agree that our national economic situation America is downright screwed up.

We, as a country, have been borrowing against the future in a big tremendous way in order to enjoy the current prosperity.  Politicians continue to do it because it just isn’t easy to get elected without giving people the easy answer to making their our what we all want.  It has been easy to let it happen because frankly we all enjoy the good times, and the negative backlash has seemed so far in the future that we all figure some kind of fix will be figured out along the way.  Not my problem, right?

Wrong.

All indicators and difficulties of our current recessive backsliding underway, we are headed for a major bursting of our financial bubbles.  It drives me insane to see us continue to operate at a deficit as a country in such enormous sums that the average citizen simply cannot wrap his or her mind around it to be concerned.  It’s like the individual that is so deep in debt that they just ignore the bills out of the sheer feeling of futility of doing anything about it.

One life getting fouled up with band financial decisions is a bad thing, an entire country is in an entirely different scope.

I truly believe that our generation needs to be the one to take this problem by the horns and do something about it.  Even if it means a decade of some very difficult times, it isn’t going to get any easier the longer we put it off.  We are well past the point of thinking we can just maintain status quo and it will somehow resolve itself.

As I checked out the various news sites for their coverage of the speech, as is typical I was disappointed in the bias shown by the placement and content included excerpt leading to the article.

First thing that bothers me is the headline of the “related” article directly beneath the front page feature.  This related article spot is not always present, but often.  Look at the content, “Equality talk often lip service.”  If you read the article, overall it is an interesting dialog on some issues at hand in our society, but including this summary headline with the negative slant directly beneath the Romney coverage creates a slant by association.  In now way be fooled into thinking this is not an intentional, calculated placement.

Second, though I find the title of the article creative and applicable, there is one statement that bothers me.  The summary “…explained how his faith would affect his presidency…” is again misleading; the point of the speech was to say his religion would not influence his presidency.  Of course he did cover the essence of what value his having a strong religious belief contributes to his morals, ethics and a backbone that should be considered an asset to a presidential candidate, but the theme was to instead point out that religious affiliation should not be a consideration or criteria when considering a candidate.

It is subtle and often not-so-subtle things like this that irritate me in all news coverage.  Being a major news organization, I always hope to see bias relegated to the opinion section, but in truth it is nearly impossible not to include your own viewpoint when writing.  I wish when it came to politics we could see the straight story rather than being fed what we should take out of the facts.

Of course it is easy for me to make such sweeping statements without any detail; but that is still how I feel.

We all have read the stories of government excess and misappropriation of funds.  We have all heard the news of government contractors charging hundreds of dollars for a hammer or screw either as outright criminals or the just as criminal good old boys network.  All these things leave a bad taste in our collective mouths when we pay our required money to our state and federal government.

All those regular taxes aside, the ones that really get me are the less than ordinary taxes we get hit with.  I have written before about my feelings about prize and inheritance taxes, but within a recent article I see another mention of taxes that cause me to grind my teeth.

If you hadn’t read or heard, the college student that was fortunate enough to emerge from the mele for the Barry Bonds record-breaking* (asterisk included) home run ball decided to auction it off.  You can read about the ensuing news and interesting choice to open to the public the fate of the ball by the new owner.  In the subtext of the article, though, is the part that stood out to me.

He decided to sell it, he said, because he couldn’t afford the tax bill that would result from holding onto the ball.

Some tax experts said Murphy would have owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes based on a reasonable estimate of the ball’s value even if he had never sold it. He may also have faced capital gains taxes as the ball gained value.

How wrong is it for a person to end up with a valuable ball at a baseball game to end up having taxes levied against him at the purported value of the ball>  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes?!  Our government has no business labeling this transaction one deemed required to be taxed.  Now when he sells it, that makes some more sense, but if he simply has it in his possession without having purchased it in the first place it is ludicrous to have the government involved at all.

I feel the same way about person to person vehicle sales, inheritance, prize winnings, etc.  The government needs to get their hands out of so many pockets and make better use of the funds already being collected.  Quit looking for more ways to take a larger portion of our money and do a better job being efficient with what you have.  Quit deficit spending and set an example for our nation and start the hard road of working your way out of debt and living within your “means.”  How can we expect the American public to do it if our nation as a whole cannot do it either?

See the “reporting” for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2007/08/15/anderson.mormon.film.cnn

When will Mormon’s ever catch a break?  They get it equally from the right and left wings who just can’t stand to see a good group of people without beating them down.  We don’t expect to be favored in the news, but we do expect some unbiased treatment.
I’ve read up on this event, and it is a tragedy.  There is a lot of persecution of the Mormons leading up to this that no doubt played into this group’s poor decision making and abominable actions, yet that still doesn’t excuse it.  Do we condemn an entire religion and people based on the actions of a few that took a wrong path?  Are all Catholics child abusers because of the actions of some priests?  No.  Are all Islamics bomb carrying radicals?  No.  Same applies with Mormons, so why can’t the press include some of these concepts in their coverage of such obviously biased, non-documentary creations?  Because they want to believe what they are saying, so they publish it to the world as if it were true.

This kind of thing makes me sick because of the number of people that will watch it and assume it is true.  Is there any doubt that the positioning of this movie and the coverage it has already and will create was timed at this point in the election process of a Mormon presidential candidate?  Just keep watching for what comes next, because there is sure to be more propaganda thrown out there.

What has me started on this?  This article in the Boston Globe actually takes a fairly non-partisan view summarizing some of what has happened of late.  I am really not all that riled up about it, but it bothers me of course.  It’s more like a casual, continual annoyance at the character of so many in politics and religious positions of leadership.
Mitt’s a Mormon (technically a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and is not only doing nothing to hide that fact, he is proud of it.  Does that influence his position on things?  Absolutely, though it does not dictate it.  His religious beliefs are simply representative of his tendencies towards family values and spiritual freedoms.  Beyond that, he has made it clear by his voting history and statements that he acts based on the good of the country, not on personal biases.  Isn’t that exactly what most of us want in a president?

I am not going to banner wave any one candidate or try to sway anyone on their vote, I just can’t stand when people are afraid of losing in a fair battle, so they instead resort to essentially cheating.  Campaign leaks and comments made by lower staffers are really not all that accidental.  There is a strategy to almost everything done in the press.  Once a statement is made like “Mormons aren’t Christian, in fact they really are a cult,” no amount of “disavowing and apologies later make up for it. The damage is done…just as intended.

I’ll state it plain and simple here:  Mormon’s are Christian.  Though there may be differences in religious tenets in your particular view of God, Christ and other facets of Christianity, there is no basis to warp your definition of Christianity to exclude someone’s personal, heartfelt convictions.  It’s as simple as that.

There are a number of sites targeting ad placement on any article related to Mitt Romney.  Some are favorable to Mormons, some are staunchly anti-Mormon, trying to warp and degrade the message about Mormons in any way they can.  It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to to bring down other people rather than build up those that want to be.  All that said, I was happy to see one of these sites with an impressively neutral position on whether Mormons are Christian.  This site, of another Christian faith, simply says

“As it’s asked, this question doesn’t make sense. It implies that it’s what you do that makes you a Christian.  So if being a Christian isn’t something you do, what is a Christian?  Simply, a Christian is one in whom Christ dwells by his Spirit. It’s a relationship between you and Christ. You put your faith and trust in Jesus, asking him to forgive and save you, and he does everything!  Can members of the Kiwanis Club be Christians?  Sure.  Are they all Christians? Surely not. Are Mormon’s Christians?  Surely some are, some are not.”

I couldn’t ask for more from another faith.  Isn’t tolerance and understanding what all should offer and expect?
All definitions aside, whether Mormon’s are Christian or not has no place in discussions of who is the best choice for President.  If you wish to evaluate at Romney’s activity in a religious organization as part of your character assessment of him, great; but to make degrading references of his beliefs as part of a strategic effort to knock him down is just plain wrong, unethical, and frankly immoral.  Particularly those who do it in the name of their version of Christianity should be ashamed; they mock the very principles Jesus taught that they claim to believe.

Of course we have a long time ahead of us in the next presidential bid, so this is nowhere near the end of what we will see in the negative campaigning.  On the surface the major candidates will avoid it, because they know the public on the whole and especially the media abhors bigotry far more than whether a particular religious sect is “better” than the other.  I just hope the back room techniques will be held at bay.

The top headline on CNN today made me feel the need to revisit my comments about how statistics are creatively used, primarily in popular news reporting.

First, I need to ask you to put aside your feelings about the war in Iraq – this is not a discussion on whether we should be there or whether we should have ever gone there in the first place. I am not asking your opinion of whether troops should be pulled out right away or any of that. What I am asking is that you evaluate what is being said in this headline and decide whether it was skewed according to the agenda of the reporter and likely CNN in general.

The headline states that “Most” what the withdrawal by 2008 or sooner, which is seemingly a fair statement. Read the first line of the summation next: “Nearly six in 10 Americans…” What exactly does nearly mean? Typically close to or so close that you could assume it has reached that number. If you read the article, there are plenty of other statistics quoted for various points, but we are never given the exact number that justifies their statement of “nearly.” Update: They have now added that it is 58% to the inside headline.

What bothers me is that a slim majority in a poll that likely has a margin of error that could drop it under 50% majority does not constitute the claim of “most.” Most indicates a vast majority such as 7 in 10 or higher. Again, this is not a question of your stance on the war and political situation, but on the slanted reporting habits that are clearly aimed at laying the groundwork to a political party change in the white house in this coming election. CNN has a clear agenda, just read between the headlines each day and see how things are reported. Every republican or independent party or individual has a negative spin regardless of the meat of the item being reported, and the opposite is typically true of anything from the democrats.

I like to think of myself as a conservative independent, so this type of reporting always bothers me. I never vote by party and I try to be educated and vote for candidates that most closely represent my opinions on important issues. Unfortunately I don’t have the general public makes enough effort to get to the facts and often takes headlines at face value. That belief pains me because news agencies so clearly have lost all ability to report in an unbiased fashion. This goes for news agencies on both sides of the fence.

So, once again, read carefully any time you see stats quoted or referenced to justify a point. Expect that most reporting may be a bit shady, and you will likely be closer to the truth.

I read a humorous post on a blog today that led me to read some of his other posts.  One in particular stuck out to me talking about Mitt Romney the unfair treatment he is already receiving because of his beliefs.  Though this is unavoidable for so many reasons, I particularly liked some of the logic applied in the discussion about how truly we should be choosing to hire our next president.

Give it a read and let me know what you think.

This is way past crazy folks….I ask how much time is spent on such an issue…how much money? Aren’t there other issues needing attention and to be addressed but time has to be spent on common sense or lack of? Assemblyman Jon Bramnick who sponsored the No hand held cell phones on bikes bill said 17 bike deaths occurred in NJ in 2005 but did admit he had no data on whether a cell phone was involved in any bike accidents or the 17 fatalities. He himself called it a “common sense proposal” but based his concern and thus his bill proposal on his observations. His bill made it past the first steps to being considered by the Full Assembly. I do hope this important public safety bill pushes past the more unimportant pressing NJ issues like the ever increasing gang presence. Remember WE elect these people!!!!

Taxes are an easy punching bag, which is likely why I have avoided it as a topic for a bit. I can’t think of anyone, and I mean anyone who likes paying taxes. No matter what country you are from, there is some sort of taxation to fund our governing bodies. It is an unfortunate constant we all experience. It is necessary, don’t get me wrong, I am a realist. But of course waste in the government makes this bitter pill all the more foul tasting.

I read an article this morning (online of course) titled Uncle Sam Spoils Dream Trip to Space which covers Brian Emmett’s unfortunate situation of not being able to afford going on his “free” trip he won into space. You see, Brian was just an average Joe computer programmer who won a trip into space. How cool is that?! On top of this, he has always wanted to go into space, even as a child like most young kids. So why isn’t he going you ask? Because he would have to pay $25,000 in taxes to accept the trip. You see the trip is worth $138,000, and because it was won in a prize drawing it must be reported on personal taxes in a category that qualifies for a very large tax penalty. This just doesn’t seem right.

We have all seen this when people win big lottery prizes. Usually the article announcing the winner talks about how much “take home” prize they actually end up with. It doesn’t seem like as big of a deal because, heck, they just won millions upon millions, so who is complaining. Yet in this situation, how many times has the government collected money on those winnings before even distributing it to this new winner? How many times do they get to stick their hands in the pockets to put the money right back in their coffers.

The prize one really gets me, but not as much as inheritance taxes. Grandma El finally kicks the can, and low an behold the family finds she had nestled away some savings noone knew about. It isn’t that much – nothing to make anyone rich – but enough that everyone is actually a little excited to get it. Then comes the surprise, Uncle Sam is taking a big chunk of it. Depending on how much it is and where you live, the government can take as much as half of it. What kind of business just took place that give the government the right to get their filthy little hands even dirtier by grabbing a piece of the loot. This tax was really put out there as a way to equalize the rich a bit by not letting subsequent generations simply live of the spoils of being rich…but it doesn’t work. The rich are the ones that can afford to shelter their money in ways that keep the government out of it, so this form of taxation just ends up hurting those that would benefit from a gift left behind from their loved ones.

This puts a whole new spin to the saying, “The only two sure things in life are death and taxes.” Perhaps it should be that “death brings taxes.” Seems like a bad case of adding insult to an already difficult situation.

There has to be a better way for our government to get the cash they need to run. Not only is the US government chewing through every penny they can milk out of the public, but they are running up a tab bigger than any of us can truly fathom With a national debt past 8 trillion, yes trillion, there has to be a change – and quick.

Why can’t the government find ways to generate income to help self fund? I realize ours is a free market society and we don’t want to be competing against a behemoth organization, but I would accept it in some markets and to some degree if it meant a much more beneficial tax situation. Maybe I’m just naive, but there has to be a better way than what we are doing now. Unfortunately I have little faith that any group in our current governmental setup is going to pull it off. Sure, the Democratic Congress would like you to believe that big changes are underway because they have seized power…and I have a bridge to sell you too. Don’t believe the rhetoric.

I’m a bit cynical on this, but cynical with an ounce of hope. I truly hope a better plan can be found within my lifetime, and that things can be fixed. A good start would be to quit raining on the prize winning parade and pushing down the families with recent deaths. At least we would all be a little happier as a result.

I don’t agree with everything this presidency has done, but let’s cover things with some attempt at unbiased coverage and leave the opinions for the appropriate times. I guess it does give me something to complain about, so there is an upside to everything!

The State of the Union is a lot of posturing for the current presidency anyway – does anything specific ever take place because of what was said at one of these big time speeches? Uh, I’ll answer that, nope. It has been and become more of just of a wish list of where we hear what we want to hear and hope that it is true. I just hope that a portion of what is said can begin to take place. We need a major overhaul in the way our government is running, especially on the way money is spent. We can operate within a budget, even if it will have some short term pain. We can curb the fat and appropriate the available funds into better programs. I hope it can happen someday soon, no matter what party does it.
On another note, how many channels do we need the State of the Union simulcast on? Oops, I hit the channel changer…no worries, it’s on this channel too. Good thing I really don’t watch all that much broadcast TV, so I don’t have any shows to miss. :)