Making Sense of the Connecticut Shootings

The recent shootings in Connecticut were so heinous, so senseless, and so beyond the grace of God that we shudder with horror just thinking about it.  Imagining how those massacred teachers and children must have felt while that devil made his way through the school shooting away is not easy.

This type of tragedy brings to mind the reality of pain, suffering and death.  It forces you to reconsider the basic notions of good and evil.  One question that comes to mind for me is, "How could a good God allow this to happen?"  Why isn't there an upper limit on the amount of evil that God might permit?  These were young children.  They did nothing to the shooter.  They had barely begun their young lives and now their stories are over.  It is absolutely sickening.  These same sorts of questions come to mind when I consider the Holocaust.  

Hearing about the shooter's mental illness, or his troubled upbringing with a mother paranoid to the point of stockpiling supplies for the "end times" does little to make the basic problem of evil remain.  The standard reaction is "This happened because human beings have free choice."  If this is so, then that freedom seems to be more important than human suffering, which to me seems incompatible with the basic notions of a good and just God.  

Mr. Rodgers once said that in the face of suffering and tragedy, we must "Remember the helpers."  We must look to those who despite the overwhelming force of evil and wrongdoing, there are those who come together to help those in need.  It is through this that we see God's grace to work through the loving actions of others to bring healing to a broken world.  

Perhaps our basic notions of God as divine chessmaster are all wrong.  Perhaps God is impotent to directly influence human action.  It may be that God is a divine lover, but one who simply lacks the power to prevent some actions from happening.  At least this position makes sense.  I don't believe it diminishes God to reduce his metaphysical power.  It may be that we are ready for a real reconsideration of God's divine powers.  It certainly would be more consistent with the notion of a loving God who works through the loving example of Christ on the cross and influences the world through love, not divine power.  If God knew this tragedy was going to happen and could have prevented it and He chose to not do so, then he is directly implicated.  At the very least, he could have prevented the shooter from having been born, considering the circumstances.

The argument that this world is broken and we can expect better in heaven is unconvincing.  Even if this is true, it still remains fundamentally unjust that children should be dealt such a terrible hand in life while others live long and prosperous lives.  There are escaped Nazi war criminals still living.  How is it right that they are given a long and relatively prosperous life while little children are senselessly slain?  

This tragedy is so horrible.  We want to feel in control.  We want to feel that if we do the right things, our children will be safe.  The unfortunate reality is that we cannot prevent these shootings.  There will be more.  Nothing is going to stop them.  There are simply too many guns in America right now, and God help the sheriff assigned to round up the guns owned by those who won't give them up unless they are pried from their cold, dead fingers.  Both those on the Left and those on the Right all want the same thing--they want our children and teachers to be safe.  They want to live in a safe America.  Liberals believe that if you take away people's guns or have more restrictive gun laws, gun violence will decrease.  Conservatives believe that if you allow people to have guns to defend themselves, gun violence will decrease because of the deterrent effect.  

Norway, a country with restrictive gun laws, suffered a massacre by an extremist that killed 77 people.  Apparently gun control laws in Norway did little to stop the violence there.  When asked by forensic psychologists about the most effective way to end gun violence, the answer was interesting--they said not to publicize the details of the killings because these facts encourage other people with mental problems to act in a copycat like fashion.  Inevitably there will be an increase in school shootings now.  

From a mathematical point of view, the likelihood of your child being killed in a school shooting is insanely low.  70 million children are currently in school and this year less than 50 were killed by school shootings.  The problem with this is that human beings are not statisticians.  We react emotionally to senseless violence because it defies our sense of justice and goodness.  Hurricane Sandy created much more destruction and death than the recent shootings, but because this was an act of nature, we look at it differently.  

I believe in mental illness as a potential contribution toward violence.  I believe in evil as a cause of violence as well.  In this case, I think there was both.  There are plenty of people with mental illnesses who don't hurt people.  Most autistic people, Asperger's Syndrome patients, paranoid schizophrenics, and depressed people don't hurt anyone.  In this case, the shooter was trained by his mother to mistrust the world.  He was taught the end times were near and that he needed to be ready.  It is telling that the shooter had the rationality to wear protective armor before he went on his rampage.  He had the malice of forethought to do as much damage as possible before the police arrived.  He attacked a school because he wanted to hurt and destroy what his mother loved most--little children that she taught.  This was more than just mental illness.  It was unspeakable hate and evil combined with insanity.

I don't know whether there is a heaven or hell.  But I hope he's in hell.  I don't believe that we can only heal by forgiving this madman.  I believe we should hate evil and wish that it be banished from our midst.  Telling the families of the victims that they must forgive this man is an insult to how they are feeling.  They must be given the right to heal in their own way without theological or pop psychology platitudes.  Anything else diminishes the pain they are suffering, a pain that only someone who has lost a loved one to senseless violence can understand.

The truth is that this tragedy is beyond our ability to make sense of it.  It is beyond our ability to easily dismiss.  As Shakespeare once said:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore Website Review

The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore is a website, blog, and podcast created by Jimmy Moore.  Moore used to weigh over 400 pounds.  Using the Atkins diet, he lost more than 180 pounds.  The dangers of obesity are no stranger to Moore.  His brother died as a result of complications from morbid obesity.  His mother underwent bariatric surgery.  Moore recognizes that he faces a daily struggle in keeping down the weight to stay healthy.  Since losing the weight in 2004, Moore has since regained some of the weight, despite following a low carb diet.  Refusing to give up, he reexamined his diet and through research discovered that for his body, low carb was simply not enough.  He needed to be mindful of the amount of protein he ate along with the carbohydrates because the protein in sufficient quantities was being turned to sugar in his system and causing weight gain.  Moore has recently been on a ketogenic diet.  He has reduced his protein and carbohydrate levels and consumed additional levels of fat.  The results of this have been successful.  He has recently lost over 50 pounds over the last few months.

Moore interviews a variety of health experts, diet gurus, and scientists on his podcast.  Many of the guests are fantastic.  A few are total crackpots.  Moore shows all of them respect, and is a skilled interviewer.  He also is co-host of a podcast entitled Low Carb Conversations with Jimmy Moore and Friends.  This podcast is informal and is similar to a paneled talk show like "The View."  The difference is that the focus of this program is diet, health, and nutrition.  Not risking any down time, Moore also hosts Ask the Low Carb Experts, a live call in show in which callers pose questions to nationally renowed health and nutrition experts. 

The best part of Moore's programming comes from Moore himself.  He is optimistic, determined, and energized.  Despite facing some very serious setbacks--including failed fertility attempts with his wife and having regained some of the weight he initially lost--Moore doesn't keep his head down for long.  He doesn't feel sorry for himself.  He doesn't give up.  He just picks up and keeps moving on.  Sometimes, when I am having a difficult day, I tune into the podcast just to feel perked up.  "If Jimmy Moore can face challenges and not give up, then maybe I should, too" I think to myself. 

Moore also has a Youtube channel in which he films diet and nutrition programs.  Some of the best, however, are those related to his personal life.  Through his channel we get to meet his wife Christine.  She is a delightful person who helps Moore with his low carb adventures.  She frequently travels with him to out of state locations for diet and nutrition conferences. 

Having lost 30 pounds on the Atkins diet over two years ago, I believe in the low carb message.  My wife suffers from Type 1 Diabetes.  Her body cannot produce insulin as a result of an autoimmune disorder.  If she eats a moderate or high carb diet, she becomes incredibly sick.  Eating low carb has kept her blood sugars in check and helped her avoid having to give massive doses of insulin, which can cause wild blood sugar fluctuations which can lead to her dying.  The Atkins diet has worked wonderfully for her.  Like any other diet, sometimes you lose a bit of your self-discipline.  This has happened to me lately and my belt is starting to show it.  I've been listening to Moore more lately, and becoming more inspired to not give up and get back on track.  Considering Jimmy has had struggles much more difficult than mine, it feels empowering to listen to his show.

His podcast is ultimately much more than one man's journey to maintain his health despite difficult genetic tendencies toward weight gain.  It is about maintaining a can-do attitude despite enormous challenges and not giving up.  Because when you have stopped fighting, they have beaten you.  And this is something Moore refuses to let happen.  Whether you are struggling with weight issues or not, the website is highly recommended.

How Obama Won

Many seem surprised that now the election is over, the media coverage of the campaign seems to have born no resemblance to how the actual election turned out.  This shouldn't be surprising.  The media has no interest in reporting accurate, real news.  It is selling a product--middle class and upper middle class audiences to advertisers.  An election cycle without a horse race is boring.  One candidate cannot seem too far ahead of the others or things become too mundane and people tune out.  This means less revenue from advertising dollars.  The half dozen or so large corporations that own the media don't like that.

An excellent example of this is the Republican campaign.  Judging by the numbers, it was very clear that Mitt Romney was ultimately going to win the Republican nomination.  But the media had to pretend each week that somehow Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich were going to unseat the presumed candidate.  This never happened.  It never was going to happen.

The same goes with this presidential election.  Looking at the swing state likely outcomes, it has been clear for months and months that Obama was ahead just enough to pull off a reasonably large victory.  Nate Silver, a statistician, has been saying this for months, but the media refused to listen because it made for a boring news cycle.  Instead, the media reported on daily polls which didn't factor in the electoral college, which is the real decision maker when it comes to deciding the presidential outcome.

Now we hear about how the Republican "War on Women" has cost Republicans the election.  We hear about how the Republicans must now remake themselves or face permanent defeat.  This is nothing more than media hype once again.  The numbers themselves show how Obama won, and most of it has to do with his favoring of the auto bailout in Ohio, which tipped working class Ohioans toward him.  Romney also did worse with minorities and with women, but this had more to do with general Republican policies which are simply unfavorable to these groups.  Republicans spent a great deal of their time trying to disenfranchise voters, cut programs for the poor and sick, and Mitt Romney himself was the perfect avatar of Wall Street greed and outsourcing.  So was Paul Ryan in all his Ayn Randian glory.

The truth is that although the economy is improving slowly, most of the damage to it was not caused by Obama and so people didn't blame him for it.  Considering we were close to another Great Depression when he took office, things are certainly better than they were four years ago.  Obama hasn't been a terribly effective leader.  He is not a strong and confrontational personality.  But people also remember how the Republicans fought him every inch of the way and defeated his jobs bill, along with every other thing he tried to do.  His competent handling of  Hurricane Sandy was a stark contrast to the inept disaster that was George W. Bush's Hurricane Katrina response.  Obama is no FDR, but he isn't George W. Bush or Herbert Hoover, either, and people could see this.

Reporters keep saying that if Republicans intend to regain power, they must move to the middle of the political spectrum.  Tom Brokaw spent considerable time pontificating about this on election night.  You would think that years of reporting would have been instructive to him.  He seemed amazed that the two parties refuse to work together for the good of the common people.  The reason they don't work together is simple--it's because they have different principles and don't agree.  People like Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann are true believers.  They aren't going to throw their ideals out the window just to gain political power.  The same goes for members of the Tea Party.  To assume that these folks will do so just to gain power is incredibly naive.  After the massive Republican defeat in 2006, the party didn't become more moderate.  To the contrary, it became even more right wing.  In 2010, the Republican party bounced back and regained the House.  Moderates might be willing to move to the middle to gain power, but these folks are not the true believers.  The reality is that we are going to have far right Republicans, and they aren't going away.  The same goes for members of the left.  People like Jill Stein, Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges are not suddenly going to sell out their ideals to support candidates who are moderates.  This is contrary to their nature.  Members of the left and right aren't going to hold hands and sing Kumbaya any time soon.

The most stunning thing about this election is not that Obama won.  The stunning thing is that Obama did not win by a landslide.  Even with the economy being lackluster and the jobs growth meager, Mitt Romney was an absolutely horrible candidate.  He stood for nothing.  He spent his career destroying jobs and playing financial games.  He had no tact and was prone to frequent verbal gaffes.  His flip flopping on issues and incessant lying made him totally transparent.

I am glad the election is over.  I feel relieved that the war mongers in Israel won't be given the go ahead to start a major war in the Middle East concerning Iran.  I feel happy that the Obama support for net neutrality will keep the Internet growing and vibrant.  And I feel relieved that health care reform is here to stay.  Most of all, when it is time to appoint new Supreme Court justices, those chosen won't be crypto-fascists like Antonin Scalia.  Obama getting reelected is a very good thing for this country compared to a Romney presidency.  Four more years of peace is a hell of a lot better than four more years of war.  I would have been even happier with a Jill Stein presidency, but I will take what I can reasonably get.

God bless America.

Why Windows 8 Can Wait

"The tales of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

                                                                  --The PC

As more and more mobile devices based on Apple and Android are sold, Microsoft feels it has to get in the action to remain relevant.  Some of the sales numbers point toward a trend moving away from desktop PC sales and toward mobile devices like tablets and smartphones.  Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by monopolizing the desktop PC market.  If you wanted to run a program and have maximum compatibility with other users, Microsoft Windows was the way to go.

Windows XP was a major step forward in operating systems.  It was simple, easy to use, and has remained relatively decent for the last 11 years.  Many enterprise users, such as large corporations and many small businesses, still rely on Windows XP for their computing needs.  This is because making change is expensive for businesses.  Many custom made programs and other software are designed to work with a particular operating system.  Upgrading can cost time and money.  Therefore, enterprise users typically wait to change operating systems.  When Windows Vista was released, it was a disaster. It was buggy, resource hungry, and difficult to use.  Even Microsoft admitted that Vista sucked.  Everyone began to wonder if Microsoft had lost its edge.  Perhaps the software giant was finished.  Microsoft, however, came through and produced Windows 7, which is the best operating system they have ever created.  Windows 7 proved to be the anti-Vista:  it was light on resources, relatively stable, and easy to use.  The interface was beautiful and intuitive.  Microsoft had redeemed itself.  

But now the market seems to be changing.  Microsoft feels the heat to get into mobile.  So it is working on Windows 8, which is a complete redesign.  The look and feel of Windows has been radically changed.  Instead of a start button and the typical layout we are used to, Windows 8 has done away with the start button and moved to a tile system for the desktop, one that is more compatible with touch screens.  Initial reports are that the new operating system is difficult to use, counterintuitive, and plagued with other problems.  Some feel it has been too rushed and will take several service pack updates to remedy.  Enterprise users are feeling nervous and likely won't jump on the bandwagon.  Consumers, looking for something new and fresh, might bite.  The stakes aren't as high for them.

I believe the whole post-PC prediction is wrong.  Desktop PCs are still useful for power users.  The keyboard is larger and more amenable to getting real work done.  Serious gamers and video editing enthusiasts still rely on the desktop and laptop PC.  Tablets and mobile phones are great for surfing the web, but taking notes, writing school papers, editing photos, editing video, and other important tasks are unwieldy and awkward on these devices.  For serious work, you need a serious computer.  And this isn't going to change anytime soon.

As for me, I never upgrade to the newest operating system when it comes out.  I always wait a few years until the bugs have been worked out.  I don't feel like being a guinea pig for the latest untested code.  If Windows 8 sucks, I may even skip it.  After all, I can do everything I need with Windows 7.  Why change?  

The other factor is GNU/Linux.  I am having fun with my installation of Zorin OS 6 Lite, a lightweight distribution based on Lubuntu, a lightweight version of Ubuntu.  It is light on system resources and stable as can be.  It never crashes.  It was free to download, and installation only took 20 minutes.  I almost felt guilty it was so easy.  Updates are smooth and carefree.  Plus I am immune to Windows viruses and don't have to run antispyware and antivirus programs which slow down my computer.  My six year old laptop has been resurrected (mostly from a deep cleaning that was causing it to overheat) by GNU/Linux.  I can even play HD video on it now, something I couldn't do before.  

I have my hard drive partitioned so I can dual boot Windows 7 and Zorin.  This allows me the best of both worlds.  I can still use my specialized Windows programs, but for surfing the web, I prefer my Chromium (open source version of Google Chrome) browser.  I can also use Firefox.  For office software, I use LibreOffice, which is an open source version of Microsoft Office.  It works the same way and allows me to save in Microsoft Word doc format and in open source text document formats.  Using WINE, a Windows emulator, I can run Windows software in Zorin.  It's pretty amazing.  

A few years from now I may change to Windows 8.  I am in no hurry, though.  If I had to, I could even survive on Windows XP for the next few years.  It's hard to get excited about shelling out cash for an operating system.  Maybe that's why I'll just stick with GNU/Linux--it's free.

Why Ohioans May Decide The Fate Of The World

I've had my differences with Obama over the years.  In 2008, I worked for his campaign.  I believed in him. And I felt let down when he gave up on the public option during the health care debate.  I felt let down when he failed to close Gitmo.  I continue to oppose his use of drone strikes and the unfair treatment of whistle blower Bradley Manning.  And I felt let down when he allowed the Bush tax cuts to be renewed.  I saw a group of Republicans who were willing to hold the country hostage for political gains.  I saw them reject the jobs bill so they could use the difficult economy against the president during the election.  It angered me that Obama hadn't been more forceful against them.  I wish he had been more like Franklin D. Roosevelt, a president who was willing to challenge the status quo to stand up for the majority of Americans, not just the rich and powerful.

But just because Obama hasn't completely met my expectations, it isn't rational to assume that any other choice is the right one.  It is definitely not true that Mitt Romney is a better choice.  Obama isn't moving fast enough, but at least he isn't moving backwards.  Mitt Romney wants to take this country backwards to the policies of George W. Bush.  He wants to be overly aggressive on foreign policy.  We already saw how this kind of hawkish behavior led to two wars which have nearly bankrupted this country.  It has led to thousands of killed and disabled veterans who paid the ultimate cost of Bush's cowboy attitudes.  Obama has a greater respect for human life because he only sends troops into combat when he feels it is absolutely necessary.  He got us out of Iraq and is planning to allow the citizens of Afghanistan to police their own country.

Romney says he plans on repealing the Affordable Care Act.  Ironically, this legislation was modeled after Romney's health care reforms when he was governor.  The Affordable Care Act opens up health care to millions of uninsured Americans who previously who have had to use the emergency room as their only means of receiving health care.  This meant they were free riding off the system because they didn't have to pay health care benefits as emergency rooms cannot turn people away.  The Affordable Care Act provides health care to all while demanding that everyone pay their fair share to the best of their ability.  Independent figures have shown that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the U.S. deficit by almost a trillion dollars over ten years.  It has reduced inefficiencies as well.  The Affordable Care Act demands that 85% of policy premium payments be used to provide health care, not line the pockets of private investors.  Before, there was no policy like this.  It also ensures that people with pre-exising conditions like diabetes and cancer will not be denied coverage.  It provides health screenings for women.  It allows college aged children to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26.  Romney says he plans on increasing "competition" to bring down health care costs.  This idea is laughable.  Health insurers are not going to "compete" for the business of paying out money for AIDS, cancer, and heart disease patients.  They would go bankrupt if they did.  Romney simply has no plan to reform health care.

Obama supported the rescue of the auto industry.  Mitt Romney said he preferred to let it go bankrupt.  The implications of this are serious.  The auto industry helps keep Americans working.  It helps lead to innovation.  Many thousands of manufacturing jobs rely on the domestic auto industry for survival.  Many of the middle class jobs that provide health care, retirement, and a living wage come from these types of jobs.  Many members of my own family have worked in the auto industry.  Obama is a friend of the auto industry.  Mitt Romney has spent his career outsourcing jobs to China.  He made money bankrupting companies like KB Toy store.  He has no sympathy for ordinary workers or blue collar jobs.  He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.  He bullied gay teens in high school--which he has admitted.  Then, he went to Harvard and was able to get into Wall Street playing financial shell games and becoming a millionaire as a vulture capitalist.  Instead of creating jobs, Romney spent his career in "business" killing jobs, liquidating companies and tearing apart the remains, all while acting like a parasite and personally profiting on the misery of others.  I simply cannot imagine finding someone more qualified to dismantle this country than Mitt Romney.  He would be terribly efficient--at creating 1 million new jobs in China.  If you look at the bumper stickers of the Communist Chinese Leaders, most of them probably have Romney-Ryan signs on their cars.  It's the only political bumper sticker in China that won't get you tossed in a dungeon for seven years.

Even though the Bush tax cuts led to record deficits, Romney still claims that tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending is going to lead to a balanced budget.  Under Bush, we instead had record deficits, a loss of jobs, and a financial meltdown.  Under Reagan, we had huge deficits because of unfunded tax cuts.  To think that somehow Romney is going to grow the economy with this lame sort of plan makes absolutely no sense.  History has already proven him wrong again and again.  Basic arithmetic doesn't allow you to decrease revenue and increase spending while still balancing the budget.

The other issue is Iran.  Obama has already stated he won't let them get a nuclear weapon.  He has monitored the situation and knows that they are nowhere near being able to construct a nuclear weapon.  Romney, after having accepted millions in campaign donations from hawks like Sheldon Adelson, have taken an overly aggressive stance on the issue of Iran.  The last thing we need is another major war in the Middle East.  Too many Americans have died in war already.  We must be calm and rational on this issue.  Obama has been a strong and steady hand.  Romney and his aggressiveness will only lead to foreign policy disasters.  His foot-in-mouth tour of Europe and the Middle East a few months ago was proof positive of that.  He is completely tone deaf when it comes to dealing with people that are unlike him.  The problem is that foreign policy is exactly that--foreign.  Mitt Romney doesn't trust 47% of our own people and has said this very candidly.  On the issues of foreign policy, he is a mess.

Obama may not be my ideal candidate, but he is far better than Romney.  The decisions of the United States have a massive impact on the world because of our large economy and our large military.  Millions of people live or die based on the smallest decisions made by our president.  This election matters big time.  Ohioans may be the decision makers in this election.  That is why each of us must be personally committed to go vote against Mitt Romney and vote for President Obama.  Drive a friend to the polls, too.  Assist those whom you know to get there on election day.

America may elect Romney.  After all, we did elect Bush.  That turned out to be a complete horror show.  We may be close to making the same mistake once again.  I pray this doesn't happen.

 I plan on voting for Barack Obama because he is a smart, intelligent leader who will move us forward.  I hope you do the same.

Someone Call A Medic, Ryan's Out Cold!

Tonight we got to witness a great debate between two Irishmen looking to be the Vice President.  Not shying away from a good fight, Biden came out swinging, and didn't disappoint.  Aside from Biden's authenticity and passion, his 30 years of experience made the sophomoric Paul Ryan look like a schoolboy.  When Ryan offered his opinions du jour handed down from Romney's pollsters, Biden came back with real, substantive answers.  Paul Ryan knows the myth of Ronald Reagan and bipartisanship.  Joe Biden was actually a participant in the negotiations back in the early 1980's that saved Social Security.  Whereas Ryan would utter vague notions about how to deal with the war in Afghanistan, Biden shared his experiences actually travelling dozens of times through the war torn area, meeting with troops and the people.  The entire thing was frankly uncomfortable to watch, given the beating Ryan was taking.  It must have been uncomfortable to see him slither away at the end.

The strength of Biden here was that he exposed Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney for what they truly are--puppets for the ultra rich and the corporations. He called out their lies and their bullshit. He hammered Ryan for not being specific about his "tax plan" that is nothing more than a massive subsidy to the rich.  Ryan is considered a fiscal policy wonk by many on the Right.  Biden challenged him and exposed Romney and his "plan" for what it is--nothing more than hot air.  The formula is transparent--first they describe how bad things are--this part is true, and gives them perceived credibility.  Then, they move in for a massive criticism of Obama, refusing to accept their share of the responsibility for the problem (Ryan voted to block Obama's jobs bill, tax reforms for the middle class, etc.).  They finish up without offering any real solutions, other than the tired old mantra of trickle down economics, the same policies of George W. Bush that tripled the deficit and caused the meltdown of the economy.

Everyone knows where Paul Ryan's heart lies when it comes to Medicare and programs for the poor--he is hell bent on ending them.  His proposed voucher program for Medicare would utterly destroy the program.  His proposed budget makes massive cuts to programs that keep poor children from going hungry.  This is consistent with Ryan's Ayn Rand worldview.  His budget proposals are so savage, so heartless, that a group of nuns actually commissioned a bus to travel around America to describe the real impacts his proposals would have for the poor.  These nuns should know--Catholic social programs help many poor and disadvantaged Americans, and some of these funds come from federal spending.

Ryan's only strength was his answer on the pro-life issue at the very end.  Biden said that he believed that life begins at conception but was opposed to the law being changed.  If you believe that life begins at conception, it isn't morally consistent to advocate laws which go against this principle.  Ryan was right to challenge Biden on this, and held him to task for not standing by his principles.  The truth is, a Catholic voter has nowhere to turn in good conscience.  Democrats support legalized abortion.  Republicans support cutting vital heating, food, and other assistance to the poor and needy.  Millions of children will go hungry if food stamp programs are further reduced by the Republicans.  So there is no easy answer for the Catholic voter.  I believe the Democratic policy of providing everyone a fair shake, and assistance for those most in need.  I believe this will lead to more options for poor, young women, rather than abortion.  That's why the rate of actual abortions go down during Democratic presidencies and go up during Republican ones.  Just telling a woman she cannot get an abortion doesn't help her be a good mother.  It doesn't help her feed her children or care for them.  We need to do more than just make abortion illegal.  We need to build a pro-life culture in all areas.

Words are great.  They can inspire, leads us to imagine, and bring us hope.  But looking at the records of the two men, we see some stark differences.  Joe Biden has spent his career standing up for middle class people and supporting working people.  He has not voted to destroy Medicare and Social Security.  Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is a true believer in the philosophy of "every man for himself."  His budget proposals were so merciless, so heartless, that the Romney campaign won't even talk about them now.  His voucher program for Medicare would end the program by privatizing it, based on a ridiculous notion that insurance companies are going to compete for seniors and disabled people.  Why they would compete to pay out huge amounts for medical care defies all logic.  No company competes to lose money.  For someone supposedly gifted in the area of economics, Ryan falls flat on this one.  The truth is that he just wants Medicare to be wiped out and that's it.

Biden has proven his worth as a Vice President.  His vast years of experience in the Senate has proven to be a great asset to President Obama.  He has been a source of wise counsel to him.  Is he gaffe prone?  You bet.  But we also know his heart, which is good.  He is trustworthy and competent.  If something were to happen, I believe we would be safe with him at the helm.  I greatly fear for the poor and impoverished if Paul Ryan were to become President.  Listening to him, I don't get the impression that he has true compassion for others.  He comes across to me as being heartless.  Romney's choice in Paul Ryan speaks to his character as well--Romney is fundamentally a man who doesn't give a damn about the poor.

Is "Obamacare" Racist?

In literary theory, there's the concept of subtext.  Subtext is a hidden concept, idea, or implication veiled beneath a narrative.  It is veiled by more neutral language, but the "hidden" understanding is clear to anyone who isn't suffering from autism or some other form of mental disability.  So, for example, when Ronald Reagan told his story about the "welfare queens" driving their Cadillacs and living off society, the hidden subtext was not of white soccer moms from the suburbs of Connecticut driving their children to practices.  It was a reference to the stereotype of the lazy, black welfare mother receiving food stamps, free housing, and refusing to work while receiving more and more benefits while having more and more children.  In reality, most welfare recipients are in fact, white.  Reagan didn't need to use the term "black" to make his point very clearly.

The health care reform legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2010 is called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Since that time, Republicans have referred to it pejoratively as "Obamacare."  "Obamacare" is an interesting term, considering the general narrative about Obama shared by many in the Republican community.  The name speaks volumes:  "Obama"--a Muslim sounding name--i.e. foreign, scary, threatening, combined ironically with "care."  It implies that a foreign, scary, threatening dabbler has intervened in the most intimate and invasive of relations--that of one's medical care.  In fact, Republicans often refer to health care reform being "shoved down our throats."  Not surprisingly, this term has seemed to stick.  Why?  Because it implies that Obama, "the Other," who is considered by many Birthers to be not even an American citizen, has put his uppity hands where they shouldn't belong.  The entire "Birther" movement is dedicated to the notion that the President is so un-American, so foreign, so different from us that he cannot even be a legitimate citizen of the United States, even though this objective fact has been proven countless times and verified by all objective standards by the state of Hawaii.

It has been shown in studies that over 60% of conservative Republicans still believe that Obama is a Muslim, despite the whole Rev. Wright controversy during the campaign of 2008.  Somehow it was lost on these people that Rev. Wright was a Christian pastor in Chicago.  "Muslim" in America, thanks to the propaganda from the "War on Terror" now means foreign born, dangerous, scary guys who surely cannot be one of us that are hell bent on secretly planning to kill us every chance they get.

So is the demonizing of Obama caused by racism?  This becomes harder to clearly pin down.  History is instructive.  As you may remember from the Clinton presidency, he also faced charges by the Right of being "the other."  He was accused of being a communist, of murdering Vince Foster, and accused of financial fraud concerning the Whitewater Scandal.  Hell, the Republicans impeached him for fibbing about an affair when Ronald Reagan got away with selling weapons to the Contras and George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction which led to two illegitimate wars that cost thousands of American lives and nearly bankrupted the nation.

The interesting thing about Clinton, however, is that he was never considered un-American.  Birthers won't even grant that Obama is the most basic of Americans--a natural born citizen.  He is so different, so alien, that we cannot relate to him in any way, so he must be a Kenyan, and probably a Muslim, too.  Despite Clinton's failings, he isn't considered the Antichrist like Obama is.  Why is that?  Perhaps it has something to do with Obama's background--America is a notoriously anti-intellectual place.  It hates what it perceives to be effete, wonkish, liberal snobs.  Obama, as a Harvard educated lawyer, former instructor of Constitutional law, and community organizer, certainly fits this description.  He is also a city dweller, as opposed to coming from the "real America" as described by Sarah Palin--i.e. the country.  But Clinton had the similar "problematic" credentials--he was a Rhodes Scholar, lived abroad, protested the Vietnam War, was considered wonkish because he understood policy at something beyond a sophomoric level, etc.  So what is the difference?  Could it possibly be that Obama doesn't look like a majority of the population?  I will leave this for you to decide.  I can't say for certain that it is racism, but it very well may be.

Granted, there are some who dislike Obama for actual, genuine reasons on both sides of the political aisle.  There are liberals who feel betrayed by Obama's reversal on important policies--such as indefinite detention, drone killings, closing GITMO, the environment, etc.  There are conservatives who disagree with Obama on a variety of issues from social to economic that have nothing to do with his race or other personal characteristics.  These would be protests which come from reason, not fear.  And fear is the key difference.  Political disagreements based on reason and not fear of the unknown are legitimate.  The problems this country faces are too serious to be grounded in raw emotion.  Manipulation of public fear by greedy politicians leads to the destruction of our rights and the surrendering of our democracy.  The Bush inspired "War on Terror" is a prime example of fear mongering to boost the profits of the defense industry, strip away civil rights, and spy on ordinary Americans.

Someone can be conservative and opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  There are legitimate reasons to be opposed to it on ideological grounds.  These would have nothing to do with racism.  Some have disagreements about the role of government and health care.  Others may have concerns about how health care is distributed.  These are all fine.  I don't agree with them, but these reasons have nothing to do with racism, and that is perfectly acceptable.  People can agree to disagree.

Finishing up, what we call something influences how we think about it.  A name has subconscious meanings embedded with it.  These affect how we mentally frame an issue.  So when I say "Don't think of an elephant," you can't help but imagine an elephant.  It's part of our cognitive structure to interact with language in this way.  In a similar manner, the words we use influence our ideas.  And these ideas have very real consequences.  Calling health care reform "Obamacare" isn't helpful because of the potential associations embedded within its subtext.  For this reason, I prefer to use "Affordable Care Act" or "health care reform act."

An excellent example of this is the attempt by the software industry to refer to file sharers as "pirates."  As RMS says, piracy is attacking ships.  You storm a ship, murder the entire crew, and then steal their loot.  People sharing Lady Ga Ga songs certainly aren't murdering anyone.  To equate the two is propaganda used to impose a false equivalency.  This serves the recording industry well, but for normal folks, not at all.  If you are looking to demonize people who share files by imposing a propagandized mental frame, this works quite well.

Regardless of how you feel about the health care issue, it would be helpful if people stopped saying "Obamacare."  It doesn't help anyone on either side.