Silly, Tricks are for Kids

I am almost ashamed to tell this story, but at the Texas Democratic Convention the best story that you will hear from anyone that attended has to be about the resolution for Precinct Conventions that was up for vote on the floor of the convention.

In a nutshell to get a resolution to be considered on the floor, a petition has to be signed by 1/3 of the delegates in attendance. Which would be roughly 3000 people. Well, a team of people work feverishly to get a petition signed to remove the apportionment of delegates that are sent to the Democratic National Convention based on the outcome of the Precinct Conventions. Now, I can make as many arguments as anyone as to why the the Precinct Convention process needs to be significantly improved, but we have to keep in mind a few things:

1. It is very rare that the person that wins the popular vote does no win the caucus vote. This can only happen in a very close contest.
2. The turnout was unprecedented, so for most election years all of the improvements being proposed would not even be relevant.
3. Is the best place to challenge the Precinct Convention, in a room full of people that were attending because they were selected during the Precinct Convention??

So my actual opinion is although the process needs improvement, stripping the delegates from the process would destroy it altogether. You must consider the reason they were so well attended is because the candidates campaigned for people to attend and participate because they needed those delegates. Not a single communication that I received came from the state or local party. In addition, this new found interest will serve as the catalyst for future generations for the party. Now that I have witnessed the role the Conventions play in the organization of the party, a vote to abolish the Precinct Convention is a vote to once again isolate the party from a large segment of the electorate, and essentially allow the party to fade back to the nonexistent state we witnessed at the turn of the century.

Nevertheless, a lot of hard work earned this resolution for consideration on the floor. The original resolution was up for a straight up or down vote, but the Convention Chair decided to amend the resolution to table this resolution until a Task Force assigned to make recommendations can complete their work and give a report. This amendment to the resolution was argued for 20 minutes. Largely due to the fact that tabling the resolution essentially meant it would not be voted on at the convention and be dismissed. (You have to wonder why the target date for the Task Force to complete their report was NOT in time for the convention).

So finally after much discussion the amended resolution was put to a voice vote on the floor. The convention overwhelmingly supported the amendment, but the naysayers argued it was too close to call (which it wasn't) so we had to take a floor vote and caucus within our districts. So let me clarify at this point, they way it breaks down is the Clinton supporters wanted the resolution to pass, and wanted the amended resolution to fail. The Obama supporters obviously favored the opposite.

As we were taking a floor vote, I got into a discussion (OK more like an argument) with a Clinton supporter who was calling this process unfair. To which I said, you can't call it unfair just because your preference doesn't prevail. If majority of the people agreed with you they would be voting your preference, but in fact they are voting against it overwhelmingly. The vote was almost a 70-30 split.

As the floor vote was in process, the fire alarm in the building was pulled and all of the delegates were told to evacuate the building.... UNBELIEVABLE, the sore losers realizing that there resolution would not prevail pulled the fire alarm before the vote could be reported. I presume the hope was that many people would be disgusted and not return, giving them better odds. It actually backfired; because it pissed us all off so much that we all made it a point to return and cast our votes. For many people this was their last action for the day.

This entire ordeal took about 90 minutes.... As I stated earlier the amended resolution carried about 70/30. Which for all rational people was obvious from the voice vote. What makes it even more sickening is that if the Convention Chair would have would have just allowed the vote on the original amendment it would have been voted down overwhelmingly and saved us about 85 minutes!

Read more!

Can't we all just get PAID?

If you have not noticed, almost half of the topics I discuss on the blog come from Time Magazine. I found this article very interesting, I have summarized below:

I have no clue what my colleagues make. I suspect some earn more than I do and others take home less.

Lilly Ledbetter began working at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 1979, In 1998 someone placed a memo in her mailbox that listed her base salary—about $44,000 a year—and that of three male colleagues of equal if not lesser tenure and title. They earned from $53,000 to $62,000.

Ledbetter sued her employer, and a federal jury awarded her $3.8 million in damages in 2003, later reduced to $300,000 by a judge, but Goodyear appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The employer's case:

“While the Civil Rights Act forbade pay discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion, the act held that employees must lodge a formal complaint within 180 days of the initial discriminatory paycheck. According to the law, Ledbetter needed to have sued within six months of her being hired—never mind that it took her, nearly 20 years to learn she earned less. "


What in the world is wrong with the Supreme Court? This may be one of the most illogical opinions since Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ledbetter's life since then has been a long campaign to change the law. The U.S. House approved a bill in 2007 that would hold employers accountable for the most recent discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one. But the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act failed to gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the bill; John McCain is against it.)

I've got another idea. What if employers made all employee salaries known? If you think about it, who is served by all the secrecy? Not you. Transparency even benefits management, workers liked knowing where they stand. It takes away the mystery so they can focus on their work.

So show me your pay stub, and I'll show you mine.

Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. X

I decided to do a continuation of my previous discussion on Iraq. We will call this one:

"Thought from a distance, may be less tainted than getting up close and peronal"

Colleague after another set off on fact-finding missions to Vietnam, and each returned convinced that America could win the war. It is dangerous when travel is substituted for thought. Senator Jim Webb, a former Marine and Secretary of the Navy, called congressional Iraq visits a "dog and pony" show.

When you take a guided tour, your tour guide decides what you see. In Iraq today, as in Vietnam, they have an incentive to show good news; which isn't always the same as the truth. They (General Davis Patreaus and Ryan Crocker) report to the President, and unfortunately this war has been politicized along partisan lines so it's much easier for them to reinforce the Administration's view than to contradict it. By making Patreaus and Crocker the spokesmen for Iraq policy, the Bush Administration has encouraged Americans to believe they are independent analysts who just happen to agree.

The first priority of McCain and Obama's hosts are to ensure that the candidates leave Iraq alive, they would by necessity take them to places the U.S. and Iraq have made safe and avoid places they have not. Meetings would tilt heavily toward those Iraqis who want the U.S. to stay, and away from those who are trying to force America to leave.

This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are an illusion. It's just that the realities of war are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest in what you see. The wisest U.S. officials seek out journalists who have spent years traveling the country, and former diplomats and military officers who had the freedom to say what they really believed.

McCain thinks winning in Iraq is the single most important foreign policy challenge facing the next President. As a result, he's willing to spend billions more dollars, impose a far greater strain on the military and divert attention from other problems. Obama thinks Afghanistan and Pakistan are more central to the war on terrorism and that our resources in those countries would bring a higher rate of return.

If anyone knows that clarity often comes with distance, it's Obama, who spent 2002 and 2003 in Chicago, far from the secret briefings that persuaded many Democrats to back the war. Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. IX

Finally, I am kicking off the part of the series that begins to evaluate the candidates, their parties, and the electorate that support each. My main goal is to point out the major policy difference that exist on the issues that matter most to the American people, and to shed some light on some common misconceptions that Republicans get credit for without actually achieving any legislation to support their position on the issue. I will start the series off with this one:

"Closing the gap between the world as it is, and the world as it should be."

This year's general-election race features vastly different approaches on so many political issues. There will be a clearer choice this year than there has been in a generation.

The contrasts between McCain, 71, a white former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW, and Obama, 46, a black Harvard Law School graduate and former community organizer, go far beyond the personal.

Most evident on the issue I will cover today: the Iraq War

McCain was a prominent and ardent supporter of the decision to invade Iraq and vows to keep U.S. troops there until the war is won. In recanting his highly publicized comment of "A hundred year war," he offered 2013 as a reasonable date for achieving that goal and ending U.S. involvement. Obama, was an early opponent of the war who has promised to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

McCain as well as most Republicans are ignoring the obvious. The goal of this war is not to win? This is not a football game. The initial mission was supposedly to rid Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), then to remove an evil dictator. Both far contrasts from the mission everyone initially supported which I can scarcely remember but I believe it was "actively seeking out and destroying terrorist regimes every where they exist in the world.

As Obama said we took our eye off the ball, and now we have to pull the bus out of the ditch before we can get on the road again. While we were searching for WMD in underground and in caves in Iraq; Iran and North Korea had WMD in broad daylight. Each more capable and likely to use them than Iraq would have ever been. The presence of terrorist groups in the Middle East alone has actually increased during the time we have spent in Iraq.

The entire discussion of whether the surge is working has became a partisan outcry. Taking the lives of young American men and women and putting them in extreme danger, poor living conditions, and away from their family for multiple tours of duty is a non-partisan decision to the people that are affected.

Of course the surge is working, it's not because the Republicans supported it, it's because it is a logical idea that was crafted by the Commanders on the ground in Iraq who Bush chose not to listen to until his approval ratings plummeted to the point it has put in jeopardy almost every elected office currently held by a Republican. I believe the fundamental principles of Counterinsurgency are extraordinary, “Be professional, be polite, be prepared to kill.” The problem with this rhetoric is when we say the surge is working, what exactly does that mean? Do we even know the purpose of the surge? How could we when we are uncertain about the purpose of the war. Is the purpose to bring stability to the very society that we de-stabilized with this war? What political gains have been achieved?

The central reality in Iraq is this: The Iraqi government is failing to serve the needs of the people or to provide security. Real military progress won't matter very much if political progress is lagging. At this point even the Iraqi government has called for a timetable for withdrawal. So now what? Are we going to refuse to allow the very government we put into power to establish itself? How dare they attempt to set forth conditions to re-establish their "own" country, they can't do that on their terms, they have to do it on our terms... Makes you say were they ever really concerned at all about the people of Iraq? Read more!

Greatest Games in Cowboys History

Saw this post on Dallas Cowboys.com. I thought this was some good stuff for the Cowboys fans.

Warner Home Video is producing the latest in the NFL Greatest Games Series. The DVD will feature the complete television broadcast, without commercials, of the top 10 games. It will include all five Super Bowl games and five games from the list of 9 below:

1975 Hail Mary Game Cowboys vs. Vikings - 12/28/75 - One of the greatest comebacks in NFL history. With seconds remaining in the 1975 NFC Divisional Playoffs, Roger Staubach threw a desperation touchdown pass to Drew Pearson to upset the heavily-favored Vikings at Metropolitan Stadium, 17-14. Dallas would go on to a berth in Super Bowl X.

1977 NFC Championship Game - Dallas vs. Minnesota 1/1/78 - The Dallas Cowboys rolled over the Vikings, 23-6, to advance to their fourth Super Bowl. The Cowboys defense held the Vikings to 66 rushing yards and 6 points. Turnovers set up each of Dallas' three touchdowns as they burst to a 16-6 halftime lead and never looked back.

1980 NFC Divisional Playoffs - Cowboys vs. Falcons 1/4/81 - Danny White led a furious comeback with 20 fourth-quarter points as the Cowboys bested the host Falcons, 30-27. Drew Pearson scored two touchdowns in the final 3:04 as the Cowboys moved on to the 1980 NFC Championship Game.

1/3/83 - Cowboys at Vikings (Dorsett 100-yard run) - On Monday Night Football, Tony Dorsett electrified a national-television audience with his record 99 -yard touchdown run. Arguably the greatest run in NFL History, Dorsett's dash overshadowed a 31-27 loss to the Vikings in the regular-season finale of the 1982 season.

1992 NFC Championship Game - Dallas vs. San Francisco 1/17/93 - Dallas advanced to its first Super Bowl in 14 years as they defeated the 49ers, 30-20 in an epic clash of two NFL powerhouses. Dallas forced four turnovers and, led by two Emmitt Smith touchdowns, overwhelmed the 49ers.

1993 NFC Championship Game - Dallas vs. San Francisco 1/23/94 - In a much-anticipated re-match of the 1992 NFC Title Game, the Cowboys again collided with San Francisco. In a victory personally guaranteed by head coach Jimmy Johnson, Dallas rolled to a 28-7 halftime lead and held off a furious 49er rally to win, 38-21 securing their second straight Super Bowl berth.

1995 NFC Championship Game - Dallas vs. Green Bay 1/16/96 - Dallas earned a trip to their third Super Bowl in four years by beating Brett Favre and the Packers, 38-27. Trailing by three in the fourth quarter, Dallas erupted for two Emmitt Smith touchdown runs to finish off the Pack.

10/27/02 - Cowboys vs. Seahawks - Emmitt breaks rushing record. Dallas legend Emmitt Smith surpassed Walter Payton to become the NFL's all-time leading rusher. Smith broke the record on an 11-yard run in the fourth quarter to secure his rightful place as one of the game's greatest running backs.

2006 Thanksgiving Day - Cowboys vs. Buccaneers 11/23/06 - In just his sixth NFL start, Tony Romo erupted for five touchdown passes as Dallas rolled over the Bucs, 38-10, in front of a national-television audience. Romo completed 22 of 29 passes for 308 yards in a game that marked his ascent from obscure back-up to sure-handed leader of America's team.

You can vote for your favorite until July 11. The "Dallas Cowboys 10 Greatest Games" DVD will be available in retail stores on October 28, 2008.

I voted for 1992 NFC Championship Game - Dallas vs. San Francisco 1/17/93. Read more!

Save Your Breath

This weekend I was hipped to this video:



You may need to listen to it twice to actually figure out what is happening. I have to admit over all of the talk about it 3 thoughts come to mind:

1) This woman is crazy, I should have known that before she even started singing based on the hairstyle

2) It is actually more funny than offensive, considering thought #1

3) This is quite an impressive feat, to arrange the song, and then remain focused enough to keep the tune of one song while inserting the lyrics word for word from another song.

It's amazing, I mean I would have been able to grasp it better had she intermingled the words of the 2 songs. Just try it! Try to play the music from one song, and sing another song while that music is playing, then take it a step further try singing the other song word for word to the tune of the song that is playing.

It is almost impossible, further proof that this woman is c-r-a-z-y.....

That being said what she did was in her own words "an artistic statement." It should be nothing more than that, I liken this to someone singing the National anthem in a drunken rage at a Baseball game, forgetting the words altogether, or not actually knowing all the actual words to the song. Although this seems more intentional and calculated belive me it is all the same, "an artisitic staement."

To read all of the back and forth on this topic equating it to race and politics are unbelievable. I will give the mainstream media credit for NOT running with this story, appreciating its insignificance. One of the City Council members even stated that this was inappropriate, she must of thought she was at an NAACP Convention or something! Wow! Buddy we sing the National Anthem at ALL Black events. There is not a Black person on Earth that had ever heard Lift Every Voice and Sing sang to the tune of the Star Spangled banner. Let's not forget America's favorite version of the Star Spangled Banner was sung by a Black person.

Plus, being that I have never heard of Ms. Rene Marie I have to wonder has she ever been invited to sing at a NAACP meeting.

Ms. Marie is not the voice of Black people. She is a woman capturing her opportunity for some free publicity. As you see she has a recorded version of this song on her website. Being that she was virtually an unknown to most of us, this whole charade has given her more than the 15 minutes she could have hoped for.

So don't find yourself in any discussion attempting to explain any of this, just save your breath....... Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. VIII

The Party does not stop. My 8th installment, and I have not even begin to highlight the policy differences between the parties that significantly favor the Democrats and are often misrepresented by republican party officials, and misunderstood by republican voters. I promise my next blog in the series will begin to crack that up. Today I want to drop a little VP talk, we will call this one:

"Obama/Webb 2008"

I mentioned in an earlier blog that Obama would have a tough sell not selecting Clinton as his VP. Because of that comment I was asked if I felt he should pick Clinton? My response, "No way, no how, no chance, it may help in winning the Office, but it would completely undermine his ability to run the Office." Aside from the disdain shelled out towards Obama from "Billary" that has been the centerpiece of the RNC campaign Democrats vs. Obama. Billary has even discussed the possibility of an assassination on at least 3 different occasions. Really??? Can you pick someone that regularly references your death, in hopes that it happens within the not so distant future.

So then the question is who would I prefer Obama select as his VP? Without going through reasons why I think one candidate is good, and another is bad, and another is better, and another would be OK. I am going to just flat out tell you why I support Senator Jim Webb form Virginia.

-He is a former republican who worked under the Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy, which makes him a moderate Democrat who will balance the ticket with Obama
-He serves on the the committees for Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Armed Services.
-He is a Southerner with strong Appalachian, Scots-Irish roots (the very same group Obama has trouble reaching)
-He is a decorated war veteran, having served in Vietnam and being awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart
-He is not just the "working class" hero he is also an intellect who has penned several books...the latest "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America" is a best seller. He also wrote the story and was the executive producer for the 2000 movie Rules of Engagement, which starred Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
-He is a fighter (he co-sponsored a bipartisan GI bill & pushed it through the senate & put McCain in the hot seat for voting against it)
-He won VA from a Republican incumbent and although it was a narrow victory, by teaming up with fellow Democrat Virginia Governor Tim Kaine may bring the 13 electoral votes with him.
-He is and was against the war, his sons served in Iraq,the following exchange with President Bush is reason enough by itself to support this guy:

On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the President, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son had had a recent brush with death in Iraq." Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." The Hill cited an anonymous source who claimed that Webb was so angered by the exchange that he confessed he was tempted to "slug" the president, but of course did not. Webb later remarked in an interview, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."

Webb and Obama naturally complement one another Obama himself referred to Jim Webb saying, "Let me tell you something, if you're in a fight -- and we're gonna be in a fight -- you want Jim Webb to have your back."

As with any politician he has his "cons," being labeled somewhat as a misogynist for his position against Women in the Military and being on his 3rd wife doesn't help much. As well as some of Webb's novels reported to have sexual content, including graphic references to female anatomy and purported pedophilia, homosexuality and incest, but most of this was addressed during his race against George Allen so he would know the attacks would be coming and how to address it. He would clobber any candidate the republicans send out as a VP. The main thing I like is that Webb speaks his mind and would not be afraid to tell you what he thinks even if its something you don't want to hear.

You need people like that when you are President. All this being said Jim Webb announced today that he intends to serve his term in the Senate, stating, "under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President." I can only hope he will re-consider, as his response comes in regards to the Obama campaign informing him about the specifics of their apparently fairly rigorous vetting process. Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. VII

Contrary to the "Kill the Witch" campaign launched by the Republicans. One of the strongest cases for Obama is Michelle Obama. We will call this one:

"What Makes a Strong Woman"

I have officially become an Obama groupee when I find myself setting the DVR to record "The View" because Michelle Obama is going to be a guest on the show. My wife even hates The View so there is no reason it should ever be on in my house.

So the next day I sat down late in the night and watched the episode. Beyond how much the hosts of the show annoyed me, there was something that really began to resonate with me. Michelle Obama is going to be a dynamite First Lady and is more than apparent that having her by his side is what makes Barack such a great candidate.

Hillary has given this impression that to be a strong woman you have to be like a man, act like a real B, and walk around in pant suits. Michelle's strong personality put substance behind the facade. In Michelle you could see the characteristics of what make a strong woman. She was intelligent, confident, well-spoken, thoughtful, pragmatic,compassionate, the list goes on and on.

If people want to vote for a woman that acts like a man they may as well vote for a man. Michelle showed us to get beyond how you look and act, by exemplifying the true characteristics of a strong woman.

Watching Michelle, an educated woman, professional, mother I am at a loss at how someone could say the Obama's don't represent the values of the average American family. You have a choice between the perfect nuclear family a life long public servant, a mother that is a professional that gave up her career to raise her beautiful children and allow her husband to pursue his ambition. The other choice is a 72 year old man on his 2nd trophy wife.

So is the issue really values? Be honest with yourself....

Michelle has solidified herself as the feminist champion as she denounced the wearing of panty hose. Women across America have been liberated! So I can understand if the folks that work for Leggs, Hanes, and Bali don't vote for the Obamas.

Read more!