See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil: by Philip Absolon. Copyright © Philip Absolon, stuckism.com. Released under GFDL.

The DISCLOSE Act is summarized by OpenCongress thusly:

This is the Democrats' response to the Supreme Courts' recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

Thusly, in failing to break the latest GOP filibuster, there will be no requirements on corporate and/or PAC groups for the upcoming mid-term elections. So, for at least one more election, the moneyed interests in the US will have free reign to spend as much as they want to distort, obfuscate and otherwise attempt to steer the elections in their favor.

The GOP is claiming this as a victory for free speech, much in the way that they hailed the aformentioned Citizens United vs. FEC, casting a partisan pallor on a bill that would have done little more than prevent Corporate backers from making claims without putting their name on them. While I have a problem with exempting anyone from this law (non-profit organizations must remain politically neutral to retain their 501(c)3 status anyways), claiming this as a victory for the people is just, well, a lie.

How exactly is protecting the ability for corporate interests to anonymously distort the truth and support candidates that have the best interests of their donors (as opposed to their constituents) at heart a victory for anyone other than corporations? Mitch McConnell said "this bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of the November election," funny how he makes no mention of the Republican incumbents that will benefit from it's protection as well, why do you think that is? 

I guess this all gets back to one question, should corporations have all the same rights bestowed upon an individual citizen if that same corporation cannot be held directly responsible for it's actions? This isn't about protecting free speech, it's about shielding corporate donors from libel and slander suits when their PAC's and 629's create false, misleading and slanderous/libelous campaign materials.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I am not now, nor will I ever be, in favor of protecting the "rights" of corporations over the rights of individuals and it is appalling to me that anyone honestly believes that the rights of business can be preserved without direct detriment to individual liberty.

What I think the failure of this bill proves is that our "representatives" in Washington really stand for the almighty dollar, and while this may not come as a surprise to most of us, I think the brazenness of this act to put the interests of their corporate benefactors above the interests of those they claim to represent lays any debate over their loyalty to rest. 

Essentially this is an article about the effort by a group called Minnesota Majority to have a federal investigation of the 2008 election that saw Democrat Al Franken defeat Republican Norm Coleman by a razor thin margin of 312 votes.  Minnesota majority commissioned their own study and discovered that there was potentially enough voter fraud perpetrated that the final result of the election could have been influenced.

Now, I do want to state, for the record, that nowhere in the article does it once say that Minnesota Majority had any proof of any kind that Franken benefited from this voter fraud. Nor does the Minnesota Majority in any way assert in it's report on voting felons that Franken benefited from the fraudulent voting, simply that there is the appearance of impropriety and that it should be investigated.

That being said, Fox News does everything they can to make the reader assume the Franken benefited and won the election due to this voter fraud. You can read Fox's spin on this story for yourself, but I'll sum it up as well.

First up, we have this picture:

It all starts with an image and a caption. "341 convicted felons voted illegally in the election that made former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken a U.S. senator in 2008." Now, if this were "fair and balanced" wouldn't it read "A study shows that 341 convicted felons voted illegally in the 2008 Senate campaign between Al Franken (D) and Norm Coleman (R)." Doesn't that seem significantly less prone to suggesting that Franken was the one who won the election due to these votes? Since there's no proof that he did, don't you think it makes more sense to be neutral on their impact?

But it doesn't stop there, let's move on to the article. 

The group that uncovered evidence of large-scale illegal voting (emphasis mine) by felons in Minnesota's contested 2008 Senate race says the whole mess might have been prevented if the federal government had just done it's job

Hmm, 341 felons out of 3 million voters, so 1/1000th of a percent now equals "large scale illegal voting"? 

The federal government is required...to make sure that states purge their voter rolls of ineligible voters -- the dead, those who have moved, felons, undocumented immigrants, etc. -- an to ensure that elections are administered and conducted fairly, said Dan McGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority

Well, to begin with, they quote Mr. McGrath without using quotations, and they call themselves journalists? Second, this is simply passing the buck higher up the chain. Sure, the Fed is required to do all that, but it is the responsibility of the State to actually do it, so it sounds like it's a general system failure here.

The group's recently published report found that hundreds of felons voted in the election in which Al Franken, a Democrat, beat then-incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman by just 312 votes out of more than 3 million cast -- a margin that was determined after six months of legal challenges and recounts

Again, there's nothing false about that statement. 341 is "hundreds of felons" and yes, Al Franken is a Democrat and he did defeat Norm Coleman (mysteriously missing his party affiliation) by just 312 votes. But I remind you that nowhere in the Minnesota Majority's report does it state that those votes were cast for Franken. 

“If the feds had done their job and ensured that the voting records were up to date, things would have turned out very differently,” McGrath said. 

This is the fulcrum point of the article, McGrath claiming outright that "things would have turned out very differently". Now, this quote, in the context of the article, can only mean one thing. If the Federal government had done their job, those 341 felons wouldn't have voted and, most importantly, Al Franken would not have won the election. How could it be interpreted any other way? However, there is much left to be found in the article's denouement.

McGrath said Minnesota Majority's study hadn’t been able to pinpoint where the problem lay in failing to keep the voting records up to date. He said that there are three groups responsible for the effort. “Courts must notify the secretary of state when someone is convicted of a felony, who then must notify the counties of the conviction, and the county auditors must then update the books. We are not sure where the fault lies,” he said.

Really? "We are not sure where the fault lies," would indicate that, they have no idea who to blame. But earlier in the article we were sure that "If the feds had done their job...things would have turned out differently". Pretty clear to me that the federal government is to blame, right?

Minnesota isn’t the only state with deep electoral problems, said Robert Pastor of American University’s Center for Democracy and Election Management. He said the management of elections in the U.S. has become increasingly partisan, especially since the disputed 2000 presidential election.

“We are worse than many Third World countries,” Pastor said. “Having partisan election officials oversee election decisions makes those decisions suspect.”

Minnesota Majority says it does not want the 2008 election overturned, but it wants to make sure the next election is less prone to fraud.

Notice that last sentence there? Yep, that's right, not even the "group that uncovered large-scale illegal voting" is calling for the 2008 Senate election to be overturned. Why you might ask? Well, because they don't have any proof, nor can they even begin to prove that Franken benefited from this voting. Why can't they prove that you might ask? Well, because it's an anonymous vote. It is quite possible that all 341 of those convicted felons voted for Norm Coleman.

Now, you could read all this and say, well, you're taking this out of context and putting your own spin on it, and you could be right (except that I'm not). But I can prove that this article was written specifically to convince the Fox News audience that the article implies that Franken, the Democrat party and by extension President Obama (who was not in office at the time) are to blame for this. 

Here are a few of the hundreds of comments on the article:

Rod - This was deliberate. Crats kept counting until the numbers favored them. They would not know legal if it bit them in the a**.

captaindes - I'd be willing to bet ACORN signed all those folks up and voted for them.

orfulknorful - We all must grieve with the parents of this phony of a Congressman, as this is all that his parents had offer for a "live" birth.

jako88 - This has obama administration all over it.If the proof is there i feel the election should be overturned.Franken is nothing but a clown anyhow.

keonigohan - BLAME barracki huINSANE obonzo for commanding the SEIU to get the dem vote so they could control the congress. The SEIU then had their prison gurads make sweetheart deals with the inmates for their vote and in return they got free cigarettes and Playboy magazines.

 This is just a sample of the nearly 700 comments thus far. To be fair, there are several comments that assert a similar point to my own, that there is no proof  nor assertion that these votes were cast for Franken, but they are few and far between. Now let us remember, this was the election that put Barack Obama in the White House, how exactly can his administration be blamed for this potential voter fraud? At the time, the Bush Administration would have borne the responsibility for administering a fair election. 

Now just to be clear, I am not in any way asserting that allowing felons to vote in violation of the law is appropriate, it most certainly is not, but it is irresponsible of Fox (and would be of any news organization) to publish an article that so blatantly infers a benefit where none can be proved. Should this be investigated? Absolutely. And the fact that the federal government has shown no overt interest in taking a serious look into voter irregularities since 2000 (and probably before) is the reason that we are here.

At the end of it all, I will say that I have to agree with Robert Pastor, "Having partisan officials oversee election decisions makes those decisions suspect" and this most certainly does fall at the feet of the MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (who is responsible for elections within that state) who is a Democrat. However, simply placing blame on one party or another, or the federal instead of the state government for that matter, does nothing to solve the problem, it simply increases the partisan nature of the debate and make resolution and even more arduous task.

Tonight I happened across the Rachel Maddow show, and watched her spend the first 15 minutes of her show talking about Bart Stupak (D - MI). The program began with her discussing Mr. Stupak's objections to the current health care reform plan before congress. Then, she did something that I have to admit I wasn't expecting, she launched into over 10 minutes of pure and simple obfuscation and character assassination.

Bart Stupak may or may not be a noteable congressman (although he has obviously done enough to keep the people of his district sending him back (he has been on the Hill for over 15 years), but I don't see how his involvement (or non-involvement) with some mysterious secret theocracy has anything to do with his stance on abortion. Yet, the segment made up the entire 1st 15 minutes of her show.

And we wonder why voters are uninformed.

I was reminded of Julien's post the other night when we had dinner with some friends of ours. They are both apple apologists (and shall remain nameless, as they will undoubtedly now who they are, should they ever read this) and iPhone owners/users. They are fine people, with whom I share many common interests, except most notably for this post, the iPhone.

To be fair, only one of them pulled out the iPhone at all the entire night, but good lord, once it was out, it hardly went away. From checking sports scores to calculating the tip at the end of our meal. While I will admit that it's presence didn't bother me, I found myself thinking "is this what is coming? are we going to soon be so reliant on technology that we won't be able to do simple math without it, because we just can't be bothered to divide something by 10?".

Then, the first thing I see this morning is a post about Gowalla on one of my preferred communications blogs. Can someone please explain to me how turning your life into a GPS-based game is a good thing? First off, and maybe I'm just paranoid, but I'm a little concerned with the growing presence of GPS in our daily lives. I mean, you do realize that by having the GPS on your phone turned on at all times that means that someone, somewhere is recording every location you visit and storing that data? Not to get all conspiracy theory, big brother on this, but do you really want your phone company having a record of everywhere you've been in the last month? 

What is exceptionally hard for me to believe is how willing we seem to be as a society to open our lives up to the world in one area, yet expect to have our privacy guaranteed in others. Take the Facebook privacy settings everyone has been discussing this week for instance. Everyone is upset that FB changed their privacy settings and defaulted them to public, and that is totally understandable. FB users expect a certain level of privacy from that network, as that's always been one of the features. Yet I can tell you the favorite hangouts of many people I follow on twitter due to the numerous "I'm the mayor of..." posts from Foursquare. So no, I may not be able to see your personal photo albums, but I know that you're at Sam's coffeehouse 80 times a week. I ask you, which set of information is more valuable?

This is turning into a long rant, which was not my intent so I am going to cut this short by saying that these cries of outrage over FB privacy changes ring somewhat hollow to me coming from people who will allow an iPhone app to know their exact location 24 hours a day. 

We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missile from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplance when it hit's the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly"

-Bill Maher 9-17-2001

In the days following that statement, FedEX (the single largest advertiser during his late night time slot) pulled their ads amid the backlash against Mr. Maher's statement. The show was canceled the following June, and it's cancellation, in the estimation of Maher and many others, was a direct result of the controversy. The show ran for 10 seasons on two networks, was nominated for 17 Emmy Awards (winning 1 in 2000), and yet it was brought down by 3 highly controversial sentences.

Two weeks ago, Fox commentator made a statement on the Fox & Friends morning show that is drawing a similar kind of ire:

"This President, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture, I don't know what it is...I'm not saying he doesn't like whie people, I'm saying he has a problem. Ha has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist." 

Glenn Beck 7-28-2009

Well, the backlash against Mr. Beck has begun in earnest with reports that Geico, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson, Sargento Foods and State Farm either pulling their ads or asking for guarantees that their ads will no longer appear during his show's broadcast.

The question I suppose is whether or not this is just for Mr. Beck, and if you think it was unjust in the case of Bill Maher, because if you supported Maher, you can't go changing your mind now.

Here's my point, I don't like Glenn Beck anymore than the next guy, but you don't get to apply the rules only when they best suit you. You may not agree with Mr. Beck, but the man has a right to his opinion, and he has a guaranteed constitutional right to express it openly and freely. Granted, those advertisers have every right to pull their ads from his show, fearing any sort of backlash from crazed political activists that might convince people not to buy Sargento cheese or buy their insurance from Progressive, State Farm or the gecko, and give up their Johnson & Johnson Baby Wash.

Let me emphasize this point, I do not agree with Glenn Beck, I do not believe that President Obama is a racist, nor do I believe that he was born in Kenya, or that the health care plan includes death panels, nor did I vote for him. To be completely honest, I never dreamed that there would be a scenario where I would actually be defending Glenn Beck, but it seems like in this society we tend to forget too quickly what makes our country so unique.

In some countries Beck would have already been arrested and possibly executed for publicly slandering that countries leader. Our right to voice our opinions, however unpopular or controversial they may be, is one of the most sacred privileges we have, and to tell you the truth, Glenn Beck is almost assuredly not alone in this belief.

Glenn Beck and Bill Maher both made comments that they would probably have been better off not making on national television, but they both had the absolute, inalienable right to make those statements. The great thing about America is that we have the freedom to make our own choices, and it's really really easy to change the channel. As for Mr. Beck (and Mr. Maher) they made their choice, and as with all choices, they must live with the consequences, good or bad.

No offense intended to those of you out there who actually fall in to the highest tax bracket, but it could be much much worse.

I've said for years that the problem with our tax system is that it's not progressive enough and that there is a massive difference between someone making $350K/yr and someone making $1M+ per year.

So let's remember a time in this country where people could actually afford to own a home in California without a 6 figure salary, those simple times that the conservatives want to revive, you know, the 50's, when the highest tax bracket carried a 91% income tax.

In the above chart you will notice that during the largest period of American expansion in the last 100 years, income tax rates were, well, exceptionally high. You will also notice that as soon as President Reagan entered office things start to change, most notably the top tax rate starts falling, and the national debt starts growing. Now, since all the talk lately has been how the Obama administration is spending our kids into a debt they'll never get out of, I thought it might be interesting to see just how future generations have fared under other recent administrations. I couldn't find a chart anywhere that actually compared the growth of the national debt to income tax rates (although I'm sure there's one out there somewhere), so I made my own, I think you'll see right away that there's a pretty distinct correlation here:

Notice if you will that the national debt holds fairly steady from 1945 (end of WWII) to 1971, through both Democratic and Republican Administrations (although Primarily Democratically Controlled Congresses). The debt starts to creep up during the Nixon-Ford-Carter era, but still, from 1945 to 1980 the national debt increased by a grand total of $648B, certainly a lot of money, but compared to what followed, it's chump change.

To put it another way, from 1945 to 1980 (with average top tax rates of 80.87 81.42%) the debt grew at an average of 3.43% per year. Since 1981 (with average top tax rates of 39.61 40.14%) the debt has grown at 8.13 8.12% per year. It's simple math, cutting the top tax rate in half, has doubled the growth of the debt.

Since the Reagan administration, the only administration that has managed to slow the growth of the national debt was the Clinton administration, and guess how they did it? They increased taxes. Under the 2nd Bush administration the debt increased 172 173.07%, coinciding with yet another tax cut. Now, I will give them something of a pass in that they were dealing with totally unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, yet, they're failure to deal with them in a fiscally responsible way certainly needs to be considered. (Note: During the 2nd Bush Administration government spending grew at an annual rate of 5.48%, with the largest increase seen in 2008 (20.97%, coinciding with a 10.36% growth in the debt for that year) 

Here's what it all boils down to, since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981, the national debt has grown from $994B (1981) to $9.98T (2008), a 1003.7% increase. Given that the debt increased only 349.4% from 1945 to 1980, that's pretty significant. But what does it all mean?

Well, what it says to me is that the idea that we need to cut back now to save our children's futures is about 30 years late and $10 trillion dollars short. It also implies that our tax code needs some serious attention, and not lip service extensions of credits, but a full recreation. We as a society need to realize that taxes are necessary, and that if we want to have the society we should, it's going to take a little bit more from everyone to get there.

Now, I'm not saying that we need wholesale tax increases or any kind of universal anything, what I'm saying is that if we want to maintain this country, and it's ability to function, we can't do it by cutting taxes, regardless of party affiliation. Let us remember that while we constantly complain about the way Congress spends our money, we always seem to have the same leadership in Washington, so why don't we start voting them out?

All in all, I don't agree with many of the things President Obama is doing, nor did I agree with most of the things President's Bush or Clinton did (I will say that I am too young to really have disagreed with the first Pres. Bush and or Reagan at the time, but historically speaking, I don't agree with them either). But they are not to blame in all of this, I mean sure, their policy desires and campaign promises are what got them elected, but at the end of the day, there is only one group of people to blame, the republicans the democrats the mainstream media fox news corporate fatcats white collar criminals corrupt officials the Clintons the Bush'sthe American voters.

Yep, I said it, we're to blame, and I'm every bit as guilty as the rest of you (although I did vote for Bob Barr in 2008). I voted for Gore, I voted for Kerry, and if they had won, they would have been just as bad as George W. Bush. Why? Because the Executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, not creating it, and year after year we send the same politicians back to Washington to legislate, and spend our money recklessly, and that my friends, is completely on us. But I'm guessing, that even in these tough times, that we'll see less than 37% turnout for the 2010 congressional elections, and that is the most telling number of all. Nearly two-thirds of the American electorate, doesn't care enough about Congress to vote 1 time every two years, and that should make all of us ashamed.

Update:At the behest of a friend I have added a fourth line to the graph below representing government spending (in 2000 $) over the same time period. To be honest, I should have included this the first time, as I think it makes my point even stronger, as the growth of the debt significantly outpaces the increases in government spending from 1981 to 2008. During that time period, spending increased at an annual average rate of 3.80%, while the debt grew at an annual average rate of 8.13% per year. Oddly enough (when adjusted for inflation) government spending growth during this period shrank from an annual average rate of 4.03% from 1945 to 1981.

Most central to my original point, the growth of the debt began it's dramatic assent in 1982, when the top tax rates began to drop dramatically. From 1981 (President Reagan's Inauguration) to 1992 (end of President George H.W. Bush's term) the debt increased at an annual average rate of 11.85%, while government spending grew at an annual average rate of only 3.64%. During that time period the top tax rate dropped from 70% (1981) to 31% (1992).

Note: While adding the spending data, I discovered sources for the debt and tax rates that I felt to be more reliable, so you will notice a slight difference in the data between this chart and the original one above. The numbers themselves did not change dramatically, but I have added the updated numbers for the sake of accuracy)

Please feel free to contact me if you'd like to see the full data set.

Sources:
USGovernmentSpending.com (Total Spending in United States 1940-2014)
Free-For-All Politics(Top Tax Rates 1920-Present - Chart only)
The Tax Foundation (U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2009)
Whitehouse.gov (FY2010 Budget Historical Tables - Section 7: Federal Debt At The End Of Year 1940-2014)

"Commenting on Dr. Tiller’s death, Mr. Leach said, 'To call this a crime is too simplistic.' He added, 'There is Christian scripture that would support this." - The New York Times

Well, Mr. Leach, is it too simplistic to say that the Judeo-Christian tradition is formed around 10 simple rules, one of which just happens to be "Thou Shalt not Kill" (or murder depending on the translation)? For Dave Leach to imply that this is not a crime, but somehow the act of a righteous martyr is in itself particularly heinous. Might I remind Mr. Leach that many of the terrorists that we are so often consumed with can quote scripture to support their actions?

Regardless of Mr. Leach's feelings on the matter, there is one simple fact that he seems to have overlooked, Christian scripture is not the law in the United States of America. The US Code holds murder to be a crime. And let us not forget that the "in defense of the unborn" defense holds about as much weight as the much maligned "Twinkie Defense" used by Dan White in his trial for the assassination of San Francisco Councilman Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978.

While the right of a woman to have an abortion is certainly a hot button issue in this country, it is not now and has never been a justification for murder. The token outpouring of sympathy for the family of George Tiller is saddening to me. How far have those who oppose abortion on religious grounds come that they have forgotten the most enduring (and commonly accepted) tenets of their "savior". The golden rule has apparently been abandoned in the name of righteous murder, at least by those who would prefer to see men killed, than to see the law (that they so eagerly claim as the extension of our founders religious beliefs) upheld when it doesn't fit their personal views.

Now, before I am accused of painting with a broad brush, there are plenty of pro-life organizations that are every bit as outraged by this murder as their pro-choice opposites:

“Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system,” Mr. [Troy] Newman said, adding, “We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe.” - The New York Times

Mr. Newman, the President of Operation Rescue, is certainly not alone, as I know that the vast majority of pro-life folks in this country would certainly don't condone murder as a solution to the tricky issue that is abortion. Unfortunately for Mr. Newman, Randall Terry (the founder of Operation Rescue) seems to disagree:

Antiabortion activist Randall Terry today added fuel to the debate over the killing yesterday of a prominent Kansas late-term abortion provider, saying George R. Tiller "was a mass murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed." "I grieve for Dr. Tiller because he left this life, perhaps without proper preparation to face God," Terry said. "The thought of him leaving this life with blood on his hands for having killed so many thousands of children and not having been prepared to meet his maker is a dreadful, terrifying thought." - The Washington Post

Mr. Terry seems to have made at least one very succinct observation, the Pro-Life movement is definitely at a crossroads, with supporters left to choose between non-violent protest and a continuing legal battle or self-righteous vigilantism.  Let us hope, at least for the sake of those who support the freedom of a woman to make private medical choices without governmental intereference that they choose the former as opposed to the latter.

Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65 year old blood of "arrogant Americans." - Peter Heck

This section of an article published by Peter Heck a few weeks ago, contains the two things that I hate most about the "opinion as fact" world of media that we are stuck in at present. (1) It takes a quote entirely out of context and (2) makes a statement that hyperbolizes the sentiment he is trying to foment.

I'm tired of sitting around and waiting for the American people to wake up and realize that in today's media world, you can't trust anything anyone says, myself included. You have to verify, and what Mr. Heck, and the other dozen or so "conservative" commentators have done with this quote is use it as one more way to demonize a President who has been in office for  just over 3 months. So, I did what I do when I receive this kind of thing in my email inbox, forwarded on from a well meaning friend of mine, I went out and found the quote, in context. Here it is:

At the crossroads where we stand today, this shared history gives us hope -- but it must not give us rest. This generation cannot stand still. We cannot be content merely to celebrate the achievements of the 20th century, or enjoy the comforts of the 21st century; we must learn from the past to build on its success. We must renew our institutions, our alliances. We must seek the solutions to the challenges of this young century.

This is our generation. This is our time. And I am confident that we can meet any challenge as long as we are together. (Applause.)

Such an effort is never easy. It's always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone, or to wait for the action of somebody else. It's more difficult to break down walls of division than to simply allow our differences to build and our resentments to fester. So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems.

So let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes. We are confronting the greatest economic crisis since World War II. The only way to confront this unprecedented crisis is through unprecedented coordination

- Transcript from the White House Press Room

Strasbourg, is 626 miles (not 500)  from Normandy, although I'm not really sure what his proximity to the beaches of Normandy has to do with his statement. There are many American soldiers buried in cemeteries the world over, an unfortunate byproduct of the position our great country has attained.

President Obama was speaking about the need for the Unites States and Europe to eliminate needless animosity, and to forge a stronger bond between our countries, unions and most importantly our citizens. He was not, as Mr. Heck and others would have you believe, disparaging America, or it's veterans. But, in a world where we we expect, and unfortunately allow, others to do our thinking for us, we get what we deserve, and that my friends is a whole bunch of pundits who want one thing and one thing only, for you to agree with them.

I don't want you to agree with me, if you do that's fine, but it's not my end goal. What I want is for the people of this country to stop just accepting what they're given and to rediscover the independent spirit that made this country what it is. In order for this country to function properly, we, the citizens, need to be constantly questioning authority, and authorities. If we let down our guard and allow ourselves to be spoon fed then we are sewing the seeds of our own destruction (wow, that was kind of cliche, but I'm sticking with it).

So do me a favor, go out and question someone that you think is an authority. Do some checking to see if you're getting the truth from Olbermann or O'Reilly, I think you'll be rather surprised, and if you're anything like me, severely dissapointed.

However, when my buddy Dan Patterson (who has had the good grace to host my personal podium) said we were changing hosts, I was more than willing to come a long for the ride. So, Devil in the Details is now hosted by the wonderful folks at Sqaurespace. There have obviously been some changes, but I am doing my best to make the new site much better than the old, and the tools provided by SS are making it pretty easy.

I'm going to do my best to post more regularly now that I've got this great new home. I want to thank the guys from SqaureSpace (Dan tells me that you're wonderful guys, and I tend to have faith in his character judgment skills) and thanks to Dan for providing hosting of my rants for over three years now.

The site will be growing as I have the time to do a little more with it, but all the content is here.

Voters in Nashville on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made the country music capital the largest U.S. city to make English the official language of local government. Returns showed the proposition lost by 41,752 votes to 32,144, local media reported. via City of Nashville rejects English-only law | U.S. | Reuters.

Personally I find  english-only laws to be completely anti-thetical to the principles that this country was founded on. This country was built on the backs of immigrants and the mixing of cultures in this country enhances all of our lives. Nothing  positive can come from English only laws, these laws can only bring back the discrimination and segregation that we have spent the past half-century to move beyond, so I'm proud of the people of Nashville, or at least of the voters that turned out to make sure that cultural freedom is alive and well, even in the deep south.