Sticks, Stones and Glass Houses.

We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Told by thousands of parents for years as a way to teach one of life's most important lessons - "Always tell the truth." We instill this value into our own children and demand that they live this lesson every day just as our parents taught us. I have had my own struggles with the truth over the years dating back to the first time I lied to my parents about why I'd come home so late or why my report card was so atrocious. Despite our parents best teachings, society teaches us something completely opposite of their best advice.

Society teaches us to lie. It teaches us that not only is lying acceptable in certain circumstances, it's necessary for the daily battle to survive. Who amongst us has never cheated on their taxes, embellished on a resume' or any of the hundreds of reasons that present themselves on a daily basis? I suspect that there are none among us who are without sin on this score. It's a fact of everyday life now. Lying has become so commonplace these days as to seem passe'. What's worse is not only is it accepted, it's expected of certain people. So much so that hearing the truth sometimes raises the hackles on our necks in defense. Two groups spring instantly to mind - politicians and salesmen. Those groups are expected to lie to us and we have grown accustomed to hearing them spew great whoppers. We smile inside and tell ourselves, "This is the way of things, this is normal."

During our formative years, when the teachings of our parents is still fresh and causing us great consternation about lying, the story of George Washington and the cherry tree seems completely believable. We accept it as fact simply because that is what we have been taught. Ask yourself if you believe that story now. Washington was a young boy when the incident occurred so it seems plausible that he would own up to his misdeed and suffer the consequences. It's treated more as a fable now. Something used to reinforce the lesson on telling the truth just like the boy who cried wolf.

Which brings me neatly to my real point. Crying wolf has dire consequences when it is discovered to be false. It damages both the teller and the listener in obvious and subtle ways. The teller is soon dismissed as a liar and a fraud and the listener becomes hardened and cynical to the real danger that may be lurking in the shadows. As a result, the entire village is left open to the horrors of being devoured by a ravenous monster.

George W. Bush was a liar. So was Bill Clinton. So too is Barack Obama. Again, we expect this of our elected officials and they never fail to disappoint. What we do not expect is to have what was once the most trusted group of people in the country turn out to be liars as well. Once a guardian of our liberties, they now serve to cloud the truth and hide the facts. They editorialize and spew great whoppers but we give them a pass because they've learned to lie like politicians and salesmen do. They tell lies that comfort us and reinforce our own beliefs.

Before I continue, if you're expecting a rant on he evils of the media... you are correct.

I call Chris Matthews the "journalist who cried racism". He does it so often and with such skill that he is never questioned by a large segment of the people. As does Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and a growing number of commentators in the media. You can turn on any of the people I've just mentioned on any given night and during the course of their broadcasts, you will hear the cries of racism being thrown about like candy from a pinata. It's been made a staple of the evening news to the point of being disgusting. I am beyond the point of being tired of it. I've reached the point of no return with it quite frankly. It's as if Matthews and his ilk long for the days of lynchings and crosses burning to give them a vehicle with which they can "save the world".

I've tried to find the real reason for it and I have a few ideas of my own. Tell me if any of them make sense.

1. People who constantly call out people who are gay are called homophones and justifiably so. The theory was that those with the most fear and hatred of gays somehow harbored homosexual tendencies they were subconsciously trying to quell. Could not someone who constantly calls others out for being racists also be considered a racist? Are they not also harboring racist tendencies that they too are trying to quell? Shouting "Racist!" at others proves that I'm not one...right?
2. The vast majority of talking heads these days would like their own civil rights movement or some such social crisis. They need something on a grand scale to justify their own existence. A democrat president means they can no longer trumpet the evils of the wars we face or the collapsing economy so instead, they'll invent something they can fight using all their nobility and enlightened sensibilities.

3. Although somewhat darker and more sinister, the last reason is the most plausible to me. The incessant, and untrue, cries of racism by the media is just the age old tactic of marginalizing an entire group of people. In essence, "Don't listen to that group, they just hate black people." This serves two purposes: first, the silencing of dissent that those on the left think may be dangerous to their own. If it weren't effective, would they be fighting it so hard? Secondly, and most disturbing is this, the media's penchant for "social engineering" is at stake and they must preserve the work they've done over the last 18 months. They've worked so hard to get Barack Obama in the place he is in now and they simply won't allow anyone to tear him down.

Perhaps worse than the media's constant trumpeting of racism is to hear members of Congress do the same. Hank Johnson, (D) Georgia said that without reform, the Klu Klux Klan would roam the quiet countryside again, Charlie Rangel (D) NY says he sees the same faces in the crowds of the Tea Parties that he saw during the civil rights struggle. The latter is patently absurd but accepted as fact by most in the media without question. "If a black person calls you a racist, then it must be true." In fact, where the media is concerned, the only person who's character is above reproach has dark skin...unless he's Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice. All others are sainted and holy and must not be questioned.

Last time I checked, ALL humans are flawed, not just one political ideology. Last time I checked, we are all weak and imperfect and filled with the propensity to do bad things, despite who we voted for.

In summation, I'd like to remind those of you who are afraid of words that the great George Carlin once said, "Words aren't evil, intentions are." Disagreeing with a black man does not make me a racist.

Hey, I disagree with the teachings of Mao...does that mean I hate Chinese people too?

The Bottom.

Henry Waxman is angry. As a matter of fact, he is fit to be tied. He wants answers and he is prepared to use the full weight of the Federal Government to get them. He is going to convene hearings, subpoena emails as well as other records as he sees fit and bring the awesome power of his committee to bear on a group of people he believes are playing fast and loose with the facts and adversely affecting our new President's moment of glory.

He stands before the cameras, eyes focused, brow furrowed and with his lips barely concealing what could only be described as a snarl. His nostrils flare, more than usual, as he informs a hungry group of reporters that he is on the hunt for malfeasance. The group before him, barely able to contain their glee at the prospect of red meat for an insatiable 24 hour news cycle, listen intently as he speaks, occasionally peppering him with questions.

He intones solemnly the details of his upcoming hearing, describing those he will bring before the committee with the familiar terms "robber barons" and "corporate fat cats". His rapt audience can scarcely hide their joy at the news of yet another chance to denigrate big business. The small gaggle of newsies thrust microphones into his face and scribble furiously into well worn notebooks.

The upshot of this impromptu news conference is this: several large corporations have restated their estimated earnings for next year downward to the tune of several billion dollars. Their stated reasoning? The estimated costs of the new health care law will force them to change the benefit packages for their retirees causing many to lose their prescription drug coverage. Henry Waxman sees this announcement as too tidy and coincidental to be anything other than skulduggery and he is determined to get to the bottom of things.

Let me take just a moment to welcome Mr. Waxman to...the bottom of things. Here at the bottom of things, it's very clear and uncluttered. The bottom of things is filled with simple answers, devoid of dark or sinister motives. It's a place where actions have consequences and words mean things.

Let's break things down for Mr. Waxman in a "bottom of things" kind of way. It works like this Henry. When Bush signed the prescription drug bill that you passed, it allowed large corporations to receive a 28% rebate on what they spent on drug coverage for their retirees. You did this so they wouldn't dump all their retirees into a drug plan for Medicare, ultimately bringing that house of cards down before it's time. You also allowed them to claim 100% of what they spent on their drug plan off of their corporate taxes at the end of the year.

Remember that? Remember when you said it was OK for large companies to stay out of your Medicare plan by giving them a little perk to continue covering those hard working folks who spent their entire careers working for the same company and are now entitled to the satisfaction of retirement.

Now, do you remember the health care bill you signed into law last week? That particular law did away with the little perks you gave to those companies and now they are required by law to restate their future earnings by SEC rules. They did so because now they have to pay all the expenses for their drug plan with no rebate from you. Oh, while you were at it, you also stopped allowing them to claim any of what they spent on the aforementioned drug plan.

Is any of this ringing a bell with you? Did you not understand what you were signing last week? Did you stop to read the bill before you signed it? My guess is that you did not and here you stand now, in front of the cameras, spouting the rhetoric of class warfare and pointy your bony finger at big business. Stating in plain language that you have no idea what you just did. Your righteous indignation is outpaced only by your extreme stupidity.

Welcome to the bottom of things Mr. Waxman. Down here, we all learn the hard way that actions have consequences.

Practicing bigotry for fun and profit.

"Sarah Palin's incendiary rhetoric and disturbing imagery have fueled the anger on the right to the point of inciting violence"

Is the above statement true? Is Sarah Palin at the heart of the anger of the tea party movement? Should she voluntarily tone down her rhetoric or should she be silenced?

If you answered yes to the preceding questions then this little note is for you.

During the run up to the new health care bill, Barack Obama uttered the following statement in reference to the chorus of negative voices on the right, "America wasn't founded on a bunch of whining and complaining."

I beg to differ Mr. President. Actually, that is exactly what brought about the revolution. It was the extreme dissatisfaction of the people towards their harsh treatment and subsequent marginalization by the crown that finally drove them to desperate measures. Let us remember that the colonies had no standing army to speak of, no navy, in fact...no military force at all and yet, they were willing to take on the task of challenging the greatest naval fleet on earth at the time. A country with a larger standing army than the colonies had citizens.

There are times when I wonder if our young president has read all of our founding documents. The previous statement proves beyond a doubt that he was certainly not read the Declaration of Independence. Most of that document is a long list of grievances against the crown. I'm fairly certain the king may have used the word "whiners" when he read the incessant requests from the colonies for civility from the crown. The term "whiners" is bestowed by a person with power who has finally tired of all the complaining. In a very real way, it's whining and complaining that allows you to sit on your lofty perch and tell the rest of us to sit down and shut up.

No sir, we will not.

There are eerie parallels between then and now. We now have a ruling class with a loyal following that seeks to silence dissent not with force but with branding and labeling their dissent as racist. One could argue that the racist label acts as a sort of offensive and defensive weapon at the same time. The mere mention of the word causes both sides to scramble for cover, one side in defense and the other to trumpet it's validity. It's a telling fact that only one side uses that label with impunity and very often, with no justification. Liberals see racism everywhere. Lurking in the shadows of polite society, painted on signs, emblazoned on t-shirts - in virtually every corner of the country. Except, as luck would have it, in their own ranks. You see, racism is endemic to Republicans and conservatives only. It's part of their genetic makeup. Liberals view conservatives with disdain and hatred simply for their views and beliefs, not for any substantive reason that can easily be quantified.

Websters defines bigotry this way:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.

(emphasis added)

Does that not define the modern Democrat party perfectly? Intolerant of the views of others, irrationally devoted to their own beliefs and with an extreme animosity to anyone who dares to speak against those beliefs? Are they not monolithic in their beliefs and devoid of the ability to allow different ideas into their consciousness?

Ladies and gentleman of the jury...I rest my case.

For all you peace loving, tolerant and enlightened Liberals out there, take comfort that you are not racists...but you certainly are bigots of the highest order.