Over the past 10 days we have witnessed an unprecedented level of public disrespect from very public figures. Actions by Joe Wilson, Republican congressman from South Carolina and Rapper Kanye West, have been flat out disappointing. Even tennis, usually known for its good sportsmanship, has had a problem with blatant disrespect of authority figures.

What type of message is this sending to young people? Does the freedom of speech mean I can say what I want too, when I want too?

Absolutely not! Freedom of speech is not freedom to disrupt. There are situations that call for civil disobedience and protest. Even in these situations there is a right and wrong way to act.

At the core of this growing problem is a paradigm shift in society that “my words and actions” are my words and actions. They impact me and only me. At a time when we increasingly encourage personal responsibility and accountability it is easy to see how one would come to this conclusion. In a culture where we reward personal achievement and rugged individualism one can easily go overboard and slip into arrogance.  Fortunately, we have those around us that support us who can temper our tendency to become arrogant. They have the ability and right to “put us back in our place”.

There was a time when disrespecting an authority figure or “acting a fool in public” meant disrespecting your own. It meant embarrassment to your family, friends, comrades, etc.  It was simply unacceptable. Being right was not the issue. Maintaining the code of honor of your family or friends was more important.

But what if you don’t feel you have any family, friends or comrades? What if you feel you don’t have any equals? What if you don’t have any identification with anybody other than yourself? Who is there to “pull your coat tail”?

Joe Wilson embarrassed and let down the Republican Party. Kanye West embarrassed and let down his fans. Serena Williams embarrassed and let down her fans. Roger Federer embarrassed and let down his fans. They let down the people that love and support them. In essence, they let down their families.

They all may have had justifiable reason to protest. I agree with Kanye, Beyonce clearly had a better video… too me. But that’s not the point. The right intent does not justify wrong actions.

They all did eventually offer an apology of some sort.  That is not enough though. There needs to be more to make the apology complete. There needs to be acceptance, acknowledgement, reparation and commitment to make the apology sincere and complete.

They all need to accept their outbursts were wrong.  They need to say the words “I’m sorry” without all the other psycho-babble they have been giving. Simply say I’m Sorry. No more. No less. It’s very humbling.

Then we must see some acknowledgement. They all need to acknowledge they hurt people. Joe Wilson needs to acknowledge the pain President Obama must have felt from his childish outburst.  Kanye needs to acknowledge the pain that Taylor Swift must have endured to be treated the way he treated her. Roger Federer and Serena Williams should acknowledge, publicly, how those officials must have felt being cursed on national TV.

Then there must be reparation. US Open officials fined both Williams and Federer for their behavior. There may have been a double standard in the fine amounts with William’s ($10,500) fine being 10 times the amount of Federer's ($1500) fine. Was she ten times more disrespectful? Either way, it was a small step in the right direction. Relatively speaking, US Open officials fined them an amount equivalent to what they spend in a “night out with friends”. A fine is not reparation though. Reparation is a meaningful effort to correct a wrong.  There has been no effort on anyone’s part to even attempt to undo or at least mitigate the effects of their actions.

What should reparations look like? Joe Wilson should come out publicly and campaign for some aspect of the president’s health care plan that he does agree with. Kanye should produce a song on Taylor Swift’s next album… for free. Serena and Federer both should launch and pay for a campaign that touts the need for sportsmanship among athletes. These are just suggestions but I think you get my point. There needs to be reparation. There needs to be a demonstrable action that they all take to show they are truly “sorry”.

To make the apologies complete there must be commitment. They simply have to say that they will never behave this way again. Joe Wilson needs to promise, regardless of whether he is right or not, he won’t publicly ridicule anyone ever again. Kanye needs to promise that he will not use someone else‘s spotlight to make his own personal feelings heard, ever again. The same goes for Williams and Federer.

We all make mistakes. We all get carried away sometimes in the heat of the moment. However, our rights end where the next person’s rights begin. In each case they were violating someone else’s rights.

This country was founded on protest and even defiance of the law. Black people would still be in chains if not for protest and defiance of what some called “their right to own property”. However within the protest there was a protocol. Within civil disobedience there is civility. Where there is action there must be some “act right”. We must respect Authority, even if it is wrong. If we can’t respect the person, respect the position. That’s what makes America different. That’s why we call ourselves civilized.  

Anything else is unacceptable.  As Americans we can disagree and not be disagreeable. We all can handle someone getting mad, protesting, complaining, even whining and crying. But there is no room, at least here, for “acting a damn fool”.

Just my 20 cents

I like many of you watched the President’s speech to Congress on Thursday night. Democrats and the President’s supporters are mad at the Republicans for being disrespectful and playing partisan politics. Republicans, on the other hand, feel like the President is being disingenuous and really doesn’t have a plan at all. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Both are. In this week’s piece, I will outline what is wrong with the president’s health care plan. I will outline where the republicans have it wrong. I will outline what the president’s plan should look like. Most importantly I will share with you what you should be doing in the mean time.

Congress, as usual, has turned this health care issue into a political football. Universal health care has been on the table in this country since the 1930’s. Why is it such a big deal all of sudden? Why is the government calling it a crisis now?  The economic stimulus package is not producing the results many said it would. Yes the job losses are slowing down, but that might be because there aren’t many more jobs to lose. It is crucial that the Democrats get a “win” within the first year of Obama’s term. Many members of congress will get on the campaign trail over the next few months and democrats want to be able to say “look at what we’ve done”. Republicans want to be able to say, “See I told they didn’t have a clue”.

Obama’s speech was phenomenal, as usual. He brought the energy and zeal needed to rally the troops. It lacked however, the substance and succinctness to win anyone over. My ears rang when the President admitted that they still had to work out many of the details. That’s been the hold up for the past 70 years. Nobody is against universal health care. Our politicians simply have not been able to iron out the details. They can’t iron out the details because they make everything about politics. That’s the problem!

The president wants to setup a government run insurance exchange to allow people to buy insurance. Bad! Bad! Bad! Another government agency only drives up cost and adds to an already bloated and wasteful health care system.  Can you believe that an organization that has yet to run anything efficiently… from the IRS to the Post Office… will all of a sudden efficiently run an insurance exchange?  Not to mention the loopholes that insurance companies will eventually find or buy if necessary.

We still don’t know where the money will come from. The president says removing the waste and inefficiencies from the current system will pay for his new plan. If there is waste and inefficiency in a system and we know it, why don’t we simply remove it? Since when do you we need a law to remove inefficiency and waste?

The republicans don’t have a plan either. They simply want to raise hell and make it hard to get anything done. They want to play politics with this deal. The Republican Party has done a masterful job of making this about insurance companies. They know it’s really not. They also know that the insurance lobby will launch a huge assault on the president allowing it to do their dirty work. Their behavior has been non-productive at best and in many cases flat out childish.

Here is what the president’s plan should include.

1.       Tort reform – A major hidden cost in providing health care is malpractice insurance.  Healthcare costs would go down if the costs of malpractice insurance went down. It costs so much because you can sue a doctor for almost anything. Attorneys are quick to haul a doctor into court. Most insurance companies eventually settle out of court paying the patient and his attorney some crazy amount of money for pain and suffering.  A smooth come up for everyone except the doctor whose insurance premiums will rise. Guess who pays that increase… bingo! You!

2.       Interstate Health Insurance – Allow insurance companies to sale insurance to persons in other states. This would increase the pool of customers they can go after. It would increase competition among healthcare insurers driving the price down. Critics say it will hurt the elderly and those with poorer health because they are high risk. This is only speculation. It will, however, create an opportunity for companies to create specialized options for high risk people. The losses incurred from covering high risks persons would be offset by the profits from the millions of new low risk persons they would pickup.

3.       Cancel free health insurance for government officials – There is really very little incentive for members of congress to develop a plan to achieve affordable health care for all. Elected and appointed government officials receive free health care as a part of their compensation.  Let’s take the money paid on health insurance for a congressman, for example, and put it back in his paycheck. The congressman would then have to go out and shop for insurance just like us. They would become just another family with a limited amount of money shopping for health insurance. Now they will have a lot more incentive to solve the health care problem rather than using it for political points.

4.       Increase physician supply – Currently any plan on the table is doomed to fail. It would fail because we simply don’t have enough doctors to go around…. especially general care physicians. Giving everyone in America health care without having enough people to provide that health care is a recipe for disaster. (See my rant: Is it Healthcare Reform or the Funeral Industry Recovery Program )

5.       Focus on the economy – Most middle class Americans get their medical insurance through their jobs. Most persons that lose medical insurance don’t lose it due to costs. It is due to a job loss.

Most of the above plan requires the government getting out of the way and allowing market forces to work. Government establishes the boundaries. Market forces work within those boundaries.

In the mean time you and I should be reframing the debate.  The debate has been about what to do when a person gets sick. The focus should be on doing things to keep from getting sick. Barring pediatric and geriatric care, obesity, poor eating habits and behavior cause most health issues. Getting sick is not the fault of the individual. However, basic lifestyle changes can ward off many long term debilitating health issues like diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Getting upset with the insurance industry because they charge a lot of money to cover your medical bills when you smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much, stress over too much, sleep too little and exercise too little hinges on insanity. 

Put your family on the best health care plan in the world… a wellness plan. Exercise and healthy eating cost a little more but it’s much cheaper than cancer.

Just my 20 cents

On purpose I have not kept up with the Healthcare Reform Debate. Healthcare is very complex but the debate must give more focus to increasing the number of minorities in the medical field. The government recognizes that there is a doctor shortage, but they aren’t focusing on shortages in the minority community.

But is this a healthcare issue or an education issue? It should be at the center of the Healthcare debate.  Any reform of the healthcare system must begin with increasing the number of black and brown primary care physicians.

The goal is to make health care affordable and accessible to everyone regardless of socioeconomic status. Unfortunately healthcare is big business and a lot of money is at stake. Healthcare reform really comes down to economics 101… supply and demand.

Increasing the physician supply, especially among minorities, must be first and foremost to bringing relief to our ailing healthcare system. A flood of minority general physicians in the market will drive down healthcare costs.

Too many minorities and poor people are underinsured straining the healthcare system.  We generally are less likely to seek preventive or primary care. When we do see a doctor it is usually in the emergency room. This is very costly.

Cheap primary care located in minority communities will drive down overall health care costs.

Currently only 6% of active physicians are Latino, African American or Native. We have to get this to at least 12% over the next 20 years.

Imagine every minority neighborhood with at least 1 primary care physician per 1000 people. In San Francisco, there was just one African-American pediatrician in private practice in 2005. Mississippi, largely Black and poor, ranks among the lowest number of physicians per person of any other state in the country. The American Medical Association predicts a shortage of 200,000 doctors by 2020.

Some say this is an education issue. Others say it is a mentoring issue. However, it is a political issue. That is why it should be at the heart of the Healthcare reform debate.

It is political because congress controls the supply of physicians. They control physician supply by controlling the funding of medical residencies – the graduate training required by all doctors. Medicare reimburses hospitals for the costs of training medical residents.

Healthcare Reform must include:

1.       Government incentives for recruitment of minorities to already existing state medical school programs.

2.       In states with a large minority population, like Mississippi, there should be federal government incentives to establish medical schools at a least one HBCU in that state.

3.       Increased Medicare and federal funding for medical residencies

4.       Increased Medicare payments specifically to primary care physicians

5.       Redirect funds from H1-B visas of foreign born physicians to programs dedicated to increasing early grade and high school medical magnet programs

6.       Loan forgiveness for federally backed medical school loans specifically for physicians practicing in rural or low-income areas

The Obama administration has put some of the above issues on the table already and this is great.  But if this goes the way of most other issues go in Washington, the healthcare reform will turn into the Funeral Industry Recovery Program. Some things simply can’t be about politics.

Just my 20 cents… Da Heretic

I haven’t shared a rant in some months. That doesn’t mean I haven’t been ranting… just not sharing. But I had to share my thoughts on the Cash for Clunkers program that ended earlier this week. The Cash for Clunkers program basically allowed 700,000 Americans to use American tax dollars to dig themselves deeper into debt buying foreign cars. Wow! I held off sharing “My 20 Cents” on the program earlier because I was hoping I was missing something. And if I am, I’d love for someone to point it out to me.

From my understanding the program had 2 main objectives. (1) To get cleaner operating vehicles on the road (2) To boost sales in the automobile industry to aid in the economic recovery

I try to give credit where credit is due, but I am having a hard time understanding this one.

If cleaner operating vehicles is the objective then shouldn’t the $2.5 billion dollars that went into the
“Cash for Clunkers” program been directed to public/private entities that are already well on their way in developing hi-quality hybrid vehicles. There are several on the market already and many more to come. 

GM, Ford and Chrysler, companies that we bailed out twice over the last year, benefited from the program the least. Ford had the only two American-made vehicles in the top 10 models sold in Cash for Clunkers program.  Toyota and Honda both had three, while Nissan and Hyundai both had one each. 

If we are going to spend US Tax dollars to bail out companies… bad idea… then give US Tax dollars to buy the products of these companies… another bad idea… then can we at least make sure these companies get the lion’s share of the money?

Much of the benefit from the automobile industry comes from its supporting industries. For example, the automobile parts and repair industry.  The last thing that these industries need is people buying new cars.

In a down economy the worst thing you can do is take on more personal debt. A new car purchase is probably the worst purchase you will ever make. It’s usually our largest depreciating asset. It has been and always will be a losing proposition unless you’re a cab driver or a chauffeur.  Sure you get a bigger, not necessarily better car, but most Americans also get a bigger, definitely not better, car payment. How does helping 700,000 people dig themselves deeper into debt help the US economy?

Under special circumstances, I like the idea of the government taking our collective dollars (taxes) and using them for purposes that benefit us all.

For example, we would have benefited a lot more if a program like this targeted the mortgage industry.

Subprime mortgages have polluted the US economy just like those clunker vehicles. How about allowing 700,000 people to “trade” them in? They can use a government rebate to shop for better performing mortgage products? Government dollars could subsidize the mortgages in the form of insurance.  The program could people purchase foreclosed homes.

Credit would be available to buy homes, American’s largest appreciating asset, as opposed to their largest depreciating asset, a car.

What about the automobile industry? What about them? We have bailed them out twice. We have helped people buy their products.  There is no amount of money that can save a business where there is a gross lack of innovation and creativity. Entrepreneurship, not government aid, is the only thing that can save the automobile industry.

So Mr. President if you want to help me buy something. Help me buy something of value that will bring tax revenue back to cities. Help me buy something that will get my kids a quality education by funding schools through property taxes. Help me buy something that can hold long term value and appreciate. Help me buy a house.  Help me trade my “clunker mortgage” in for a new high performance mortgage... and if my old clunker car breaks down, I’ll catch the bus.

Just my 20 cents

President Obama is doing a great job in moving swiftly to fix the weak economy. He deserves a pat on the back for getting his economic stimulus package passed in the House of Representatives.  With some minor changes it will pass in the Senate.  We should have an economic stimulus plan in place by mid February. This gives the President a huge win within his first few weeks on the job.

Unfortunately, I have a tough time believing the most wasteful group in America, the government, is suddenly going to become frugal and efficient with its money.  This is not a critique of President Obama. The US government has never in our history created more value than the market place.  If it did, we would be the wealthiest nation on Earth. But instead we are the greatest debtor nation on Earth.

The President’s plan has good intent.  FDR brought us out of a depression with big government spending. Obama’s plan is to do the same thing spending on public projects like energy efficient government buildings, laying electric lines and infrastructure. This will create jobs.  The problem with this approach is the plan creates jobs geared towards lower skilled workers and machines.  This worked in the 1930’s because we had an abundance of people qualified to assume the newly created jobs and technology was limited by today’s standards.

Companies today are cutting knowledge workers like bankers, computer programmers, financial analysts, and engineers.  If the President’s plan creates the 4 million jobs proposed over the next two years, which it will, we must ask ourselves will we want these jobs.  The plan creates the need for skilled workers like brick layers, construction workers and pipe fitters. Critics say many people will deem themselves not a good fit for these newly created jobs.

We need an economic stimulus plan that creates jobs, but they must be the right kind of jobs.  More importantly, the people who are good at creating jobs should be creating the jobs not the government. We need knowledge based jobs created by entrepreneurs.

Let’s put job creation in the hands of entrepreneurs.   This is what they do best. Entrepreneurs create new jobs when their businesses grow. So the goal should be business growth fueled with retained earnings instead of debt.

So how can the government stimulate small business growth using retained earnings?

Here’s my plan.

1.       Repeal the Regan tax cuts for higher income individuals. Wealthy people know that we pay taxes on income, not wealth. So smart business owners will keep their realized incomes as low as possible leaving more money in their business.

2.       Allow a 1% tax credit for businesses. We will base the tax credit on gross revenue.  In the case of a $1M business, $10,000 new dollars would drop to the bottom line in retained earnings. However, they can only take this credit if they use it for investment. This could be in the form of re-investment back into the business or investment into a new venture.

3.       Suspend “No Child Left Behind” (because they are all behind already) and divert those resources into science, technology, financial literacy, and entrepreneurship education at the grade school level. India made the decision in the 70’s to raise a generation of technology savvy engineers. America should raise a generation of money smart entrepreneurs.

Sadly, I don’t think a plan like this would get much support as it would require a fundamental shift in thinking. It would assume that the people are smarter than the politicians and the market is more efficient than the government.

President Obama’s plan is well intentioned and has a historic precedent. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The road to help is paved with correct intentions.

Just my 20 cents.

It is only days from the election. According to a recent Gallup presidential poll of registered voters, Senator Barack Obama has an 8-point lead over Senator John McCain. (51% to 43% w/3% margin of error) Some would say that Obama is home free. He has led by as many as 11 points over the past few weeks.

However, folks who follow these things closely, although the polls suggest Obama will win, still are not too quick to hand it over to Obama. How much ground can McCain realistically make up over the next 3 days. If McCain goes into Election Day trailing by 5 – 6, points he is in good shape according to some experts. They and McCain’s team are factoring in “The Bradley Effect”. 

What is “The Bradley Effect”?

“The Bradley Effect”, less commonly called “The Wilder Effect”, is an explanation for differences between voter opinion polls and election results when a white candidate runs against a non-white candidate. 

It is named for Former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley. Bradley, who ran for Governor of California in 1982, lost to Republican George Deukmejian. Ironically, Bradley was ahead in some voter polls by as much as 11 points. He even led in exit polls. Therefore, on election night everything pointed in Bradley’s favor. However, at the end of the day he actually lost.

What happened? It’s Simple. Many white voters lied. They said they would vote for a Black candidate, but in the end, could not overcome their own racial biases. According to experts the Bradley effect can account for as much as a 6% difference in actual results versus what people told pollsters they would do. 

Does this mean that Obama should be worried? I guess it depends on whether enough white Americans have overcome their own racial biases. Some say they have. Some say they have not. The question is, "have enough Whites conquered their racial monsters in key battleground state like Ohio, Michigan and Virginia"? I guess we will see on election night.

Critics of the so-called “Bradley Effect”, suggest it existed in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then evidence suggest it no longer exist. Now critics consider it an outdated fear of racism on the part of non-white candidates.

Assuming the Bradley effect really is a thing of the past, Senator Obama is in an excellent position. Assuming it is still in effect I do not think Obama will be affected by it anyway.

Six other Blacks who have run for president before Barack Obama. All brought their own flavor to the scene, but none could overcome the force of “The Bradley effect”. They never really got their campaigns off the ground.

Obama on the other hand has gracefully cleared this hurdle. Whether you believe in the “Bradley Effect” or not you can only conclude one of two things. Either white America has grown enough in its racial tolerance that it can identify with a Black candidate or they do not see Obama as Black.

I would argue that it is the latter of the two. Barack Obama has done a better job than previous Black candidates at neutralizing his race. Whether that is good or bad is open for debate?

Obama’s bi-racial background goes a long way towards supporting his race neutrality. His Kenyan roots lend very little to tie him to a traditional Black American background as many do not mentally link Africans to African Americans.

If there is any truth to this analysis, then the “Bradley effect” will not affect Obama’s bid for the presidency. Assuming it exists, the Bradley affect will only harm minority candidates that have strong ties to their racial group. Senator Obama does not innately have this tie and hence can turn on/off his blackness when deemed appropriate.

Obama is the antidote for the “Bradley effect” that has plagued many Black candidates of the past. If the candidate can build into his/her campaign a form of political albinism and convince enough progressive whites that he/she is sincere then Black politicians have found the recipe for climbing the political ladder.

It will be interesting to see how much influence, if any, the Bradley effect will have on this election and how much the Obama effect will mitigate it.

In the meantime, I will be happy when a candidate is truly measured, positively or negatively, by the content of his competence and his character not the color of his skin.

Just my 20 cents!

When we take money from one thing and use it for another. We call it “Robbing Peter to pay Paul”. That sounds a lot like US Treasury Secretary Paulson’s $700 Billion bailout plan.

I was daydreaming the other day about what I would do with $700 Billion if I could simply scare some folks out of it. We call that robbery, incidentally, in most states. If I could scare the country into giving me $700Billion dollars, what would I do with it?

Well for starters, the cost to upgrade the Gulf Coast levee system has run about $250 Billion. I would finish the job. This would ensure that lives are not lost, people have a place to live and an entire American city stays intact.

I would plan a Sudanese invasion. The Iraq war has cost $648 Billion, to date. Yet, we have accomplished very little in the way of protecting American interest. I believe that the crisis in Darfur is a travesty. $700Billion would probably fix the situation militarily and diplomatically, with change left over.

Following mortgage loans and automobile loans, student loans are the largest debts on many Americans’ balance sheets. Outstanding student loan debt is at $550 Billion. I would buy up and renegotiate the student loan debt. This would free up extra cash in people’s pockets. We would really get the economy going. Assuming you have one, imagine how life would be if you did not have a student loan payment. The other $150 Billion would go towards increasing Pell grant funding so folks do not have to borrow so much money in the first place to go to college.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been working on a network for emergency workers. It is a national 911 system so emergency personal can communicate and be dispatched anywhere in the country. Experts say building it could cost $15 Billion. With the change, I would staff, maintain and operate the network for the next 50 years.

Seven hundred billion dollars would cover one year's health care bills for more than 85 million seniors, disabled people, children and low-income Americans enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. On the other hand, I might opt to add another 10 million children to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) at $35 billion per year over five years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, half the money Roosevelt spent on his New Deal program to lift the country out of the Depression and banking crisis was for public works projects. For $250 billion, in today's dollars, we could build 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings and 72,000 schools.

I’ m not big on universal health care as I don’t like the government telling me I can’t drink, smoke, sky dive or whatever else I choose to do that might hurt me. Nevertheless, if I had $700Billion, I could provide universal health care for six years. That is long enough for me to convince the people that it is an overall bad idea.

Since it is burning a hole in my pocket, I could spend it on a space program. The Apollo mission to the moon cost $164 Billion. I am sure we could go much further than the moon with $700Billion.

We spend approximately $700 Billion per year on foreign oil. This money goes into the pockets of OPEC countries. $700 Billion would go a long way toward fostering alternative fuels and drilling in American territory.

$700 Billion is a lot of money. Nothing suggests, however, we simply have this kind of money just lying around. Assuming we find it, what is going to happen to President Obama’s social spending programs? There will not be any money left to lower taxes on the middle class. There will not be any money left for health care reform. There will be no means for the federal government to run many existing programs.

According to a recent CNN Money poll, 76% of respondents do not believe the bailout package will relieve this credit crisis.

With all the issues we are facing, I could find quite a few good uses for $700 Billion. Rescuing some greedy corporations that have preyed on mostly uninformed borrowers is not one of them.

Are we robbing People to pay Paulson!

That is just my 20 cents!

I find the debate over the financial bailout plan interesting. Both candidates have been next to silent on it. Yes, both made statements about the plan. Both voted for the plan. Both expressed the need to bring this issue to some resolution. Neither, however, acted boldly presidential and took a leadership role.

Neither candidate rose above the other to resolve this issue. It was dull yet frantic politics as usual from both candidates.

Both claim to be able to handle the grave issues facing the country for the next four question riddled years. Both were in position to open a definable lead on their opponent. They could have deafened their critics and shown the people that:
(1) They had the full support of their party
(2) Had the influence to pull together persons from both parties to get things done
(3) Understand the motivation and desires of the people
(4) Could handle the country in a time of crisis

Neither did….

This makes me ask a bigger question about the top task of carefully choosing a president. Are we, the people, asking the right question? There is no right answer to a wrong question. Since neither candidate has yet to answer our screams for leadership on the economy, maybe we are simply asking the wrong question.

In the primaries, we asked both parties who we should choose as president. The Democratic response was Senator Obama. The Republican response was Senator McCain.

The question is not who should we choose as president, but who will be the best leader of our country over the next four years. Then, we can elect that person. In haste to get rid of G.W., we asked the wrong question. Unfortunately, what it takes be elected president and what it takes to be president are very different skill sets.

What does a person have to do for the people to vote for them? To be elected requires popularity and pandering.

We ask…
(1) Do I know and like this person? (I.e. Popularity)
(2) What will they do for me? (I.e. Pandering)

The candidate that best answers those questions generally is the most electable. McCain clearly has shown that he is electable. At least Republicans thinks so. Obama clearly has shown that he is electable. That is why his party chose him.

Let’s raise our political intellect and change the question, in effect changing the answer. Let’s ask a more basic, meaningful and impactful question. Who would be the best person for the job of president? Let’s ignore who the parties have “In the queue”. Let’s draw up a set of core skills that “this president” needs then identify people with those core skills. The list would depend on what is going on in the world. It would depend on the issues that we are currently facing. It would depend on the foreseeable issues.

We painfully need to change the question of picking a president from “Who should we elect as our next president?” to "Who is the best person to be our next president?" This would get us out of this “lesser of two evils” political process.

George W. Bush was the most electable candidate. However, poll after poll suggest that he has done a miserable job as president. It is not his fault though. Collectively, we chose him. What were we thinking? We did not ask what skills and qualities our next president should have. If so we would have insisted on candidates with experience with terrorism, crisis management, economic efficiency and bi-partisan coalition. George W. Bush has failed miserably on these accounts. But this begs the question, had he ever shown he was competent in these areas.

Are we asking the right question about picking the next president?  Have you asked yourself?
(1) What qualities should our next leader have? I would like someone who is trustworthy, has global vision, is accountable and has the ability to work with his/her rivals to get stuff done. Our next leader must have character.

(2) What competencies or skills should our next leader have? Crisis management, fiscal management, global strategy, and military management would be a few good skills to have. Our next leader must be competent in the areas where we have issues.

After insuring that a person has the character and the competence to hold the position of president, then and only then should, we turn our attention to his/her electability.

The Democrats presented Barack Obama as “The Answer”. The Republicans presented John McCain as “The Answer”. Unfortunately, when both had the chance to clearly show their ability to be president (the bail out plan), both failed to show up. The financial quagmire over the last few weeks was the perfect storm for the “Real President” to stand up.

George and his team came up with the horrible idea of bailing out businesses with questionable business practices so we could maintain business as usual on Wall Street. John McCain and Barack Obama followed, despite the outcry of the masses. Neither was the beacon of hope they claim to be. They decided not to cause any waves and voted for the bill, despite overwhelming public disapproval.

Either candidate, depending on the situation, can be elected president. Neither has shown that they can be president. We are asking the wrong question and there can never be a right answer to a wrong question.

Feel free to cast your vote on whether you agree or disagree at Vote

I know it has been a while since I have put out a rant. You know how it is. Right in the middle of our wonderful plans… life happens. I would like to thank everyone that has supported my family and me during our time of bereavement. God never promised us we would not hurt. He only promised comfort when we are hurting. So thank you all for the comfort.

I just read about a very interesting experiment. The scientists were testing whether you could learn hopelessness. They defined hopelessness as a state of accepted helplessness. If so, how is it learned?

Interestingly presidential candidate Sen. Obama has underwritten his whole campaign with the idea of hope. Former presidential candidate, Jesse Jackson, built his career on “keeping hope alive”.

Where there is hope there is help. We all could use a little help every now and then. Obama has been able to paint a picture in the hearts and minds of the people that the most powerful government in the world is willing and ready to help them. Now that is hope! Who would not vote for that?

I, on the other hand, am skeptical of the government’s willingness and ability, for that matter, to help people in a lasting meaningful way. Hence, I focus on people. What can we, as individuals, do to help ourselves?
What is making Obama’s message of “hope in the government” so popular? Obama’s message resonates with people, who for a long time have lacked hope and over time may have learned to lack help.

I pose this question to myself. Have I learned helplessness? Will I vote for the ticket that potentially represents the most help (hope)? My fear is that many American’s, especially African Americans, may have learned helplessness somewhere along the way.

In the experiment, a caged dog received an electrical shock. It could however push a button that would end the shock and let it out of the cage. At the same time, there was a second dog that received the same level of shock as the first dog. There was nothing, however, it could do to relieve its shock on its own. It had to wait for the first dog to figure out how to stop the shock to get any relief. A third dog received no shock at all.

Here is what the research showed. The first dog very quickly realized that it could do something about its situation. It would do so as soon as it figured out what to do. The third dog who had received no shock learned that it could do something about its situation. It did not take it long to figure out how to stop the shock and free itself from the cage. 

The second dog, however, exhibited a very strange behavior. The second dog learned that regardless of what it did, it did not matter. Despite the pain of the shock, it did nothing. It just laid there. It learned that it could not change its own situation so it simply suffered the pain. It yelped from time to time, but did nothing of substance to improve its own situation.

Now I wonder how many of us are like the second dogs. How many of us have yoked ourselves to a presidential candidate? How many of us have decided to endure the pain of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, foreclosures, bank failures or whatever your particular pain is until one of the “Big Dogs” figures out how to stop the shock.?

Sen. McCain believes he can stop the shock and many people are hoping (voting) he can find the “STOP THE SHOCK” button. Sen. Obama believes he can stop the shock and many people are hoping (voting) he can find the “STOP THE SHOCK” button.

We can find our own “STOP THE SHOCK” button. We can help ourselves.  We already have hope. We can bring about change in our lives today. We can bring about our own hope.
Regardless of who becomes the president of the United States of America, do for self. Determine what we as individuals can do to change our personal lives so that we can undo our learned helplessness. Regardless of who becomes president… whether it is McCain or Obama, we can affect our personal situation when a shock of life happens. We can do something about it and it does not matter the breed of the first dog Democrat or Republican. Roo!!!!

This is just my 20 cents!!!!