How Dare You, AIG

As many of you read this post, it will become obvious that it is not as structured, researched, or probably as good, as my typical style. But time constraints and lack of patience for our current national leaders has left me no choice but to do a 'ranting-post'. So my apologies.

With my disclaimer out of the way, I can continue on with my thoughts. President Obama went on his, what I'd like to call, "Outrage Campaign" last week. His outrage is in unison with the majority of American's who are outraged with Wall Street's actions, government bail outs, etc. One remark summarized his thoughts, "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" I would like to rephrase his statement, hopefully without changing the meaning, but proving a bigger point:

"How dare AIG continue doing business as usual?"

What did the government expect? They give hundreds of billions of dollars to a failing financial institution, which is failing because of horrific business decisions, greed, and lack of regulations; put zero, ZERO, restrictions on how the money is spent, and they are shocked that they are continuing on as usual? Those of us who were opposed to government bailouts from the beginning could see this coming. And yet, they are still "too big to fail". The Federal Reserves is now discussing using trillions, trillions, of dollars to buy "toxic assets" to bailout suffering institutions. The Treasury Department is also considering similar plans. What does this excessive, ridiculous spending mean for us? The Middle Class?

President Obama's entire campaign revolved around restoring and uplifting the middle class. "Oh yes, we can!" How does his latest actions affect those who got him elected? I believe that the trillions of dollars that the government is spending to "stimulate" or "bailout" or "rescue" our financial foundations will inevidibly and absolutely result in massive inflation. The government is counting on this. If the dollar inflates, than in 5 years or 10 years when the taxpayers are expected to pay of this blackhole of endless debt, the trillions of dollars won't seem as much, because the dollar is worth so little. Who does that hurt the most? In my opinion, the middle class. We are the ones putting money away for savings, retirement, college education, etc. And when the value of the dollar decreases, which increasing the money supply without the assets will do, it will be worth less. I see all of these "rescue efforts" as tipping the first donimo, and President Bush and Sect. Paulson started it. The domino's that will inevitably follow are massive inflation, increased unemployment, higher taxes, all of which could turn this deep recession into a depression.

Dora hits puberty!

Yes moms, Dora is no longer an explorer. She is an emotional, fashion conscious, bi-lingual, tweenager! So if you found the repetitive, loud-speaking, sing-a-longs annoying, morph her with Hannah Montana, and you've got Mattel's latest product! Apparently puberty transforms a football shaped head and round belly into long, flowing locks and a sleeker figure! "Dora, our heroine has moved to the big city, attends middle school and has a whole new fashionable look", according to Mattel and Nickelodeon's press release.

What I'm wondering is if the new, older Dora will have to deal with "real-life" situations found in junior high. Will her adventures change from Chocolate Mountains to bags of weed? Or will Boots be replaced with a boyfriend who wants to help her cross another type of bridge? Will the map be replaced with the Sex-Ed handbook given out in Health Class? Will her backpack now contain a cell-phone with unlimited texts, the new Jonas Brother's CD, and a fake drivers license?

I don't want my five-year old growing up to fast. Why must Nickelodeon and Mattel want to age a perpetually pre-school aged character? Elmo has remained a 3 1/2 year old red furry staple in the Muppet and Sesame Street line up. He never experienced the voice change or had girl problems. And he is still successful. The Simpson's have not aged in 20 years, and are still popular and relevant. Joan Rivers has surgically stopped the aging process and is now a successful competitor on the Celebrity Apprentice. Why must Dora grow up? I find it very disturbing....

Fundamentals are strong

In an interview on Meet the Press, Christina Romer, an economic adviser for President Obama answered the question "Are the fundamentals of the economy sound?" with this response:

"The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology".

I know my memory is short and shoddy, but this is a familiar quote. I am pretty sure I've heard someone say, the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" before. Maybe she is only echoing the message of her boss, President Obama. In a brief press conference, President Obama said on Friday the 13th, that they are "keeping focus on all the fundamental, sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation..." This is a drastic contrast from his pre-Stimulus Package rhetoric which painted our economic situation as almost "irreversible" catastrophe. But with our unemployment rate at 8.1%, the US government further in debt, a larger percentage of foreclosures, I would argue that we are worse off than we were a few months ago. Let's say, worse off than September 16, 2008, also known as "Black Monday".

In a campaign speech which I believe ended his Presidential bid, Senator John McCain made the comment that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong". Following his remarks, Barack Obama's campaign went in attack mode, referring to John McCain as being "out of touch" to the rest of America with his 7 homes. (Remember those campaign commercials?) Sen. McCain attempted in vain to explain his remarks by saying the "workers and innovation of the American people are fundamentally strong". I agreed with Sen. McCain then, and I agree with President Obama now. This is not where I take issue. I am frustrated that the McCain comment was the last nail in his presidential coffin, and yet the exact same message in much more dire circumstances from President Obama, is accepted.

Is it the message or the messenger?

HBO vs LDS

Is it surprising that the HBO series "Big Love" is causing an uproar among the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church? I have received many forwarded e-mails this past week, but had assumed it was only making headlines among Church members. That was until I was watching Good Morning America, and it was one of their lead stories! I was surprised this story followed "Bernie Madoff Goes to Jail".

First, in full disclosure, I have never seen "Big Love". We don't have a subscription to HBO. And I have no desire to see it or subscribe. I've followed some of the controversy surrounding this series, especially in regards to my Church. With one hand, "Big Love" creators ease the Church's concerns of tying them in with polygamists (who have not been members of our Church since the 1890's); and then with the other hand smack us across the face with constant connections, blurred lines, and complete factual inaccuracies. I have grown accustomed to the naive assumptions made about our Church, questions if I have "sister-wives", among other Mormon myths. I guess this is why the concept of the show "Big Love" really didn't bother me.

However, in the attempt to capture ratings and press attention, the writers decided to make it "crucial to the plot line" to include a ceremony performed in an LDS temple. This ordinance is considered sacred to the members of our Church, so much so that we don't discuss it outside the temple. Although HBO refuses to remove any scenes depicting the endowment ceremony, they assured us that "obviously, it was not [their] intention to do anything disrespectful to the Church, but to those who may be offended, we offer our sincere apology". According to producers, "the dramatization of the ceremony was vetted for accuracy by an adviser familiar with temple ceremonies". If they were stressing the need for accuracy, two contradictory and very inaccurate concepts occured to me.

First, many of the break away sects of the LDS Church (which the characters are apart of) have their own temples, with similar ordinances performed. From what I understand, they are different from what the mainstream Church practices although similar in nature. If the main family are apart of the breakaway sect, their temple scenes would be vastly different to what the Mormon Church performs, not needing a former Mormon to check for accuracy. They would need a former Fundamentalist LDS member to check for accuracy. Second, someone such as the main character in "Big Love", who according to HBO, "goes through the endowment ceremony as she faces losing her membership in the Mormon church" by the standards of our Church would not be allowed to perform in any temple ordinances while practicing polygamy or if her membership is in jeopardy. So in either contradictory case, HBO is being anything but "accurate".

Do I believe it is coincidental that HBO finally crossed this offensive line at this time? Absolutely not. During the Proposition 8 uproar, Tom Hanks, actor and executive producer of "Big Love" made disparraging remarks specifically towards the LDS members, which he later retracted. Is it coincidental that one of the guest-writers for "Big Love" is Dustin Lance Black, Oscar winning writer for "Milk" and former Mormon, who in his acceptance speech spoke about the Mormons? I believe the writers and producers of "Big Love" have been planning this disrespectful exploitation of our beliefs, and was waiting for the right time.

Why do I believe this has caught some media attention? I believe it is because many American's don't attend a Church who still practices sacred ordinances. The concept of "sacredness" has escaped many religious services, in the hopes of becoming "relevent" or "acceptable" or "mainstream". Even something as sacred as Christ's crucifixion has become materialized into ornate crosses or grusome pictorials. Our personal relationship with our Savior should never be exploited, idolized, or carelessly depicted for an HBO series. It is abhorrent to do so to any religion, and I would hope I would be as outraged if it was happening to the Catholics, Jews, or Muslims. I even hesitated voicing my opinion on this topic, not wanting to give HBO their desired goal, free publicity and higher ratings. Yet, I felt since I obviously have an opinion on this issue and a place to share it, I took advantage of that. I believe the Church leaders who issued an official statement regarding this topic were absolutely correct. "There is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long term negative effect on the church." Here is the Church's response in it's entirety. If you would like to voice your opinion to HBO, here is a link.

Gaffes: the gift that keeps on giving

One of President Obama's campaign promises was to improve our image abroad. His articulate and even-tempered nature was a drastic contrast to the past eight years, and I believe the world was ready for this new chapter of American foreign relations. However, the past week has proved to be embarrassing for the new President and his Secretary of Gift-Giving.

I know money is tight. I know we are all cutting back, possibly giving gifts from the heart. Homemade goodies, handwritten letters, or even the unspeakable, re-gifting. Apparently, the President is no exception! Prime Minister Gordon Brown came bearing gifts, when he met with President Obama for the first time late last week. Prime Minister Brown presented President Obama with a pen holder, "crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British warship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood for the Oval Office's desk)". Clearly a unique and thoughtful gift. What did the bridge-building, relationship-mending, foreign relations master give in return? A DVD BOX SET! Not only does it pale in comparison, many in the UK found it offensive. Not only is Brown blind in one eye and will most likely have difficulty watching Wizard of Oz or Casablanca, the majority of American DVD's are incompatible with British DVD players! President Obama meets with the Queen of England next month, I'm wondering if he will present her with Michael Jackson's Greatest Hits!

And the gaffe giving doesn't end with President Obama. While visiting with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton presented him with a red button. Not just any red button. One that resembles the end of the world buttons you see in movies, the one that no one should ever push. This red button had the English word "Reset" across it, followed by the Russian word, "peregruzka". This clever, yet cheap, gift was referring to Vice President Biden's call for the two countries to "press the reset button". What a great thought, if it wasn't lost in translation! Instead of saying "Reset", the Russian translation was "Overcharged". If one word could describe American right now, it would be "overcharged"!

How in the world will this help our image abroad? If there one person that needs to be fired is the Secretary of Gift Giving! This is hilarious and yet very embarrassing. So far the gaffe's have been made with our "allies". I hope we get it right by the time we meet with some of our "enemies!"

All Hail, Our Party-In-Chief

Whether self-annointed or media appointed, apparently Rush Limbaugh is now the Republican Party leader. Well, I am so relieved that this is all taken care of, so we as conservatives have someone to be energized about. Someone who will not disappoint us with embarrassing skeletons in the closet. Someone who can bring a new youth movement to the party. Someone people can relate to. Someone who isn't playing the politics machine for personal gain. Someone is a positive thinker in this desperate time of our country. And that someone is Rush Limbaugh....or so I'm told.

Why has he become the man of the hour? Why has the media spotlight turned his comments into a Rush versus Obama smackdown? Does he speak for you?

Here is my take on Rush Limbaugh. He is a business man, first and foremost. He is smart enough to know how to say things to make the headlines. Take for example, the unthinkable comment he made months ago on his radio show "I hope [President Obama] fails." Why is this so controversial? Is it who it is coming from? Is it the way he said it? He knew this one-liner would become a headliner. That is why he said it, the way he said it, when he said it. And he has repeated it since then, most notoriously at the CPAC Convention. His ratings have been through the roof since then. He is making more money. It is business as usual for him.

But do you disagree with his comment "I hope President Obama fails"? On the surface, the possibility of agreeing with Rush Limbaugh's most controversial comment as of late, is ridiculous! But at the root of it, there is truth. I would be lying if I said, "I hope that the stimulus package passed through the Congress" or "I hope he makes an executive order to reverse partial birth abortion". I hoped that the stimulus package failed getting votes. But now that it has passed, I hope that it does some good. I hope it does "stimulate" the economy. I hope it "succeeds", you could say.

Who else should we look to? I'm not a Rush-follower, so does that mean I'm an Obama-follower? Is it one or the other? Or am I party-less? Are there any promising conservatives we should be aware about? What are your thoughts?