Florence Nightingale for president?

The more I hear people complain about Barack Obama, the more I like the guy.

Now to be clear, I didn’t vote for him the first time. I don’t think he’s done a particularly good job. And I probably won’t vote for him this time around. But I find myself defending him on a regular basis because of the unfounded claims made by people I can only refer to as loons.

For example, I’ve read repeatedly that the price of gasoline has doubled since Obama became president, noting that he’s the reason that prices have jumped the way they have.

GasBuddy.com tells us that in mid- to late-2008, the price of gasoline dropped significantly in Buffalo from $4.26 a gallon to $1.81. It has been on a steady incline ever since. Worth noting here, of course, is that it was $4.26 in the summer of 2008. But to hear the loons tell it, it was $1.81 until Obama took office.

They’ll tell you, of course, that the spike in gas prices from 2005 to 2008 had nothing to do with former President George W. Bush, but the spike from 2008 until 2012 is the sole fault of President Obama.

The loons seem to believe that their guy couldn’t possibly have been the problem (this goes with the left-wing loons who serve as Obama apologists, too). The fact of the matter is, the price of things go up and our foreign policy doesn’t help matters. It is, of course, the same foreign policy that has guided us over the course of the past dozen administrations or so.

The problem isn’t Obama. And it wasn’t Bush. The problem — as is so often the case — is us. But it’s easier to blame Obama.

I don’t hear the same people who are blaming Obama for gas prices also giving him credit for the stock market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average hovered around 8,000 points when Obama was inaugurated. It now stands at about 13,000. That’s quite a bump.

Likewise, unemployment spiked at the end of George W. Bush’s time in office, hitting 7.8 percent in January of 2009. It further jumped to 10 percent in October of that year, nine months into Obama’s first term. Since October of 2009, however, it has (very) slowly but steadily declined to where it stands now at just over 8 percent.

But I hear nary a word about that. All I hear these days is gas prices. And when I do hear about the stock market or unemployment, I’m told it would be better were it not for Obama and his horrible fiscal policies. Oh and he’s a Communist.

I’ve been called a Communist before. I know what a Communist is. Barack Obama is not a Communist. He may truly be inept, but he’s not a Communist.

For the record, I’ve been called a Fascist before, too. I’m not one of those either. I’m just a guy who gets irritated by other people’s B.S.

While I’m very unlikely to cast a vote for Barack Obama come November, I do sympathize for the guy. And if I end up feeling bad enough for him, I might just vote for him.

Dear loons, you’ve overplayed your hand. And the reasonable people of the world are going to sympathize for a guy they probably would never vote for otherwise. Get back to reality so we can find someone who can actually do the job.

Why I don't believe the hype

A certain mistrust of government is natural, healthy even. In my line of work, it's actually a necessity to be skeptical.

But I - like many other Americans - have moved beyond the level of skeptic. I - like many other Americans - have gotten to the point where I don't believe anything politicians say. Anything.

If congress says something is black, I have a good reason to believe that it's white. If the president says something is up, I can reasonably assume that it's down.

And the reason for this general mistrust ... the move from being a skeptic to a cynic ... is that the level of blatant lies to come out of Washington these past several years exceeds anything that could be considered reasonable.

Fact of the matter is that government works for us. It is a tool of the people by which to perform certain functions that people can't be expected to perform on their own. Because government is supposedly "of the people, for the people, and by the people," many American citizens expect to be told the truth by their government.

And while it's not popular with many folks, I understand why government lies to us sometimes. Occasionally, it's just easier to lie when setting out to achieve a common goal. Sometimes the truth creates bedlam, a state in which working towards any accomplishment becomes almost impossible.

An example: At the scene of a crime, a police officer will tell you "there's nothing to see here," in an effort to clear the scene, making their job of solving the crime easier. Yeah, it's a lie, but it expedites matters.

Unfortunately, many of the lies we've been told over the past few years haven't been this garden variety white lie. They've been dirty black lies, not told for the sake of making our lives better or easier, but told for nefarious reasons, some of which we won't know for decades ... if we ever know at all.

Complicating matters even further is the fact that a certain percentage of the population wants to believe the lie ... and even helps to propagate it. This could be that they just want to believe their government ... or maybe it's partisan ... or maybe they have something to gain from the lie.

Many have even gone so far as to explain away the lies by method of defining lies to the n'th degree. I hear often, "it's not a lie unless you know it to be untrue."

This strategy is often used to defend the "weapons of mass destruction" claim in Iraq, the principle reason we invaded a sovereign nation. It turned out to be untrue, but as long as we didn't KNOW it was untrue to begin with, then it's not a lie, they say.

The problem with this definition, is that a statement such as, "There's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the foot of the Statue of Liberty," wouldn't be construed a lie ... even though I just made it up. It COULD be true. I don't know that it's NOT true. Therefore, it's not a lie by their definition.

But to me, it's a lie. I want to believe that there's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the Statue of Liberty, but as much as I want to believe it, that doesn't make it true. It's still a lie.

I've gotten so used to hearing lies from the government, whether it's about Social Security going bankrupt ... or being greeted as liberators ... or any other number of things, that I just don't believe anything they say.

So when I started hearing last week that the federal government felt that if we didn't pony up $700 billion for some invesment bankers, the whole country could collapse economically, my first thought surely wasn't, "well if the government says it's true, it must be." Instead my first thought was, "if those bastards think they're going to rob from the poor to give to the rich, they've got another thing coming."

Look, I'm no economist. But as far as know, neither is President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any member of Congress, for that matter. Henry Paulson is, of course. He's also a former Wall Street CEO. This bailout would make a lot of his friends very happy (and lots of money). Just like the war on Iraq made Vice President Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton very happy (and lots of money) and the same worldwide boondoggle has made George W Bush's friends in the oil industry very happy (and lots of money).

A friend of mine often tells me, when things don't make sense, look at who's making cents.

In the case of this "bailout," the people making cents would be investment bankers ... many of whom are friends of the political system.

It's reverse Robin Hood and they're hoping that if they lie to you and tell you that it's in your own good, you'll not only believe it ... but demand it.

Don't believe the hype.

Patriotism as decoration ...

Some candidates wear their patriotism on their sleeve ... or their lapel, to be more accurate. Whether or not they love their country is determined by whether or not they have a flag pinned to their jacket.

Some candidates parade their patriotism around as if it were required by the Constitution. Or as if it were a contest to see who loves America more.

Sometimes I wonder why the race for the presidency often turns into a fight over which candidate loves the country more ... or which candidate hates it more. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some talking head ask, "Why does Barack Obama hate America?" Of course the question assumes that Barack Obama hates America. It's kind of like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There's not good way to answer it.

Sen. John McCain has positioned himself as a God-fearing, America-loving veteran, whose record of patriotism could not be questioned. After all, he was a prisoner of war. And that brings with it some assumptions, too. The assumption being that since John McCain was a prisoner of war - and just as importantly, that he was a veteran of war - that he must love this great republic of ours more than some guy whose name rhymes with Osama.

Interesting that four years ago, the same assumptions did not hold true. Democrats figured that nominating John Kerry - a veteran of Viet Nam himself - would give them the patriotic edge over George W. Bush, who not only did not serve ... he disappeared during 'Nam. That edge never held true because of the trump card that Democrats didn't figure on: Republicans are automatically more patriotic than Democrats (at least according to talk radio).

In fact, while George W. Bush's record of non-service seemed okay with the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh ... John Kerry's documented service was was questioned by the same types ... with a lot of help from a group of professional reputational hitmen, "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth."

It was so successful, that the term "Swiftboat" was immediately added to the American lexicon, defined as "successfully lie about someone or something."

At the time, John McCain spoke out against the "Swiftboat" group. Now, he's hired one of them to work on his own campaign. Hmm.

Meanwhile, Gen. Wesley Clark - an Obama supporter - said "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Of course, the GOP and McCain himself were all upset by the comment, demanding a retraction or apology from Clark. You can't, after all, question a war hero.

Funny, the Republican party always comes up with these strange rules: You can't question the president in the time of war. You can't say anything negative about America outside her borders. You can't tell the truth about their nominee if it puts him in a bad light. Etc ...

How long until they start calling Wesley Clark. How long until I hear, "Why does Wesley Clark hate America?"

Not long, I'd guess. After all, he can't be patriotic, he only spent 34 years in the Army.