I would like to comment on a recent NY Times op/ed piece by Drew Westen, a psychologist. The title was "What Happened To Obama?". It is a very long explanation and he concludes with the following:

"As a practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience, I will resist the temptation to diagnose at a distance, but as a scientist and strategic consultant I will venture some hypotheses."

His first hypotheses is as follows:

"The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."

I think this is so true. We were so unhappy with the moron Bush that Obama's elegance blinded us to the fact that he really did not have the credentials to run the US. He shows this every time he backs away from what he believes in his fight with the Republicans.

The second hypothesis is:

"A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election. Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in."

Amen Brother! In the last six months I have come to Westen's conclusion. Obama does not know what he stands for and is only motivated to reach his second term. Obama would have been assured of the second term if he stood tall and fought the Republicans tooth-and-nail on his health-care plan, the debt crisis, . . .

The third hypothesis is:

"Or perhaps, like so many politicians who come to Washington, he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted by a system that tests the souls even of people of tremendous integrity, by forcing them to dial for dollars — in the case of the modern presidency, for hundreds of millions of dollars. When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear."

Not being a psychologist I would have never thought of this but it makes lots of sense. If he could only see that the Tea Party is a villain to most Americans. You have to fight villains and put them in their place. I do not think Obama has what it takes to eradicate this villain.

Westen's final hypothesis is:

"A final explanation is that he ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation."

My words could not even come close to Westen's explanation of this last hypothesis, but I agree totally with him and why I have selected this op/ed article. What did he say?

"But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks."

So what should be done knowing the above. I recommend that he add a vice presidental canditate that does not have the above huge limitations. I would select Ms. Clinton as a running mate. I bet she would not put up with the Tea Party as we have seen Obama is willing to do.

Then Hillary will be in a great position to become the president in 2016, having the experience of being a first lady, senator, secretary of state, and vice president.




Again I will let Paul Krugman rant for me:

"For the fact is that right now the economy desperately needs a short-run fix. When you’re bleeding profusely from an open wound, you want a doctor who binds that wound up, not a doctor who lectures you on the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle as you get older. When millions of willing and able workers are unemployed, and economic potential is going to waste to the tune of almost $1 trillion a year, you want policy makers who work on a fast recovery, not people who lecture you on the need for long-run fiscal sustainability."

I totally agree with this Nobel-Prize Winning economist. Please read his op/ed piece.

The Highjacked Crisis


Neglect of Civics Undermines Nation (St. Peterburg Times 11 August 2011)

"Yet only 9 percent of American fourth-graders could identify Abraham Lincoln and why he is an important figure. Fewer than a third of the eighth-graders could identify an important advantage the American forces had over the British during the Revolutionary War, and only 2 percent of high school seniors could identify what social issue was addressed in the 1954 landmark desegregation case, Brown vs. Board of Education."

As I have said for years, the Republicans educational initiatives of the past decade have come to fruition. It is a beautiful plan and was well executed. Change the focus of education to basic skills to pass a literacy test while ignoring what is important. As you can see in this article, our educational system has mainly eliminated history, civics, and geography. This makes the voting public ignorant of even the most fundamental facts about our government and how it fits into the world. Knowing this, how in the world can the American voter understand the mathematical complexities of both micro and macro economics. What is the end result of this--the Tea Party!



Global Warming

In the following you will see what a pseudoscientist presented on a Fox News program. Virtually everything that he claimed is wrong. However, I am sure that many of his followers bought it because they know no science and have no way of evaluating what he claims. If the US is going to avoid falling to third-world status, we must educate all of our children with an emphasis on science and mathematics. This is the only way that they will be able to understand the changing world around them.

A Fox News Science Lesson



Not being an economist disavows me of really knowing what I am talking about when it comes to the US economy. However I do know that our idiotic representatives and senators who equate home finances to the extremely complex finances of this country are absolutely wrong. Yes, 100% wrong. That is hard to be in our world. For example I learned the following today:

"Economic historians have recounted 1937 in great detail. After four years of priming the pump with government spending - and shrinking the jobless rate from 25 percent in 1933 to 14 percent - Roosevelt heeded conservative advice and went into austerity mode. He slashed spending and tried to balance the budget. The result? Unemployment spiked to 19 percent. End of experiment. FDR sought and received new spending in 1938, and the jobless rate subsequently dropped to 14 percent--Dick Polman, Philadelphia Enquirer."

Until people go back to work our economy along with the rest of the world's major economics will falter. Thus, we should pump money from the military budget and anywhere else into job programs for Americans. I wonder how many jobs could be created if American oil companies and mega corporations such as GE were made to pay taxes.

I highly recommend that you read the entire editorial by Dick Polman:

The American Debate: Deal traps Obama into helplessness on job creation


As we have witnessed for weeks the US government has failed us. Our government is a product of the 19th and 20th century. Much of what made it great during those centuries make it inadequate and dysfunctional in this century. After all the wrangling, name calling, threats, and each party stating that they knew what was best for us Americans we have a so called compromise that does nothing to decrease the debt, increase the number of jobs, simplify the tax code, and make mega corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

This can be better explained by reading the op/ed piece in today's St. Petersburg Times entitled Deal punts on jobs, causes of deficit. In this editorial the authors William L. Holahan and Charles O. Kroncke state:

"This seriously deficient plan does not address the causes of the deficit, which are: (1) tax rates, in effect since 2003, which are too low to yield a balanced budget even at full employment; (2) wars fought with borrowed money; (3) reduced tax revenue caused by the recession itself; and (4) recession-fighting expenditures for the relief of the unemployed and for job creation initiatives."


Obama is a weak president who caves every time things get rough. This is not what we want or need in a president. If the proposed debt ceiling plan is enacted we are in deep trouble for many reasons that I will let Paul Krugman explain.

"Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels."


If you would like to know my feelings towards religion and the notion of a Judeo/Christan god, please watch the following video that presents the views of some of the world's greatest scientists and philosophers.


I just read that the best paying college majors are virtually all engineering and physics, with the exception of economics which came in near the bottom of this list. We need to upgrade and improve our science and math education. It can be easily done if we return to the education system that we had when I was being educated in the 50s and 60s. Since then it has been all downhill. If we do not do something about this we will arrive at third world status before we know. We are no longer the supposedly great country that we have in our minds.

The Thirteen Best Paying College Majors


  Again my rant about the incompetence of both parties in this shadow game of power with the US economy at stake is given by Paul Krugman.

The Fatal Delusion