So, Obama really is attacking democracy

Silly me. Until now, I had thought that it would be a Republican administration that imploded our democracy.

Then I learned Verizon had been ordered to give up the metadata for all calls between April 25-July 19 of this year to the National Security Administration. The data doesn't include the content of the calls, but it does include the phone numbers involved, length of calls, location and the like.

It's all in the name of fighting terrorism, right? Right? RIGHT? The silence is deafening.

I was pretty much on board with the Obama administration until about a month ago. Benghazi seemed to be a trumped-up scandal to give Fox News something to do and to help the Republican blockade in Congress avoid doing anything useful. (With blocking like that, the Dallas Cowboys would have won the Super Bowl last year.)

I didn't much like the IRS targeting the Tea Party, even though it's the Tea Party. And I certainly didn't like the Department of Justice going after Associated Press messages and investigating that Fox News reporter.

Yes, you need to investigate leaks, and I don't blame the administration for doing so -- if you were running a business, wouldn't you want to find out how competitors were finding out your trade secrets? But you do it internally...investigate the in-house communications and, if you have to, your employees' phone and computer records. You don't trample on the constitutional rights of the people they talk to. All they did was take advantage of a hot story.

Now, I'm not a Verizon customer -- hmmm...maybe President Obama is really an agent of AT&T, trying to scare people away from Verizon. Conspiracy theorists, unite! -- but I don't feel particularly comfortable with my phone metadata being in the hands of government officials. It violates my privacy, possibly violates the Fourth Amendment and it sets horrible precedent.

Yes, the W. administration did the same things, but they were targeted to specific people who may have been terrorism threats. In my first-ever defense of the policies of President George W. Bush (as opposed to those of Texas Gov. George W. Bush, which I admired), they didn't need to know that Ursula was calling Deborah Sue to ask if she heard Hugo and Kim were going steady.*

It's obvious the Obama administration is looking for enemies, and it doesn't care whose privacy or constitutional rights it tramples on to find them.

So we have one side that is against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy, capitalistic success and, possibly, the entire Second Amendment; believes in unlimited welfare; and wants to control people's personal dietary choices.

And we have another side that is against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion (except certain forms of Christianity) and poor and unhealthy people; believes the Second Amendment allows absolutely no regulation; and has an unhealthy obsession with what people do in their bedrooms.

It's been almost four years since I've written on this blog. Seems we need a reminder of what the Consistency Party means. Things are not good.

*-This reference to "Bye Bye Birdie" is a shameless plug for the Plaza Theatre Company's production of this musical -- which my wife and I are stage managing and in which our son is dancing -- June 28-Aug. 4 in Cleburne, Texas. Visit www.plaza-theatre.com for information about this song-and-dance extravaganza.

Fairness is the marketplace

Talk is rampant that the new Congress and president will try to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," which would force radio and TV stations with federal licenses to give equal time to all candidates/all sides of an issue.

Many believe that this is an attempt to silence conservative talk radio, and it probably is. If a station carries Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc., it may also have to carry an equal amount of liberal programming.

I listen to Rush and Sean -- and watch Keith Olbermann -- purely for comedic purposes. But face the facts: The conservatives draw ratings, and therefore advertisers. Liberal talkers don't draw ratings. Air America went into bankruptcy, lost most of its best talent and is a blip on the Arbitron screen.

A revived Fairness Doctrine may placate those who don't have the thick skin to take the childish rants of conservatives who think that those who oppose their views are anti-American or idiots. But it would destroy many top-rated radio stations.

If liberal talkers want to be heard, find a way to get ratings.

Cool soap

Found out about this bar of soap called the Obama Bar. It's the kind of soap you find at Whole Foods and places like that. Their slogan is "The Audacity of Soap," and it is meant to celebrate our new president-apparent(he is not officially president-elect until the Electoral College meets on Dec. 15).

The cool thing is, even Republicans can like it: A portion of the proceeds go to the Yellow Ribbon fund, which helps support injured troops hospitalized at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the U.S. Naval Hospital.

If you want to try it, visit www.myobamabar.com

Maybe President-apparent Obama can use the soap to symbolically wash away all those Bush executive orders and "signing statements."

The Consistency Party

The obituaries for the Republican Party are starting to be written, just as they were for the Democratic Party in 1972, 1980, 1988, 1994 and 2004.

The GOP will survive, but a third party needs to be established: The Consistency Party.

(I wanted to use More Taste League, but Miller Lite took it. And what about the Bud Light ads that copy the theme but doesn't have a central character like Dr. Cox from "Scrubs" as the Commish? But I digress.)

Let's face it: Both major parties and its members are hypocrites.

Why, conservatives, do you preach limited government and adherence to the 10th Amendment (state power), but try to get the federal government involved in the Terri Schiavo pull-the-plug case? Or try to get state assisted-suicide laws overturned?

Why, liberals, do you oppose school vouchers for the not-so-well-off but send your own kids to private school? You believe in higher levels of welfare to boot. Why not give kids who want a better education a chance?

Why, Republicans, do you believe in keeping hands off of businesses who pollute the air and water, but want a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Oh, wait. Polluters are just destroying the planet; gays and lesbians who want to make a loving, monogamous relationship legal are destroying...what, exactly?

Why, Democrats, do you oppose the death penalty but support abortion? They're both murder. The difference is, the guilty victim of the death penalty killed somebody brutally. Most innocent victims of abortion are helpless souls who were created because a couple wasn't responsible enough to use protection.

You get the point.

The Consistency Party would run candidates who were consistent in all their views. You're either a strict constitutionalist, or you believe the constitution changes with the times.

(And my wife voted last week. She couldn't do that in 1787. And my former co-worker also voted. Back then, he would have been seen as three-fifths of a person, and he lives in an apartment, so is not a property owner. What was the founders' intent again?)

I'm a member of the Consistency Party. This post proves it. My conservative brother and my liberal sister will both think I'm a blithering idiot.

Later.