I received the following email from a friend. Written by Robert A. Hall, a Marine veteran, I felt the need to discuss his points from a “liberal” perspective. The word liberal is apparently a dirty word to Mr. Hall. I have noticed on many occasions the use of email from the “right”. The emails are often full of what Ill politely call, untruths. Typically I hit delete and move on (and maybe I should have this time). But for some reason I could not help but comment. So here is Robert Hall's original email in red and my comments in blue.

I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired --- very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I'm not sure who is telling Mr. Hall that the government is going to take his money and give it to people that are “lazy or stupid”. "Spread the wealth around" is a reference to an Obama statement where Obama talks about taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than they are currently taxed at. This to pay for jobs created by government spending on infrastructure projects. His meager wealth would not be taxed. Obama does make the case that those that have greatly benefited by our system, should most help the system out when its in trouble.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.

The “Congress-critters” probably are in that wealthy class who will be taxed at a higher rate. Mr. Hall will not be. I agree with him that folks who over bought should not be bailed out. But people who were taken advantage of should be.

I take exception to the tag "left-wing" in front of Congress-critters. This disaster was a truly a bi partisan effort. There are lots of examples of legislation pushed and passed by both sides that added fuel to the fire. And certainly the idea of government just getting out of the way of business is really more of a conservative bent. And at the end of the day, the lack of oversight and regulation was one of the main contributors to this meltdown. I know Hall wants to blame the left as it fits his bias.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?

Huh? OK, Mr. Hall has now left planet reality. I have no idea where he is coming from as he now is stereotyping people and making amazing claims. I don't believe anyone wants the results he is describing. Makes for a good partisanship paragraph though painting “liberals” as wanting a bad world for us all. Those liberals just want the worst of the worst.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

There is a lot of backward thinking in places and religion is often the root of some of that thinking. I think we all hate backward thinking when it results in people suffering. This paragraph though seems to just want to stir up bad feelings about Islam. I'm sure there are those on the other side doing similar things using Christianity as the example. Not sure how this type of thinking helps.

I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

Again this paragraph is a mix of half truths and silliness. We've come a long way on minority issues. Not perfect, but a long way. Glad Mr. Hall favored Condi over Obama. Problem is, Condi didn't run and was tainted by President Bush's lack of competence. And here Mr. Hall should realize that the election was not about electing a black president. It was about electing the best man or woman for the job. I personally think Obama has showed himself to be pretty competent and a huge improvement over what we had for the last 8 years. And the reality is (as demonstrated by this economic melt down) is we need a competent government. We all believe in freedom and the individual. But without a competent government, people (and retirement accounts) perish.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fund-raising and inaugural expenses were obscene but think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Huh? The press went after both Palin and Obama for lack of experience. Media publishes stories that sell media. Pretty straight forward. I never read anything on Bush's inaugural expenses but did read how much Obama spent (although he did raise some of the money via the web). Bush's problems did not come from a critical media. Rather he made poor decisions. Invading Iraq being just one of them, but there are many.

There can be bias from reporters. Fox news does a great job of showing bias. I think most Americans are aware of bias and try and listen to both sides to come up with an informed decision on what to believe. I believe Obama is quite a bit brighter than Bush. I also believe the McCain became a party pawn and had to push failed policies, as that's what the party wanted. The voters wanted real change.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

Not sure what Hall is talking about. If he voted for Bush in 2004 I hope he it did it because he did the best job he could evaluating each person. It doesn't sound like that from the above paragraph.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

”Our oil money”? I think it would be Saudi Arabia's oil money. Hopefully Hall is driving a Prius. I think tolerance is a good idea. The hate for America stuff, not a good idea (that would be lack of tolerant thinking, the kind that Hall is preaching).

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I don't believe anyone stated Mr Hall needs to lower his standard of living. Not sure how he did his math on his carbon footprint. And I'm very sure he is doing far less for the environment that Al Gore, as Hall apparently hasn't even bothered to read up on the subject of global warming.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease and I must help support and treat them and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think gay people choose to be gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

Cool people? Hmmm. Its interesting Hall creates that label. Addiction to drugs may not be a “disease”, but I think we need to help addicts, both with the addiction and helping them become a contributing member of our society.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially those who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime.

What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

Immigration is a very touch and complicated subject, and nobody likes a leech.

Our society can get very creative with politically correct labels, no question.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years --- and still are? Not even close.

Latte liberal? Now who's making up labels. I personally won't let my kid near a recruitment station. Given our last two wars, I'm not sure the government can be trusted in its decisions to enter wars. In Iraq, over 100,000 people died, mostly innocent civilians, and for what? To get rid of a dictator? Don't want to climb into that one here, but I think its reasonable to question the decision as well as all the blood of innocent people on our hands.

The war before this one, Vietnam, is another fine example of a questionable war. We desperately wanted to prevent South Vietnam from becoming communist as (we were told) if Vietnam fell, eventually the world would turn communist (the domino theory). Again, the reasons for fighting this war were pretty thin.

If we do need to defend our freedom or soil, my kids and I will be there. These last two wars were not about that (in my opinion) and I wouldn't want my kid fighting in either of them.

I find it interesting that the same people who push the idea that we all should own guns to keep our government from running amok, now trust the government to make the right decision on when to go to war. For me that trust has been violated with these last two wars. On Iraq, I think Bush was entirely cavalier with our soldiers lives and the lives of the people he went to war against.

So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes.

British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from them in fear.

The two wrongs make a right theory. The US torturing people was an embarrassment and did not help our cause. I don't think the torturing that Al Qaeda does helps their case either.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers --- bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

Not sure what Tax cheats he's referring to. But I agree that neither side has a monopoly on corruption. We agree on some things.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

I think there is a such thing a stupid or innocent mistakes. Not all mistakes are equal. The mistake to invade Iraq is far far worse the Clinton's mistake with Monica Lewinsky. The pictures of the carnage in Iraq underscores how big of an impact that “mistake” made.

On the sense of entitlement, I think we all agree its a bad thing, rich or poor. Although Hall starts his document off feeling entitled to retirement. And maybe there are certain entitlements. Like health care. This is a large subject.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

God knows what Hall is talking about here. The definition of poverty is pretty well defined by income limits. Don't know too many families with all Hall calls out that would be labeled as poor. But I think the point of Halls blog is to stir up emotion, rather than anything factual.

A better discussion is on people abusing the welfare system. Both sides hate that. As an idea, how about the government handing out jobs instead of money. Even if you are disabled, you could still perform some kind of work to get your government check. With a job comes pride and I think it would drastically reduce cheating.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

OK, me too. But I think your blaming the government for quite a bit here. And liberals. And the media and people other than yourself. Sounds like a case of not taking much responsibility. Even your responsibility for voting for Bush in 2004 was partially the media's fault.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

I think your tired from so much whining and blaming other people for your problems. I'm pretty optimistic. We have lots of problems but a very competent guy in office. And due to the distribution of wealth issues, we have lots of wealth concentrated into very small pools of people. By bringing a tiny fraction of this wealth to bear on some of our problems, we will again rise to greatness. Despite people like Robert Hall who want to sit around and complain, there are a lot of people wanting to help and creating new ideas and new wealth. Unfortunately, Robert Hall won't be one of them.

I just read on Yahoo where the right wing folks want to question Obama's patriotism. The brain trust on the right really does wallow in the most basic of instincts. Perhaps the top part of the brain of the trust hasn't fully formed yet or perhaps it reflects a certain desperation.

The story goes on to talk about how well "Swift Boating" John Kerry worked. We did end up with W for the last 4 years. So the ends justify the means.

Personally, this is the exact thing that does make me not so proud of some folks in our country. I will admit that I am supporting Mr Obama and one of the reasons is that I hope he can raise the discusion from such drivel. People like Keith Appell, who work in this mode, will always exist in our society. But I believe they drag us down as Americans and are the most un-patriotic of all. For if they truly loved our country they would treat fellow Americans with more respect. Although there is much to be proud about in our country, there will probably always be some things to be embarrassed about as well. And Keith, you embarrass me as an American.

Bless me father for I have sinned, its been over a year since my last blog. God it feels good to get that off my chest.

I have been pondering just what is the difference between liberals and conservatives. I mean, I have found smart people from both sides of the thought divide and have given great thought to what lets smart folks come to very different conclusions on things. From this I have distilled out 3 major properties (or ways of thinking) that define if one is conservative or liberal. Drum roll please:

1) Width of concern. What I mean by this is how important broad issues are to a person and where they put their focus. If one is heavily focused on self and family, and less on issues further from this field they tend to be more conservative.

Put another way, liberals tend to think in terms of the broader group and conservatives more about the individual.

As an example, take the death/estate tax. A conservative looks at this tax and asks how it is fair. The individual made lots of money, why can't he pass it to his family. A liberal looks at the same issue in the context of how it affects society as a whole. He will point out that rich families, passing down billions of dollars for generations can create ruling classes free to buy whatever laws they like. That the lack of an estate/death tax would damage society as a whole, and not give much weight to the unfairness to the individual

Both of these points of view are quite valid. The liberal point of view is just wider than the conservatives.

2) Weighting of Luck. By this I mean how much effect one thinks luck plays in life's outcomes. Liberals tend to believe that a persons lot in life is affected by many things such as hard work, cleverness etc. but they also put weight on luck. Conservatives not so much. For conservatives, luck only plays a minor role, far over ridden by personal achievements.

As an example, a homeless person on the street seen by the liberal elicits pity as luck has obviously not been with this person. For the conservative, the person needs to buckle down and get a job. (These are stereotypes of course but meant as an example).

Its hard to know how much luck actually plays into a given situation, but it does seem to be an apparent difference in the thought patterns between the two groups.

3) Ease of Forming a Loyalty Mindset. This one is difficult to describe but seems to be a difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, I have observed, seem to form loyalties easier than liberals.

As an example of this, conservative seem far more loyal to their sports teams then liberals. Liberals may love sports, but the die hard loyalty willing to fight over a particular team is more likely to be present in a person with a conservative leaning.

As another example, when Rush Limbaugh was caught abusing drugs, his following still remained loyal, even with the fact that it presented a clear ambiguity with what Rush had previously discussed on his show. Yet Rush's audience really has no personal experience with Rush, expect for listening to his show. They feel a loyalty to Rush as they are part of his group. Its interesting that there really aren't any good examples of liberal talk shows, which I believe is an example of this property in action.

For liberals, loyalty seems to require more interaction than just being a member of a group. Gaining loyalty requires personal interaction and the building of trust. Liberals need this interaction to actually become loyal.

Becoming loyal easier may have many benefits and either way of thinking is just as reasonable.

Thats it. I am sure there are more properties but these are what I have so far. The other side of this coin is how much conservatives and liberals have in common in their thought patterns. We seem to focus on the differences (as these are the most easily exploited for election purposes), but the two sides actually do care very much about many of the same things.

Thanks for listening, and let me know if you have some thoughts on this as well.

My First Post:

Whew, I think I should have taken myself out to dinner or something before just going ahead and posting like this. I mean, this is my first time and all. A little wine perhaps to loosen myself up. A little romantic music maybe. Hey, this is the Zeros so I think not. I think Ill just push myself into this. Ahem.

I figured I would first comment on traffic lights as that was what was plaguing me today. I am sure they were a great idea when they were first invented in 1910 or so (by one Earnest Sirrine who did patent this wonderful idea). I mean in 1910 there were a few thousand autos in the whole world, rather than the 14 billion that were on Torrance Avenue alone this afternoon. Apparently traffic engineers (hell of a term, traffic engineers but I guess it makes sense as they have indeed engineered traffic), time the lights so that you hit each one red just as you are approaching it. This has the effect of making you want to open your car door, and allow your head to be dragged down the pavement just to distract you from the utterly senseless waste of your time you are experiencing.

Little boxes on metal poles that turn yellow, then red just as you believe you will make it through one green. It is as though there are little folks in towers watching your car proceed down the avenue and they the press magic buttons to change the lights to red as you close in on one. You can imagine a whole room of these "traffic engineers" drinking and laughing as they identify a car (usually mine) and then proceed to see just how much a single individual can take. This could be a good job as it would be a government job (good retirement) and would wield awesome power. And the entertainment derived from doing your "job" would probably be quite satisfying. Any car you don't like (large SUVs, Old Toyotas, Volvos) could be selected and then screwed with until you feel good about yourself. And, you would be getting paid. Yes, maybe one of the best jobs on the planet (as long as you didn't have to drive too far to get to your assigned monitoring tower).

And that's really the secret to life isn't it? Finding a great job.

You don't want to be one of those people who don't like their jobs. You know the type. You see them every day. Sometimes you expect it; Like the garbage man who's a tad on the cranky side when its 120 out and dumpsters are at their peak in ripeness. You almost expect it when he tears the handle off your garbage can. Or the plumber when you show him your backed up toilet that has been that way for 3 days since the all you can eat Mexican buffet. In situations like that you somewhat expect a sour attitude. It is the reason you put off calling the plumber in the first place. But after several days of applying ever greater quantities of Liquid Plumber you are eventually forced to call one of those numbers listed in the yellow pages with a red lightning bolt with the words "radio dispatched" on it and the picture of the smiling, happy plumber dressed in spotless whites. When he shows up and you walk him down the hall, the smell increasing with each step finally arriving at the now horrific swirling mass of refried beans (or at least it looks like refried beans), you don't expect him to be in a good mood. It would worry you if he suddenly smiled and told you how much he loves his job and how clogged toilets, is his specialty. No, his reaction, calming muttering "Damn it Damn it" under his breath is what is reasonable in that situation.

But there are many people who don't like their jobs and sometimes its totally unexpected. What is so hard about working at the DMV? Why do these folks seem so cranky? You ask if your form is filled out correctly or if you have waited for the last 4 hours of your life in the right line and you distinctly hear them mutter "Damn it Damn it", as they point you to some other line. But could it be that these people actually are enjoying what they do and it is in the torturing of the public that inwardly puts the smile on their faces?

Maybe it is a grand plot by the government to get you to not use the DMV facilities. It certainly works for me as I do indeed avoid the DMV.

But what of the "Traffic Engineers" and traffic lights. Are they to discourage us from driving and perhaps encourage the use of more enlightened means of transportation such as.... ah... walking since there isn't much in the way of public transportation. Hmmmm.

Or maybe it is just the alcoholic beverage companies behind the scenes. Abuse the people and they will want to drink and drink heavily. Yes, it all makes sense. Let me get that glass of wine I should have had before I started this post.