Black History Month

Since 1976, every February 1st kicks off a 28 day celebration and remembrance of the achievements and journey of African Americans. The history of the month goes back to 1926 when Carter G. Woodson chose February and more importantly the second week of the month because it was around the same time as the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass; two important figures in the lives of African Americans.

Each year, more and more history is exposed because there have been several black individuals who have shaped American History and this nation from its early years to today. One of the key times that is remembered especially each February is the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and 1960s.

We saw protests and civil disobedience take place because certain individuals decided it was time to be brave and draw a line in the sand. There were several injustices taking place especially in the South. During a roughly 15 year span, changes began to occur in recognition and legislation. For much of the time from Reconstruction to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, blacks would fight to continue the progress made by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. But, they were met with backlash and much violence. The Jim Crow South was tough to break. We saw racial segregation, disfranchisement, exploitation, and violence as part of the times that blacks lived in.

However, in 1954; we began to see a wave a change occurring. In May 1954, the United States Supreme Court would rule in the Brown v. Board of Education decision. With the decision, not only would the Topeka, KS school in question be desegregated, but it would set a precedent for education and racial equality. The next year, in December; Rosa Parks would refuse to give up her seat on a Montgomery, AL bus. Her act of disobedience led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. After a little more than a year, the ordinance on bus segregation was lifted. Then in 1957, we would see schools and segregation come up again; this time in Little Rock, AR. Nine African American students were denied access to Central High by Governor Orval Faubus. President Eisenhower sent the National Guard, but the South would fight against letting integrated schools become part of their lives.

As the 1960s began, problems still persisted and sit-ins were a popular method of expression. Four students staged a sit-in at a lunch counter at a Woolworth's store in North Carolina. This sit-in would trigger more sit-ins across Southern states. In 1961, freedom rides would become popular. Freedom rides were bus tours through the South led by Civil Rights activists. Their travels took them through much of the Deep South and violence broke out on multiple occasions. As part of the next step for many of these activists; they looked to get as many African Americans registered to vote to increase their voices. Then in 1964, the Civil Rights Act would pass to protect African Americans and increase their rights. The next year, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law and finally gave blacks all the rights necessary to exercise their voice through the power of voting.

Education initiatives continued during the 1960s with James Meredith looking to become the first black student at the University of Mississippi and the Albany movement. Albany would lead to Birmingham and Martin Luther King being the lead voice and example as he chose to willingly be jailed to prove his point. The now famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was written during his stay there. Later in 1963, the March on Washington occurred with King giving his "I Have A Dream Speech" on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28th.

As 1963 came to a close and 1964 began, the scene of the civil rights movement returned to the South with the St. Augustine Movement, where more violence occurred. King would be arrested again there and coin another letter. In March 1965, a march was planned from Selma, AL to the state's capital, Montgomery. As they approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma to continue along their way, the marchers were attacked by law enforcement officials. Three more marches were attempted that month. The scenes became televised attention.

One of the most important figures in the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr was gunned down on April 4, 1968 while in Memphis, TN.

Throughout the the better part of two decades, we would see progress and sit-ins. A fight to prevent racial changes and violence. Legislation and landmark occasions. And all these are just part of the overall narrative of African American history. This short period only covers a handful of the key figures in African American and U.S. History. This only paints part of the picture. Go to the library. Search the internet. You will discover interesting and captivating individuals. You will discover several events that are part of the evolution of this country.

Some might say that we do not need this month. But I disagree. It is not some way to pay them back for all the years of slavery. It is not some peace chip. The events of the African American community and their achievements and struggles are worth recognizing and studying for years to come. A month is a fitting way to celebrate that. I doubt many of opponents of it hardly notice the month's activities anyway. They are the ones that the month is especially important for; they might represent ideologies that were part of the culture 40, 50, or 100 years ago.

So, as another black history month concludes; lest us remember.

Elbridge Gerry...the man who gave us Gerrymandering

Every ten years, there is a census. After that census, districts are redrawn and population totals are tabulated. Depending on that population, a state might gain or lose state representatives. 200 years ago a political tactic was born using redistricting.

Elbridge Gerry was the Governor of Massachusetts and he signed an unusual redistricting law that would help his party stay in power and thus begin the technique and strategy of gerrymandering. The term came from Gerry's last name and salamander because the redistricting was salamander-like. Gerry came to power in 1810 and two years later the redistricting bill was signed allowing greater and unequal Republican representation in the state legislature. His political maneuver has been utilized many times since by incumbent parties who pack voters who oppose them into districts that they viewed already lost to minimize the opposing parties' influence across the state.

Essentially the goal of gerrymandering is block out new faces to the political arena and almost script outcomes to the point where voters and their will is ignored if it goes against the one party's chosen candidate. One of the latest examples and uses of this was in the early 2000s when a congressional map in Texas was redrawn. The Supreme Court even found the move acceptable by the House Republicans. The redistricting aided the Republicans defeat four Democratic congressmen in 2004. The Court did rule that the plan implemented by the U.S. House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, at the time weakened the voting strength of Latinos in two districts. Naturally, Latinos are more inclined to vote for a Democratic nominee so DeLay strategy was wise for his party. In the opinion of the Supreme Court is what mentioned that members of any racial group cannot be targeted in a state and denied rights through a measure like this. District 23, which was affected, was redrawn.

There were some worries this year regarding who President Obama would appoint as his nominee to head the Commerce Department, who is in charge of the census every ten years. If he were to nominate someone on the Republican side, then that would open the door for discrimination against minorities. Naturally, certain Republican members in Congress found something to gripe about. They did not the President likewise doing anything that tilted things in the Democrats favor. When it comes to gathering census data, both parties have difference of how it should be done. Each method they favor would be more in line with getting outcomes they want.

I doubt anyone in 1812 would have predicted that the creation of a Massachusetts governor would still be implemented 200 years later. Elbridge Gerry did many things as an early founder of the United States. He served in various capacities, but as long as history books are written his name will forever be linked to gerrymandering. And every time we see redistricting come up, he is the first person many think of.

To the Top of the Health Care Summit

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/blogging-the-health-care-summit/?hp

After much anticipation the Health Care Summit finally took place today at the Blair House. The President and Vice President were there alongside senior leadership from both parties in the Senate and the House as well as several members of both caucuses. What began as a simple talk on the topic of health care became a marathon meeting that lasted into the evening. Here is a look back at it and what to take away.

To begin the summit, President Obama opened things up with comments and statements on health care and the economy and how they are intertwined in the fact that they have an affect on individuals and families. To give things a personal feel, he mentioned wondering what life would have been like if he wasn’t an elected official with great health insurance when both of his daughters were very sick when they were young. This is a constant problem that average families face without the assurance of reliable health coverage. Continuing, the President stressed that there are common areas in both parties’ proposals for health care reform despite some major differences that do exist. Obama laid things out as such: “The basic concept is that we would set up an exchange, meaning a place where individuals and small businesses could go and get choice and competition for private health care plans, the same way that members of Congress get choice and competition for their health care plans,” he said. “For people who couldn’t afford it, we would provide some subsidies. But because the pool is larger, the costs we would be smaller, because they would be in a position to negotiate.”

To begin the discussions, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee gave opening remarks for the Republicans. Senator Alexander stated more of the same of the GOP argument in terms of starting from scratch. Alexander warned against tax increases and spending cuts on Medicare and criticized a possible expansion of Medicaid as it would add too many people to the program. Senator Alexander also spoke out against the possible use of reconciliation by the Democrats. He continued to plug the opposition to the bill. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, responded to these comments with his opinion and disputed some of what Senator Alexander said especially when it came to jamming through a bill with reconciliation as the only option the Democrats have on the table. He also brought up the fact that reconciliation has been used many times in the last 30 years; mostly by the Republicans.

President Obama and Senator Alexander then got in an exchange over what the Congressional Budget Office reported about premiums. Alexander claimed that they would rise in the individual market under the Democratic plan. Obama responded stating that the cost for families for the same coverage that they currently have would decrease by 14 to 20 percent. President Obama mentioned that he and the Democrats have acted upon implementing every cost containing measure to reduce health care costs. He acknowledged that Republican ideas are being discussed and could be added. The President also challenged Republicans to freely discuss their ideas and see what could be included in the proposed legislation.

Next to speak was Senator Tom Coburn. His case centered around the argument that Congress should focus on attacking waste and fraud and abuses in the health care system. Obama responded to Coburn’s statements with a reference to his argument being addressed in terms of addressing the waste, fraud, and abuse in health care.

President Obama returned the debate to framing the arguments as they should; not be a Democrats vs Republicans/Washington vs American families. In particular, Senator Kyl was called out by the President for his empty statements. Areas that Obama felt the two sides agreed on: allowing parents to continue dependent coverage of their adult children through the age of 25 or 26, barring insurance companies from suddenly revoking coverage through a process called “recission”, and barring insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and ending annual and lifetime caps on benefits. By focusing on these agreements, Obama was trying to reason with the Republican Party that there is mutual interest to go ahead with reform.

This was followed by Congressman George Miller of California giving an example of how private insurance companies deny coverage; referencing pre-existing conditions. He further stated that under the current conditions he would be denied care as he has pre-existing conditions himself with two artificial hips, a kidney stone, and arthritis. In addition, he provided this as example against the high risk insurance pool that many Republicans have embraced. Congressman Miller was followed by Senator John McCain, who turned the clock back to 2008 and took a swing at Obama’s promise to change Washington. He criticized the special deals and multiple meetings along the way to this point. The President, not to sit there and let McCain throw mud at him, he returned with a simple statement including “The election is over.” This caused a nervous reaction from McCain. Vice President Joe Biden jumped into the conversation next quickly taking a dig at Republicans in regard to the fact they support multiple initiatives that the government would fix, but then state the government has no role to play and Washington should not get involved.

They would take a recess before restarting an hour later, but the President stopped before exiting for the break to describe that he thought a lot of good ideas and discussion were taking place. In addition, he highlighted strengths of the Democrats and weaknesses of the Republicans in terms of certain arguments.

Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming talked first after the break about things he thought should be in the bill. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia paints a picture of the insurers as sharks who wait to get their prey when they least expect when it comes to denying coverage. Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin came in next to criticize the Democrats from ignoring what clearly the American public wants and it is not a government takeover of healthcare. This would be followed by a short debate between President Obama and Senator McCain about Medicare Advantage especially pertaining to a state like Florida with a high elderly population and ensuring they are taken care of. The biggest issue though for McCain is he represents a state, Arizona, which also has a good size older population and criticized the fact that Floridians were given a special deal. Obama acknowledged that it needed to addressed and fixed.

Minority Leader John Boehner threw in a random scrap the bill statement to ensure that the Republicans were staying on their message of the day. But he would then turn to some actual debate with regard to the abortion part of the bill. He brought up the Stupak amendment in particular, which got much attention in the U.S. House. Senator McCain took over again and spoke about various medical malpractice lawsuits goading the President to remark about the Republicans picking and choosing when it is a good idea for the government to get involved. In response, Senator Dick Durbin pleas with the group to not make medical malpractice a major issue at hand. Granted it is important, but not the chief concern they should focus on.

Next Congressman Peter Roskam from Illinois uses the term “bread crumbs” to refer the Republican amendments “sprinkled” into the bill. Roskam is followed by Senator Christopher Dodd who highlighted how the uninsured subsequently affect the insured. Using statistics he spoke of roughly 14,000 citizens potentially losing their insurance on a daily basis and roughly 6 out of every 8 people will lose their lives because they let themselves become sicker without insurance or financial capabilities. Continuing, he projected that every state will have 10% more uninsured. Senator Mitch McConnell came up next reverting to the talking point of starting over. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi followed and targeted Congressman Boehner among others for false claims they had made. In particular, the fact there would be no cuts to benefits for elderly.

President Obama looks to draw the summit to a close. Obama outlines the agreed changes and reforms that both parties seem to see eye to eye on. The President, then, states that this debate cannot keep going this way and deadlines will set and matched. Acknowledging that this debate has gone on for several decades and if necessary the proper moves will be used (i.e. reconciliation and a simple Democratic majority vote).

After a day of back and forth debate, one thing is clear: there is still no true agreement. Democrats want this bill and reform and Republicans want certain things, but not this bill and want a full restart. The 2,000+ page bill was in front of multiple members on the Republican side and they referenced to its size more than once and used as a prop despite their claims they were not. President Obama took up the most time and rightfully so he looked to dissect each statement a Republican made to highlight to most importantly the American public the need and importance of the health care legislation. I cannot see things changing too much after today and it looks like before Easter reconciliation will have to be used and this bill will become a reality for those on the Democratic side of the aisle. Time will see what Republicans do, but today showed they are still firm in their opinions; whether right or wrong.

The Atlantic's 100 Most Influential Figures in American History

Anytime one compiles a list, there is always debate. How does one person outrank another person? These debates occur with U.S. Presidents among historians. They occur each year with sports teams and MVP races. They can be seen in the world of fantasy sports and simply when one creates a to do list and how they prioritize their objectives. With all that mind, the Atlantic a little while back took a look at over 200 years of American history and compiled their own list. To provide as many worth names as possible, they made this a top 100. Here is that list:

100) Herman Melville (1819-1891): Moby Dick was a flop at the time, but Melville is remembered as the American Shakespeare.
99) Richard Nixon (1913-1994): He broke the New Deal majority, and then broke his presidency on a scandal that still haunts America.
98) Booker T. Washington (1856-1915): As an educator and a champion of self-help, he tried to lead black America up from slavery.
97) Stephen Foster (1826-1864): America’s first great songwriter, he brought us “O! Susanna” and “My Old Kentucky Home.”
96) Ralph Nader (1934-): He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.
95) Sam Goldwyn (1879-1974): A producer for forty years, he was the first great Hollywood mogul.
94) George Eastman (1854-1932): The founder of Kodak democratized photography with his handy rolls of film.
93) Nat Turner (1800-1831): He was the most successful rebel slave; his specter would stalk the white South for a century.
92) John Steinbeck (1902-1968): As the creator of Tom Joad, he chronicled Depression-era misery.
91) Lyman Beecher (1775-1863): Harriet Beecher Stowe’s clergyman father earned fame as an abolitionist and an evangelist.
90) Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758): Forget the fire and brimstone: his subtle eloquence made him the country’s most influential theologian.
89) Walter Lippmann (1889-1974): The last man who could swing an election with a newspaper column.
88) Enrico Fermi (1901-1954): A giant of physics, he helped develop quantum theory and was instrumental in building the atomic bomb.
87) Benjamin Spock (1903-1998): With a single book—and a singular approach—he changed American parenting.
86) Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910): She got off her sickbed and founded Christian Science, which promised spiritual healing to all.
85) Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961): His spare style defined American modernism, and his life made machismo a cliché.
84) Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993): As a lawyer and a Supreme Court justice, he was the legal architect of the civil-rights revolution.
83) James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851): The novels are unreadable, but he was the first great mythologizer of the frontier.
82) George Gallup (1901-1984): He asked Americans what they thought, and the politicians listened.
81) Margaret Mead (1901-1978): With Coming of Age in Samoa, she made anthropology relevant—and controversial.
80) William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951): The press baron who perfected yellow journalism and helped start the Spanish-American War.
79) Louis Armstrong (1901-1971): His talent and charisma took jazz from the cathouses of Storyville to Broadway, television, and beyond.
78) John Brown (1800-1859): Whether a hero, a fanatic, or both, he provided the spark for the Civil War.
77) Betty Friedan (1921-2006): She spoke to the discontent of housewives everywhere—and inspired a revolution in gender roles.
76) Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959): America’s most significant architect, he was the archetype of the visionary artist at odds with capitalism.
75) George Herman "Babe" Ruth (1895-1948): He saved the national pastime in the wake of the Black Sox scandal—and permanently linked sports and celebrity.
74) Brigham Young (1801-1877): What Joseph Smith founded, Young preserved, leading the Mormons to their promised land.
73) Cyrus McCormick (1809-1884): His mechanical reaper spelled the end of traditional farming, and the beginning of industrial agriculture.
72) Sam Walton (1918-1992): He promised us “Every Day Low Prices,” and we took him up on the offer
71) Noah Webster (1758-1843): He didn’t create American English, but his dictionary defined it.
70) Lewis and Clark (1774-1809; 1770-1838): They went west to explore, and millions followed in their wake.
69) James Gordon Bennett (1795-1872): As the founding publisher of The New York Herald, he invented the modern American newspaper.
68) James D. Watson (1928-): He codiscovered DNA’s double helix, revealing the code of life to scientists and entrepreneurs alike.
67) P.T. Barnum (1810-1891): The circus impresario’s taste for spectacle paved the way for blockbuster movies and reality TV.
66) Elvis Presley (1935-1977): The king of rock and roll. Enough said.
65) Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862): The original American dropout, he has inspired seekers of authenticity for 150 years.
64) Jane Addams (1860-1935): The founder of Hull House, she became the secular saint of social work.
63) George Marshall (1880-1959): As a general, he organized the American effort in World War II; as a statesman, he rebuilt Western Europe.
62) William James (1842-1910): The mind behind Pragmatism, America’s most important philosophical school.
61) Samuel Gompers (1850-1924): The country’s greatest labor organizer, he made the golden age of unions possible.
60) William Faulkner (1897-1962): The most gifted chronicler of America’s tormented and fascinating South.
59) Louis Sullivan (1856-1924): The father of architectural modernism, he shaped the defining American building: the skyscraper.
58) John C. Calhoun (1782-1850): The voice of the antebellum South, he was slavery’s most ardent defender.
57) Robert E. Lee (1807-1870): He was a good general but a better symbol, embodying conciliation in defeat.
56) Horace Mann (1796-1859): His tireless advocacy of universal public schooling earned him the title “The Father of American Education.”
55) John Quincy Adams (1767-1848): The Monroe Doctrine’s real author, he set nineteenth-century America’s diplomatic course.
54) Bill Gates (1955-): The Rockefeller of the Information Age, in business and philanthropy alike.
53) Oliver Wendell Holmes (1831-1935): Known as “The Great Dissenter,” he wrote Supreme Court opinions that continue to shape American jurisprudence.
52) Joesph Smith (1805-1844): The founder of Mormonism, America’s most famous homegrown faith.
51) Margaret Sanger (1879-1966): The ardent champion of birth control—and of the sexual freedom that came with it.
50) James K. Polk (1795-1849): This one-term president’s Mexican War landgrab gave us California, Texas, and the Southwest.
49) Frederick Law Olmsted (1822-1903): The genius behind New York’s Central Park, he inspired the greening of America’s cities.
48) Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967): The father of the atomic bomb and the regretful midwife of the nuclear era.
47) Frederick Douglas (1817-1895): After escaping from slavery, he pricked the nation’s conscience with an eloquent accounting of its crimes.
46) William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879): Through his newspaper, The Liberator, he became the voice of abolition.
45) Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): Before the Internet, there was Morse code.
44) Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973): His brilliance gave us civil-rights laws; his stubbornness gave us Vietnam.
43) W.E.B. DuBois (1888-1963): One of America’s great intellectuals, he made the “problem of the color line” his life’s work.
42) Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962): She used the first lady’s office and the mass media to become “first lady of the world.”
41) Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896): Her Uncle Tom’s Cabin inspired a generation of abolitionists and set the stage for civil war.
40) John Dewey (1859-1952): He sought to make the public school a training ground for democratic life.
39) Rachel Carson (1907-1964): The author of Silent Spring was godmother to the environmental movement.
38) Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906): She was the country’s most eloquent voice for women’s equality under the law.
37) J.P. Morgan (1837-1913): The great financier and banker was the prototype for all the Wall Street barons who followed.
36) William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925): “The Great Commoner” lost three presidential elections, but his populism transformed the country.
35) Jackie Robinson (1919-1972): He broke baseball’s color barrier and embodied integration’s promise.
34) Jonas Salk (1914-1995): His vaccine for polio eradicated one of the world’s worst plagues.
33) Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): The bard of individualism, he relied on himself—and told us all to do the same.
32) Albert Einstein (1879-1955): His greatest scientific work was done in Europe, but his humanity earned him undying fame in America.
31) Henry Clay (1777-1852): One of America’s greatest legislators and orators, he forged compromises that held off civil war for decades.
30) Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902): One of the first great American feminists, she fought for social reform and women’s right to vote.
29) Earl Warren (1891-1974): His Supreme Court transformed American society and bequeathed to us the culture wars.
28) Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969): He won a war and two elections, and made everybody like Ike.
27) Eli Whitney (1765-1825): His gin made cotton king and sustained an empire for slavery. 26) Walt Disney (1901-1966): The quintessential entertainer-entrepreneur, he wielded unmatched influence over our childhood.
25) John Adams (1735-1826): His leadership made the American Revolution possible; his devotion to republicanism made it succeed.
24) Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922): By inventing the telephone, he opened the age of telecommunications and shrank the world.
23) Orville Wright (1871-1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867-1912): They got us all off the ground.
22) Walt Whitman (1819-1892): He sang of America and shaped the country’s conception of itself.
21) Harry Truman (1884-1972): An accidental president, this machine politician ushered in the Atomic Age and then the Cold War.
20) Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919): The original self-made man forged America’s industrial might and became one of the nation’s greatest philanthropists.
19) Thomas Paine (1737-1809): The voice of the American Revolution, and our first great radical.
18) Andrew Jackson (1767-1845): The first great populist: he found America a republic and left it a democracy.
17) Ronald Reagan (1911-2004): The amiable architect of both the conservative realignment and the Cold War’s end.
16) Mark Twain (1835-1910): Author of our national epic, he was the most unsentimental observer of our national life.
15) Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919): Whether busting trusts or building canals, he embodied the “strenuous life” and blazed a trail for twentieth-century America.
14) Henry Ford (1863-1947): He gave us the assembly line and the Model T, and sparked America’s love affair with the automobile.
13) James Madison (1751-1836): He fathered the Constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights.
12) Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885): He was a poor president, but he was the general Lincoln needed; he also wrote the greatest political memoir in American history.
11) John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937): The man behind Standard Oil set the mold for our tycoons—first by making money, then by giving it away.
10) Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924): He made the world safe for U.S. interventionism, if not for democracy.
9) Thomas Edison (1847-1931): It wasn’t just the lightbulb; the Wizard of Menlo Park was the most prolific inventor in American history.
8) Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968): His dream of racial equality is still elusive, but no one did more to make it real.
7) John Marshall (1755-1835): The defining chief justice, he established the Supreme Court as the equal of the other two federal branches.
6) Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790): The Founder-of-all-trades— scientist, printer, writer, diplomat, inventor, and more; like his country, he contained multitudes.
5) Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804): Soldier, banker, and political scientist, he set in motion an agrarian nation’s transformation into an industrial power.
4) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1845): He said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” and then he proved it.
3) Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826): The author of the five most important words in American history: “All men are created equal.”
2) George Washington (1732-1799): He made the United States possible—not only by defeating a king, but by declining to become one himself.
1) Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): He saved the Union, freed the slaves, and presided over America’s second founding.

Obama and the Health Care Step

We are close to the end of the long road to health care reform. This Thursday, President Obama plans to have a health care summit featuring members of both parties including the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader as well as Vice President Biden. This debate has at times become toxic and often gone on a tangent with extreme viewpoints and misinformation.

Last summer, President Obama took a bit of different approach then President Clinton did early in his first term when he tried to tackle the health care problem. Obama put much of the debate and focus in the hands of members of Congress. He loss control of his message and his agenda as partisanship and politics got in the way of proper debate. Early last fall, the president was able to recalibrate the issue a bit by outlining the necessity for health care reform and many of his viewpoints. Things still did not speed up, but by Christmas and the end of 2009; we saw both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate vote in favor of the health care reform bill. Even with those votes, the narrative and journey was not over as the U.S. House needed to vote on changes made by the U.S. Senate version. Reconciliation became the word of choice on many talking points lists for much of the early part of 2010. Now the debate returns to the West Wing in preparation for the big summit on Thursday, which is viewed by Democrats as a way to seal the deal on this debate and paint the picture for the American public on where both parties stand on the issue.

Today, President Obama released what is estimated at $950 billion health care reform proposal. Obama's plan is viewed as a way of hopefully pleasing both sides of the aisle and getting more of the public on board. As part of his plan, there is no mention of the public option. The public option is a major part of what liberals want to see, but lacks the potential to get even one conservative vote and more importantly; several moderate votes. The plan is also going to be key going into Thursday because Republicans will know what Obama wants from this legislation and they presumably will come to the meeting with counter thoughts or immediate points. Obama's plan can be viewed as a compromise to please all types of politicians in his party. There is a scale back on "Cadillac" insurance plans and an absence of the previously mentioned public option.

As a way of showing his effort to reach across the aisle, also included are items on cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. Additionally, it would delay implementation of taxes on various parts of the health care sector to 2018. The proposal addresses the "donut hole" for Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries and lays out the legal requirement for Americans to own insurance while lowering some fees included in delaying getting coverage, but still putting pressure on businesses to insure their employees.

However, Republicans continue to lock in step to show any willingness to accept ideas being outlined. They continue to see this legislation as more of the same and continue to harp on their case for a clean slate or so it seems; to just stop.

Notably not in this proposal are the "Cornhusker Kickback" or the "Louisiana Purchase". Both drew much criticism especially from members of the GOP.

This proposal is certainly not the end result, but adds to this week's summit. Republicans will need to come to the debate on Thursday with reasonable solutions as their plan; if they have one, is centered upon covering a vastly smaller number of the uninsured then the two bills voted on in Congress and this proposal. The heat will build going into Thursday, but for now...this is just another step on this journey.

Presidential Deaths Part II: Assassinations

In the first part, I looked into "The Curse" that has claimed a president's life every 20 years from 1840 to 1960. There are rumors and speculation around whether Tecumseh or the Prophet cursed William Henry Harrison, the man who killed Tecumseh and several Native Americans in the Battle of Tippecanoe. Harrison would go on to become the 9th President of United States and trigger the start of "The Curse".

What does not involve any speculation and is 100% truth is the fact that several presidents have been targets of assassination attempts. There have been roughly 20 presidents who have had attempts on their lives over the years beginning with Andrew Jackson through Barack Obama. Though, there have been many attempts; only four attempts led to the demise of a president. Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James A. Garfield in 1881, William McKinley in 1901, and John F. Kennedy in 1963 would have their lives claimed by an assassin.

Now to journey down a dark path in presidential history.

Andrew Jackson came into office in 1829 and had a history of being a tough guy. He was the hero of the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Needless to say, Jackson drew his fair share of enemies. On January 30, 1835, one enemy would target him. Richard Lawrence was a painter and from years of being in that profession he might have been overexposed to chemicals leading to a bit of derangement. As he began to lose his mind, he blamed Jackson for many of his problems from his unemployment to his father's death. On that January day, Jackson was attending a funeral and when Lawrence saw his opening; he fired his first pistol at Jackson's back and then his second pistol. Both shots were misfires. In Jackson's style, he assisted in taking down Lawrence and even got in a few hits with his cane. Lawrence was brought to trial, where he was charged not guilty under the reason of insanity. Lawrence would then be placed in a mental institution for the next 26 years until his death in 1861. This assassination attempt would be the first and begin a trend of speculation around the assassins motifs. Jackson did have many enemies and one might have sent Lawrence after him.

The next attempt would come in 1861 ironically. Before John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln was targeted not once, but twice. He came into office at the dawn of the Civil War and his election was a factor in the South seceding. That hatred did not take four years to build, but a few weeks. On February 23, 1861, there was an alleged plot to assassinate Lincoln in Baltimore, MD en route to Washington, DC for his inauguration. Allen Pinkerton, the founder of Pinkerton National Detective Agency, played a key role in monitoring Lincoln's safe route to D.C. The plot is still up for debate by many, yet Lincoln was safely guided in Washington without anyone knowing in case there was an actual plot to assassinate him. Three years later in August 1864, there would be another attempt on Lincoln's life. While at the Soldiers' Home north of the White House, a shot was fired that caused Lincoln to lose his hat. A bullet hole was found in the hat and those who were there tried to keep the incident as quiet as possible. However, the third time would be the charm for those attempting to end Lincoln's life. On April 14, 1965; Good Friday; Lincoln along with his wife and two guests went to Ford's Theatre to watch "Our American Cousin". Leading up to that night, John Wilkes Booth along with other Southern sympathizers were working on a plot to get their revenge against the North and Lincoln. Booth was a student of the theater and a well-known actor and knew the ins and outs of Fords Theatre and the play to be shown. He came earlier in the day and set up his plan. At the precise moment in the play when there is laughter, Booth slid into the President's suite and fired a shot to back of Lincoln's dead. Booth would escape through the back of the theater while Lincoln would be brought across the street where he succumbed to the wound early the next day. Booth would be tracked down and shot later that month by Sergeant Boston Corbett. Booth would be the first successful attempt at claiming a president's life. He would not be the last.

It would be 16 years later when another attempt would be made. James A. Garfield was elected the 20th U.S. President in November 1880. Charles Guiteau was an ambitious job seeker and would constantly roam Washington D.C. and make frequent visits to the White House in 1881. All of his attempts were shot down and that would lead to anger and instability for someone who was not in the best mindset before his job venture. On July 2, 1881, Garfield was about to take a train trip when Guiteau shot him. Garfield would linger on throughout the summer and eventually succumb to infections on September 19, 1881. Guiteau was found guilty of the crime and was hanged on June 30, 1882.

The next strike would come in 1901 with William McKinley. McKinley was in Buffalo, NY for the Pan-American Exposition when Leon Czolgosz would shoot him twice on September 6, 1901. Czolgosz was an anarchist and like previous assassins/would-be assassins; he was not all there. McKinley would die eight days later. Czolgosz would be convicted and and sentenced to death by electrocution on October 29th.

Ironically, the man who took over for McKinley; Theodore Roosevelt; would be the next target of an assassin. However, it would come while Roosevelt was running for president in 1912 after he left office. While campaigning on October 13, 1912, Roosevelt was shot in Milwaukee, WI by John F. Schrank. Living up to his tough persona, he not only survived the shot, but went on to continue his planned speech. Roosevelt would go to the hospital, but not have the bullet removed because he remembered what happened to McKinley when he had an operation. Schrank was another mentality insane individual who was summoned by McKinley's ghost to avenge his death. He would institutionalized until his death in 1943.

Another Roosevelt would draw the ire of an assassin in 1933. While in Miami, FL on February 15, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt was shot at five times by Giuseppe Zangara. Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak did not escape unscathed like FDR and four others. Zangara was found guilty and executed on March 20, 1933. Some feel that Cermak not FDR was the actual target.

The man who followed FDR, Harry S. Truman would become the next target. In 1950, Puerto Rico was not in the best state of affairs with massacres and problems and two pro-independence activists set out to gain attention for their nation. Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola came up with a plan to assassinate Truman on November 1st. What would happen would be possibly the craziest event in presidential assassination history. At the time, the White House was being refurbished and Truman was over at Blair House. While Truman was inside, a violent gun battle ensued between the two men and the Secret Service outside. Truman never stepped outside or was involved at all. However, one policeman; Leslie Coffelt; was mortally wounded. Before he died, though, Coffelt killed Torresola. Collazo survived and was later pardoned by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.

There is a long comparative between presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Another that is hardly if ever mentioned is the fact that they had more than one attempt on their lives. Before taking office, Kennedy was in Palm Beach Florida when on December 11, 1960; he became a target of an assassin. Richard Paul Pavlick was a former postal worker, who intended on crashing his 1950 Buick into Kennedy's vehicle in a suicide bomb attack. Pavlick's vehicle was covered with dynamite. However, like an assassin associated with John Wilkes Booth's plot a century earlier, Pavlick changed his mind when he saw Kennedy with his family. He would be arrested a few days later when he was pulled over and the dynamite was discovered. He was spend the next six years in between prisons and mental institutions before his release. However, almost three years later, another assassin would target Kennedy and he would not hold back. Kennedy was in Dallas, TX in November 1963 preparing for his reelection campaign while touring Texas. On November 22, 1963, he was fatally wounded by a sniper's bullet while going through Dealey Plaza. Lee Harvey Oswald would be arrested not much later; however he did not live much longer as he too was fatally shot while being taken to the Dallas County Jail on November 24, 1963 by Jack Ruby. After nearly a year, the Warren Commission would link Oswald to the shooting, but there still remains doubt if Oswald acted alone and if he was set up by someone or someones.

The man who Kennedy defeated in 1960; Richard Nixon; would become the next target. On February 22, 1974, Samuel Byck had planned to assassinate Nixon by hijacking an airplane and flying it into the White House. When he got on the plane, he became inpatient and shot the pilot and copilot before takeoff before he was shot.

Gerald Ford was not in office long, but had more assassination attempts than almost everyone before him. The first attempt would come on September 5, 1975 when one of Charles Manson's followers, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme would tried to shoot Ford while reaching for a handshake. The firing chamber was empty and Fromme would be restrained and sentenced to a life in prison. She was released last summer on August 14, 2009. It would not be long before another attempt occurred. While in San Francisco, CA on September 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore fired at Ford from close range. A bystander, Oliver Sipple, saw what was happening and knocked into Moore causing her to miss. She would be sentenced to life in prison and paroled on December 31, 2007 after 30 years in prison. The third and last attempt on Ford's life came on July 27, 1976 by Chester Plumber. Plumber, a D.C. taxi driver, climbed the White House fence with a pipe and charged towards the White House before being fatally shot. Three attempts and three survivals. Both Fromme and Moore were paroled after Ford had died in December 2006.

Jimmy Carter followed Ford and he would be the next target. While in Los Angeles, CA on May 5, 1979, there was a plot in motion to kill Carter. Harvey would be arrested before Carter appeared and told officers that alongside Osvaldo Ortiz; they were hired to create a diversion to allow for Mexican hit men to assassinate Carter. Charges were soon dropped.

Ronald Reagan was leaving a speaking appearance in Washington, D.C. on March 30, 1981 when he was shot at by John Hinckley, Jr. Reagan and three others would be wounded in the incident. Hinckley's agenda was to impress young actress Jodie Foster. Among the men hit besides Reagan were James Brady, Tim McCarthy, and Thomas Delahanty; a cabinet member, Secret Service agent, and D.C. police officer, respectively. Brady would be disabled while Reagan would survive after surgery.

The man who came close to replacing him in 1981 after this incident would be elected in 1988 and become the next target shortly after leaving office four years later. On April 13, 1993, George H.W. Bush was in Kuwait, Iraq to speak at Kuwait University. Sixteen men had smuggled a car bomb into the city with the intent of killing Bush. These men were supposedly linked to Saddam Hussein. Their plot would be sniffed out when Kuwaiti officials discovered the bomb and arrested the men.

Bill Clinton would be the next president to draw an attack. On September 12, 1994, Frank Eugene Corder flew a Cessna into the White House lawn while trying to hit the White House. Clinton was not at the White House and only Corder would perish. The next month on October 29, 1994, Francisco Martin Duran would fire close to 30 shots at the White House thinking Clinton was one of the men outside of the White House at the time. Clinton was actually inside at the time. Three passers-by would tackle Duran and a suicide note was found and he was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The last attempt would come nearly six years after leaving the White House. In November 2006, al Qaeda operative Ramzi Yousef was said to have planned to assassinate Clinton in Manila, Philippines. Nothing ever happened and no one really knows if the plan was aborted or if there was one at all.

Many of the presidents of the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century have been targets and that included George W. Bush. On February 7, 2001, Robert Pickett shot at the White House and Bush from outside one side's fence. Pickett failed and was sentenced to three years in jail. The next potential threat came on the morning of September 11, 2001, when George W. Bush was in Longboat Key, Florida. There was a suspicious van near where he was staying, but there was never anything completely conclusive regarding the threat. Early in his second term, on May 10, 2005; he would be targeted once again. While Bush was in Tbilisi, Georgia giving a speech with the president of Georgia; Vladimir Arutyunian threw a live Soviet-made RGD-5 hand grenade towards where Bush and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili were standing. The grenade did not explode and Arutyunian would be convicted in January 2006 and given a life sentence. The final assassination attempt came on November 19, 2008 when Asa Seeley was reported to have threatened Bush's life. Seeley was spotted and arrested at a Baltimore train station with a rifle and charged with weapons offenses.

If things seemed bad before, the candidacy and election of the first major party African-American candidate only rose the bar in terms of threats. That is not a bar you ever want to see risen. Deaths threats towards Barack Obama began roughly two years before he was even president. There is no doubt a bit of racial tones behind some of the threats if not a lot of them. The first major incident occurred on July 15, 2008 when Jerry Blanchard was indicted for threatening to kill Obama while he was at a Charlotte, NC Waffle House. Blanchard was later questioned after he was turned in for his comments. He denied those comments, but did link Obama to the Antichrist. Then came word for a hotel that they heard similar things from Blanchard and was identified at a gun shop. They put him in custody for the safety of Obama. Not too much later on July 31, 2008, Raymond H. Geisel was charged with making threatening statements against Obama. Geisel, from Miami, FL, was at a bails-bonds training class and mentioned not only shooting Obama, but soon to be ex-president, Bush. Ammunition was found along with body armor and a hatchet in his hotel room. They kept Geisel in custody for the next month. One of the biggest threats came the following month in Denver, CO during the Democratic National Convention. Three men: Tharin Gartrell, Shawn Adolf, and Nathan Johnson came to Denver to kill Obama. On August 24, 2008, Gartrell was arrested after his truck was found to have weapons and narcotics in it. The other two would be arrested not long after. The men would turn on each other and authorities looked to play down the event. Another larger one occurred in Tennessee in October 2008. Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart were two white supremacists and they had planned to murder 88 African Americans in a Tennessee school. They would complete their plan with targeting Obama. The two were arrested on the October 22nd after they mentioned part of what they were doing to someone. The two were found to have guns and revealed that they were going to steal more. The same month at a Scranton, Pennsylvania Sarah Palin rally it was reported that someone yelled "Kill Him" regarding Barack Obama.

Zachary Taylor and Warren Harding were two of the four men who died in office not by an assassin, but there have been discussions regarding the potential of a poisoning of either. Those claims have been pretty much disapproved.

It goes without saying that being the President of the United States or even a candidate for the office; you have a large target from those who dislike you or would be classified as not all there. If you take most of the men and women who have threatened or taken the life of the president, their mental stability was off. They were deranged. They were angry. They were confused. They were shouting out for attention. Whatever the reason, four men did not survive. However, numerous others either dodged a literal bullet or a threat was taken serious enough early on to prevent the potential for something to happen. This along with "The Curse" are the darker sides of being president and are not mentioned too often and relegated to the box in the closet or the folder in the drawer that only comes out when the next incident occurs.

As we have seen in just two years between running for office and being in office, President Obama has been garnering a record number of potential threats on his life and with enough unstable individuals out there; there is a good chance we will here of something in the next two plus years minimally.

The one thing worth saying to wrap this up: no matter how much you might dislike someone; is taking their life truly going to solve your problem? That is tough to say as we find ourselves looking at a Southern sympathizer to a disgruntled job seek to an anarchist to a individual upset with international affairs. Those are just some of the people who fall into a special category: the assassins. Life is unpredictable and several of our nation's presidents have found that out first hand with the men and women chronicled.

Presidential Deaths Part I: The Curse

As a someone who has a strong interest for history especially American history and within that; the U.S. Presidents. One of the little tidbits that I find interesting in the annals of presidential history is the phenomenon known as "The Curse". "The Curse" is what the trend of U.S Presidents elected in a year ending in "0" dying in office. From 1840 to 1960, every president elected in a year ending in "0" did not complete their term. Both Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000 were able to avoid the same fate as the seven men before them. However, until it would years later before I learned more about "The Curse". I found information that linked Tecumseh and the Prophet and the Battle of Tippecanoe to the origins of the curse. In 1840, William Henry Harrison was elected the 9th U.S. President and Harrison was the general who was victorious at the Battle of Tippecanoe, where Tecumseh was a casualty amongst several other Native Americans.

In life, when something happens once or twice; the outcome can be linked to chance. But, when something happens seven times and nearly an eighth time; then that trend becomes suspicious. For many years, the curse set forth by Tecumseh's death and the power of Native American's to set such things made the correlation that much more likely to be true. The unknown is something that can drive a sane man crazy and that has been an accompanying rationalization for the power of the curse.

Why would there be a curse to strike down the man elected every 20 years? Tecumseh wanted Harrison to rise to the highest of his capability and be punished there. As a side punishment for what occurred, not only would Harrison be cursed, but all the white men under the curse's perimeters. What would transpire for over 100 years is beyond stranger than fiction.

William Henry Harrison would be elected in 1840 and would die of pneumonia one month after taking office.

Abraham Lincoln would be elected in 1860 and reelected in 1864, when early in his second term John Wilkes Booth would take his life at Fords Theatre.

James A. Garfield would be elected in 1880 and not even a half year into his term he was shot down by Charles Guiteau in a D.C. train station.

William McKinley would be elected in 1896 and reelected in 1900 and less than a year into that second term, Leon Czolgosz would take his life with two gun shots at an Expo in Buffalo, NY.

Warren G. Harding would be elected in 1920 and less than 3 years later, he would be dead in San Francisco, CA due to a heart attack.

Franklin D. Roosevelt would be elected in 1932 and reelected again in 1936, 1940, and 1944. Early in the fourth term, he would suffer a cerebral hemorrhage while in Warm Springs, GA.

John F. Kennedy would be elected in 1960 and roughly 1,000 days into his term, he was gunned down by Lee Harvey Oswald while in Dallas, TX.

Then came Ronald Reagan who was elected in 1980. John Hinckley's bullet barely missed Reagan's heart when he attempted to assassinate him during Reagan's first year in office. Reagan had finally been the one to halt "The Curse". It had claimed seven men and now Reagan was still standing. In 2000, George W. Bush would win a contested election and go on to serve two full terms.

2 occasions of two presidents being elected in a year ending in "0" and they did not perish like the seven before them. However, an astrologer named Mark Dodich has come up with a different perspective and analysis. According to Dodich, the string of presidential deaths had more to do with the alignment of Saturn and Jupiter than a curse by Tecumseh or the Prophet. Their alignment under the sign of either Taurus, Virgo, or Capricorn has led to the death of a president. Reagan dodged "The Curse" as none of these three signs occurred with the Saturn-Jupiter alignment. 20 years later, though, the alignment occurred with Taurus, which should have meant the demise of George W. Bush. Thus, with Bush finishing his two terms, there might be flaws in this argument as well.

Whether it has to do with planet alignments, a curse by a vengeful Native American, or purely coincidence; it has left an eerie trail throughout presidential history. Seven different men with no real connections would all suffer a demise before they left the White House. This trend has always intrigued me as someone with a strong interest in presidential history and continue to be awed by the more I look into "The Curse".

"The Curse" has been one downside of being elected to the highest office in the land. The other has been the preverbial and literal bullseye you have on your head and back combined. Of the seven men who fell to "The Curse", four were at the hands of an assassin. Those are the only four to perish in office at the hands of an assassin's bullet, but there have been several more attempts. Part II will explore the history of presidential assassination attempts.

The Statues That Line the Halls of Congress, Part 1: Nathanael Greene (RI)

I have taken multiple trips to Washington, DC over the years. One place that I always find myself is the United States Capitol building. It houses the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives and ultimately the country's legislative branch. Every four years, the president is inaugurated there and our nation's laws and acts are sculpted there.

But, speaking of "sculpting"; if you have ever been to the U.S. Capitol there are a few things that might stick out. The building has new and old features. You can walk somewhere where Henry Clay legislated or Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled over the Supreme Court. One of the interesting features is Statuary Hall and the numerous statues located throughout the building. There are 100 statues to be precise. 2 from every state. They span from politicians to inventors to activists to key contributors to a state's history. As the nation grew and thus the Congress grew; it began to become difficult for such a large body to work in such small confides. Hence, the necessity to construct the two large chambers we see today.

With the U.S. House of Representatives in particular moving to a new, larger chamber during the 1860s; it was decided to honor the states and their history with statues in the hall that congressmen legislated in. However, over time, the weight of all the statues began to crack the floor. Thus, most of the statues would be relocated. At least 1/3rd of them are still in the room but now one can wander hallways, the crypt, the visitor center, and other areas of the building to see the different statues.

Over the course of 100+ posts, I'll highlight each figure that has been sent to the Halls of Congress to be honored. For the longest time, no statues were replaced but four statues have been replaced by a more "modern" individual.

The first statue would arrive in 1870. That statue would be that of Nathanael Greene of Rhode Island. Greene was a major general in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and was at the command of the southern campaign that led British general Charles Cornwallis to leave the Carolinas for Virginia. Greene was born in 1742 and die suddenly in 1786 of sunstroke.

Much of  Greene's claim to fame would come from the Revolutionary War and his major efforts in the southern part of the country. The colonists' cause was in disarray in the South under lackluster leadership on the battlefield. Cornwallis looked to be gaining steam until Greene would step in late in 1780. By dividing his troops, Greene forced Cornwallis to reshuffle his strategy and divide his troops up as well. As 1781 began and progressed, British troops were dying or getting captured at a high rate as Greene started to put the British on defense. Greene's strategy would climax with the Battle of Guilford Court House on March 15, 1781. While the Continental Army had to retreat at the end, they delivered a major blow to Cornwallis' troops as they had to back up and not pursue a northern push. This would be followed by Greene allowing Cornwallis to move north a little while after to open up the Carolinas for the Continental Army to capture. Greene's strategy would lay the groundwork for the latter couple years of the war.

Before and after the war, Greene would serve Rhode Island. In the early 1770s, he was associated with the state Assembly. While after the war, he would be a founding member of the Rhode Island Society of the Cincinnati.

While there were big names and figures during the war and during the early years of America's founding, Greene certainly played a role in state as well as the country during both of their early stages.

Thus, this concludes the first part of what will be a lengthy series about the statues of that are part of the Statuary Hall collection.

The 2nd Amendment and Second Rate Understanding

One of hot topics that arises from time to time in this country is the Second Amendment otherwise known as the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with nine other amendments making up the Bill of Rights. It one of the hottest debated of the 27 amendments and garners a variety of opinions and at times a lack of understanding. It has recently been at the center of two U.S. Supreme Court cases in the last couple years.

When the Second Amendment was proposed it was written at a time much different than 2010. There was a very real threat of an attack by Great Britain. There was a lack of military and organized Armed Services like we see today. There was not local police and similar authorities all the way up to the federal government. The Departments of Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security were decades away from being created. The Attorney General in 1791 was a low key position with little power. The Founding Father envisioned a need for the Second Amendment based upon enabling for a militia system and law enforcement, fighting against an undemocratic government, and preventing insurrection as well as invasion. Not to mention using the amendment to prevent slaves from rebelling or escaping. That certainly does not apply at all anymore.

As written in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Beginning in the latter half of the 20th century, those words have been at the center of a debate of what the amendment was intended to do. You can read headlines and see stories on nearly a daily basis that involve guns and gun violence. While regardless of that, gun enthusiasts and supporters consistently come out in outrage because they think the government wants to take their guns away. They go around yelling the Second Amendment without truly viewing the amendment in all of its context. What the National Rifle Association and all the others who hold their guns in high standard and preach their right to have a gun forget quickly that the Second Amendment was intended for the purpose of keeping and forming a militia when necessary. It was intended for anyone to just own a gun for fun, but for a purpose.

During our founding and early years as a nation, state militias were common and needed a form of protection. Additionally, they were the ones who protected our borders and states against attacks; now we have the National Guard in each state. These individuals are better trained and professionally equipped unlike the militias in the 1700s. Unless you are a member of the National Guard, you not expected nor needed to rise up whenever necessary. However, each state has their own constitution and have tweaked and prodded compared with U.S. Constitution's version. In the early days, there were differences, but all states came together to accept the version written in the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, in the early years of the republic there was uncertainty of who would be running the country. Back then, colonists had a viewpoint of living under the King of England and wanted to ensured that they would have a gun in case they had to rise up against an unruly leader. Today, until recently, there seemed no need for such action and the vast majority held that viewpoint. But anger has reached such a high level, that if someone just goes against their opinion they are viewed as someone oppressing them in the same light as King George in the 1770s.

Now with all that said, I completely understand and am for someone having a gun. But please do not harp that because of the Second Amendment you automatically have the right to have one. In 1791, the context of the United States and the world and how the Second Amendment are far different than today. You do not need to carry a gun because there are police and the National Guard in every state that are meant to protect you. If you are proven to be sane and capable of having a gun, then keep that gun at home in a safe location. If you want to go hunting or "play" with it; do that in that in a safe location. You don't need to bring a gun to church. You don't need to bring a gun to a rally even if it is for the NRA.

Too many times people misuse the freedoms and rights they have. They also harp on being a Constitutionalist and then conveniently neglect the meaning and true context of what is in the U.S. Constitution. Also not surprisingly, not too many know their history and that lack of knowledge causes them to make assumptions based on what others say or their own loose knowledge. The biggest problem right now with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not what purpose it is meant to serve, but a second rate understanding of what that amendment was intended for. When more people start to grasp that, then, we will not have so many people guarding their guns and brandishing them around at their own will.

Roland Martin....Throws Some Jabs

As I was on CNN.com today, I came across a couple of really good articles by one of their regular contributors, Roland Martin. In my opinion, he seems to give one of the best perspectives on many topics compared to a lot of people on television. He is not a left or right spokesman and we need more individuals like him because he looks to give a down the middle opinion. I find myself agreeing many times of his opinions. Below are the two links as well as the copied articles. They are definitely worth reading. The second one is especially for those who still think Sarah Palin is this great political leader and a person fighting for justice.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/09/martin.obama.republicans/index.html?iref=allsearch

Civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer made famous the phrase, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired."

For me, I'm sick and tired of Democrats having power and being unwilling to use it. I've always respected Republicans when they had power because they were willing to use it and maybe apologize later.

Today, President Obama walked into the White House briefing room and took some questions, and one of them revolved around recess appointments.

He has watched Republicans block many of his appointments, and now he says he made it clear to them that he will "consider" making some when the U.S. Senate goes into recess.

"One senator, as you all are aware, had put a hold on every single nominee that we had put forward due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state," President Obama said.

"In our meeting, I asked the congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months. Surely we can set aside partisanship and do what's traditionally been done to confirm these nominations.

If the Senate does not act -- and I made this very clear -- if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can't afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government."

This is where the president needs to show his toughness and just do it. Forget the threats. The actions of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, and other Republican obstructionists will continue if President Obama allows them to run roughshod over him. When you're the top dog, you do what you have to do to govern. Allowing Republican senators to continue to deny your appointments is nonsense.

If all of them choose to support a filibuster, then you take it to the American people and show the obstructionists for what they are. You get your grass-roots movement fired up to stand up and do something. The political right used its base to go after Democrats who blocked appointments to the federal bench and other positions. So why not be just as aggressive?

If there are members of your own party who stand in the way, such as Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, then you also blast them and make them pay for acting so foolishly.

This president got rolled by the Senate over health care. His team made some boneheaded mistakes, and now they are paying for them. Continuing to play footsie with opponents will only get him into more trouble. He should set a deadline to have his folks confirmed. If not, appoint them all during the recess and go on about your business.

Obama's critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let 'em know that if they aren't with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/11/roland.martin.palin/index.html?iref=allsearch

Sarah Palin's most ardent supporters in "real America" love to suggest that those of us who don't buy into her shtick fail to grasp why they love her, citing her realness, plain-spokenness and whatever else they can conjure up.

Folks, nice try, but as a native Texan, I've seen many politicians and wannabes over the years who had charm, wit, charisma and a twinkle in their eye.

Anyone who has listened to the best football coaches the Lone Star State has to offer will tell you that they can persuade a mother and father to send their boy to hell to fetch a glass of ice water and bring him home a better man. They could teach a politician or two how to connect with average Americans.

You want a media darling politician with substance? Try the late Gov. Ann Richards, a woman who could cut you deep and beam ear-to-ear with her motherly smile. But unlike Palin, she had a host of strong ideas in her head that actually made sense and appealed to a cross-section of folks.

Former Rep. Charlie Wilson, who died this week, was a smooth-talking Texan who loved to party hard. But when it came to politics, he knew how to get things done. The media loved him because he could sit with you and enjoy a beer over barbecue, give them a hilarious quote or two, and explain foreign policy better than Henry Kissinger.

Why haven't I cottoned to Palin? Because she portrays herself as a straight-talking politician who wants to lead a movement in the "Lower 48th" -- but is nothing more than a political celebrity willing to cash every check she can grab.

What truly exposed her for me? It was the ridiculous way she reacted in opposing ways last week to two political heavyweights who used the word "retard."

When it was reported that President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, told a group of liberals that they were "f-----g retards" for threatening to run ads against fellow Democrats who weren't jumping on the health care reform bandwagon, Palin demanded his resignation.

As the mother of a child with Down syndrome, Palin has often used her bully pulpit to demand respect for the mentally challenged. Nothing wrong with that. It is an issue that is close to her heart, and she should be a fierce advocate for them.

Yet when one of her biggest supporters, conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, also castigated liberals by calling them "retards," Palin provided him cover, even trying to explain away his comments.

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace, she said Limbaugh was using satire, while Emanuel was blasting those who disagree with him. But anyone who can read or listen could hear Limbaugh calling folks he disagrees with the same. Palin even went further, agreeing with Limbaugh that liberals are "kooks."

So Emanuel and Limbaugh used the word "retard" to describe folks they disagree with, but only Rahm was wrong? Yep, that's how it is in Palin's world. The advocate for the mentally challenged was quick to pounce on someone she disagrees with politically but defended her patron saint, Rush.

Sarah, when you hold yourself up as a fierce protector of the mentally challenged, politics shouldn't enter into the equation. Either you criticize everyone who uses a word that you consider a slur, or you come across as a crass politician who is afraid to offend your chief booster.

Maybe you ought to listen to your spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, who thought you cared about the mentally challenged when she sent this e-mail to HotAir.com about Limbaugh's comment: "Gov. Palin believes crude and demeaning name-calling at the expense of others is disrespectful."

But knowing that wouldn't sit well with Rush, you backed off and gave him cover.

If you were true to your cause, you would have demanded an on-air apology from Limbaugh and scolded him for using the word. Instead, you showed your true colors.

Sarah, I haven't bought into your fake "I'm-a-real-American" persona. You slam the president for using teleprompters, but write crib notes on your hand to remember basic beliefs that should be easy to regurgitate.

You decry the "lamestream" media, but you bask in its glory and have joined its payroll as a Fox News contributor, even having the network build a studio in your home. Talk about media elite.

You give a speech riddled with falsehoods about the president and national security, and then try to shrug them off as the "lamestream" media attacking you.

You don't fool me, even as your legion of fans considers you the second coming of President Reagan. You quit on the people who elected you to become a political celebrity, which your presidential running mate blasted then-Sen. Barack Obama for doing.

You had the opportunity to show everyone that you're willing to take on anyone who crosses the line against those who are mentally challenged, and you failed.

Please, make as much money as you can. Paraphrasing comedian Martin Lawrence, ride this train until the wheels fall off. But please, cut the crap. You're a crass politician with no true conviction. Your actions have shown that.


These are both something to think about it. If Republicans want to be brass, Obama needs to act like they portray him a bit. And if Sarah Palin says one thing, she should at least be consistent. Great points, Roland. About time some people starting throwing jabs and making sense at the same time.

A Senator Holds the Government Hostage

One of the biggest differences between the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives is that infamous thing called the filibuster. It allows minority party members to slow down or even put legislation on hold. If there are not 60 members unified to avoid it, a filibuster can easily be implemented. There are times when it could be good to allow for further discussion, but it really is a stall tactic that allows the minority party to avoid getting run over by the majority's agenda. There are similar measures used that essentially put the government at their mercy because power is spread throughout all members of the U.S. Senate where even minority members have a say. The latest example comes from Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. He has decided to place a "blanket hold" on all presidential nominations until a couple of billion dollar earmarks for Alabama are put on the fast track. His objective and strategy of sorts is continuing a trend of counter productivity that Republicans have employed in the last year.

Senator Shelby has chosen to put his and Alabama's interests before the general overall good of the country. Additionally, with this decision by Shelby it shows the influence that defense contractors have in government. There are currently over 70 nominations that are being held in limbo due to Shelby's maneuver. This move has only given the Democratic Party more ammunition against the party of "No". The Senator is a bit upset over the tanker contract that remains unresolved between Northrop Grumman/EADs and Boeing. His motive is to ensure that tankers would be assembled in his state. Not to mention, both groups involved are donors to Shelby and hence they are using this as a way to get Shelby to help them so they will in turn help him. Shelby is certainly not the first politician to let campaign/committee contributions get in the way or influence how they govern; it is just the latest example. However, when is enough enough. Especially in today's times when there are so many things going on that businesses need to keep out of the government's daily proceedings.

These two contractors have been major contributors to Shelby and it is no surprise that he would threatened the government for his own political future. Northrop Grumman/EADs and Boeing have also been in the ear and pockets of other politicians so there actions with Shelby are nothing new. However, there is another objective for Shelby as a tanker plant in Alabama would create an avenue to give the state hundreds of jobs.

We have seen members of the U.S. Senate hold up potential federal appointees before and Shelby has done this act before. Last April, Shelby held up the nomination of Ashton Carter for the position of Pentagon acquisition chief for the same benefactors he is helping now. Unlike that time, there are several more names that need to be process and appointed or not. These appointees and the positions they are for include intelligence, homeland security, national security, and other key areas.

I completely under the philosophy of not completely agreeing with an appointment nominee that the opposing party president might select and your decision to oppose that nominee or make it difficult for them to get through the hearings without a challenge. But there must be moments of clarify and responsibility as a legislator. If there is a bill and you want to implement that a tanker be built in your home state; that is "your duty" to gain whatever you can for the state you represent. The same could go when it comes to dealing with contractors and such because you would have to be a fool to not realize that the way politics and politicians are funded often come more often than not from corporations. Whatever the general public donates to a campaign or candidate does not make or break a candidate as much as if these defense contractors were to stop funding Shelby's political future.

The big difference here though is the fact that he is holding up appointing men and women to key positions when we are fighting two wars, fighting a recession, and dealing with a multitude of issues. Then, you or members of your party turn around and say that an issue would not have arisen if President Obama had done something differently because "he is weak on national security". So, Senator Shelby, put aside your own political agenda so that they positions can be filled as soon as possible so that our country and those departments can run as intended. Members in Congress are there to govern and legislate; not hold the government and our future in jeopardy and their hands.

The Indianapolis Colts...The Atlanta Braves of Football

Football is my favorite sport. Baseball is a distant second but definitely above others. In all sports, though, there is only one champion each year. There are perennial contenders most years and new faces that emerge. Some years a team gets hot at the right time and other times a team dominates from Week 1 or Day 1 to the title game.

This past Sunday was Super Bowl Sunday. The Indianapolis Colts were facing the New Orleans Saints for the right to hoist the Lombardi Trophy and be Super Bowl XLIV Champions. Both teams got to December with undefeated records and it looked like the two would meet in the Super Bowl. At the end, the Saints did the necessary things to put away the game defeat Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. For most teams, losing in the Super Bowl was be a morale victory that you got that close and who knows if you will be back next year. The Colts are a bit different. You can almost book the Colts playoff ticket right now for next year's playoffs. They will almost certainly win the AFC South and be in the running for homefield advantage and will win at least 12 games. This might sound like bold predictions, but this has been the script in multiple years throughout this past decade.

I started to think about teams like the Colts yesterday as I pondered what could have been on Sunday. Peyton Manning could have gotten his second ring and added more to his legacy. The questions of what if they didn't throw those two games could this team have made history. But the biggest thing that came to mind is this team gets to the 10 yard line every year and only got it into the endzone once. Another team also came to mind. The Atlanta Braves won their division from 1991 to 2005. 14 straight division titles (1994 ended without a champion or division winners) is no easy feat. For the sake of this argument, we will frame the Colts success under Peyton Manning tenure, which began in 1998. Over his 12 seasons, the Colts won their division 6 times including 5 straight from 2003-2007 and for the last seven seasons they have finished with at least 12 wins.

Both teams stack up with stellar numbers, but during the Braves' run they only managed to win one World Series. Likewise, during the Colts' run during this decade they only won one Super Bowl. Division titles all over the place, but two titles between the two teams.

The Atlanta Braves won all those division titles, but what was their final results. In 1991, they got to the World Series before losing in 7 to the Minnesota Twins. In 1992, they got back to the World Series and lost again; this time to the Toronto Blue Jays. In 1993, they got back to another NLCS but fell to the Philadelphia Phillies. After a strike year in 1994, 1995 finally brought the Braves a world title as they defeated the Cleveland Indians. In both 1996 and 1999, the Braves would return to the World Series, but lost to the New York Yankees in both. In 2000, they lost to the St. Louis Cardinals in the NLDS and then the NLCS in 2001 to the Arizona Diamondbacks. The Braves would make the postseason in 2002, 2003, and 2004, but got knocked off in 5 games each time in the NLDS. They would fall in the NLDS in 2005 as well. And from 2006 to 2009, the Braves have missed the postseason, but inched closest last year. So, looking at their run: 7 NLCS appearances, 5 World Series appearances, and only one World Series win. 14 postseason appearances and 1 title doesn't seem very good.

The Braves' short comings however have been echoed by the Colts in the NFL during a similar span. In 1998, the first under Manning at quarterback the team didn't make the postseason, but the next year they rebounded and won their division, but fell to in the Wildcard Round to the Tennessee Titans. They lost in the Wildcard Round in 2000 and didn't make the postseason in 2001. In 2002, they got shutout 41-0 in the Wildcard Round to the New York Jets. In 2003, they got to the AFC Championship Game before losing to the New England Patriots. They would fall the next year to the Patriots again. This time in the Divisional Round. In 2005, they flirted with an undefeated season and dropped a winnable Divisional Round game to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Finally in 2006, the Colts got over the hump defeating their kryptonite in the Patriots in a comeback win in the AFC Championship Game before defeating the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI. In 2007, they fell to their new kryptonite, San Diego Chargers, in the Divisional Round. The Chargers would trip them up again in 2008 in the Wildcard Round. With the Jets eliminating the Chargers, the Colts didn't have to deal with them in 2009 as they beat the Jets to reach Super Bowl XLIV before losing to the New Orleans Saints. To recap, 12 seasons of Peyton Manning at the helm led to 8 divisional crowns, 7 straight and counting 12 win seasons, 3 AFC Championship Game appearances, 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 Super Bowl championship.

The Indianapolis Colts continue to dominate the regular season in a similar fashion as the Atlanta Braves during their run. Both entered the postseason with championship aspirations, but nearly every year they were sent home earlier than they wanted or just couldn't finish the deal. So, as a fan of the Indianapolis Colts and QB Peyton Manning it is only fair that they are compared to the Atlanta Braves as dominant teams in their respective sports who fail when it matters the most. Sometimes there are teams that are better for one year and that is all that matters. Or a team gets hot and are hard to beat. Or destiny comes into the play and things fall in place. Whatever the reasons, the loss to the Saints on Sunday was another in a string of disappointing losses for a team that started this year 14-0. The Colts have time on their side because they still might have a couple more years before their run like the Braves will hit a wall and their failures will be written larger than their successes. Such is the way of sports.

Loving v. Virginia...and the Latest Marriage Hurdle

One of the lesser recognized hot topics of today is the issue of same sex marriage. California's Supreme Court approved of same sex marriage to have it revoke via a petition and proposition on the ballot in November 2008. In New Jersey, we have seen discussions and votes recently to add New Jersey to the list of states that allow same sex marriages under a state's constitution. Currently, only Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa as well as the District of Columbia make it constitutionally feasible for two men or two women to get married. Several thousand same sex couples in other states patiently wait for their state to join the others. Or in some cases; they move to one of the states that allow it.

Same sex marriage has quickly risen to one of the most controversial civil rights issues. Both Democrats and Republicans try to tip toe around the subject. Democrats, based on history, have been more inclined to favor civil rights issues, but still some fear political backlash from opponents of approving same sex marriage locally or federally.

One of the biggest points missed in the debate is what goes along with marriage for these same sex couples. Yes, two men or two women would like the opportunity to go through a wedding ceremony with a priest like any man and woman would. But, the difference between civil unions and marriages is the benefits that go along with marriage. Being in a civil union does not give spouses the same rights and privileges and sense of security that many married couples enjoy.

However, it was not that long ago that a man and woman or different races were not allowed to marry. During the the 1960s, we saw the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; but many have forgotten about the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967.

Loving v. Virginia was a major civil rights case that was decided in the Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote. It declared Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 unconstitutional. The decision overturned Pace v. Alabama's 1883 decision on interracial couples and marriage.

The plaintiffs involved were Richard Perry Loving, a white man, and Mildred Delores Jeter Loving, an African/Native American woman. They were residents of Virginia, who were married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia. They went to D.C. because of the Racial Integrity Act. They soon were caught and charged with violating the ban on interracial marriage. Police busted them, as intended, and they were put on trial, where they were given a year sentence in jail on January 6, 1959 after pleading guilty to the charges read to them. Leon Bazile, the judge in the case, gave a speech that involved the way that God separated races throughout the continents for the reason of not having races mix. As part of their sentence, they were told to move to the District of Columbia to lessen their punishment.

After moving, the American Civil Liberties Union on November 6, 1963 filed a motion regarding the judgment as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As with many cases that reach the Supreme Court, several lawsuits took place as the case worked its way to through the courts. On January 22, 1965, the Lovings' case reached the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Not too surprisingly, the court ruled against the Lovings and referenced the Pace v. Alabama decision among their references. The Presbyterian Church in 1966 came out in support of interracial marriages and later that year, the Unitarian Universalist Association came out against the ban as well. Possibly the biggest domino to fall was the Roman Catholic Church's support of interracial couples.

The United States Supreme Court would go on to overturn the convictions in a unanimous decision. They ruled that Virginia's law forbidding white and black persons from marrying each other would be dismissed. The Court also ruled that the Virginia statute violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court did not completely dissolve this injustice in every state. Alabama in 2000 became the last state to finally repeal its law against mixed race marriages.

Now 43 years after the Loving v. Virginia, some might see the case as evidence that same sex marriage too can be accepted and legal across the United States. There are many parallels that can be made between the Virginia/Alabama/U.S. laws of that time and what we see in terms of the pros and cons for same sex marriage.

Time will tell what the future has in store for same sex marriage, but if the precedent set by Loving v. Virginia and its relation to interracial marriage has taught us anything; that time is all you might need. It may of took longer than they hoped, but the Lovings were given their justice and ability to live their lives in marital bliss. They would open the door for many more to follow in suit. As 1/10th of the U.S. has already recognized same sex marriage as legal; we will see other states begin to realize that they don't want to be the one who doesn't allow it. As someone from New Jersey, it wouldn't be too bad for a liberal leaning state to follow the other five. The same goes for California. In 2008, the voters in California help elect an African American President of the United States; then also voted against same sex marriage.

Our nation is a progressive one. Civil rights issues have been met with serious challenges, but at the end of the day we have seen victories for causes. We are just in the middle of one for same sex marriage. Just like the Lovings were at the heart of the fight for interracial marriage some 50 years ago.

A Old Fashioned Tea Party...

Nashville, Tennessee get ready..because the Tea Party and all its members will ascend upon your city. In their latest move to gain momentum as a party/movement, the Tea Party will be holding their first major convention this weekend. The keynote speaker is none other than one of the biggest figures in the movement, Sarah Palin. The convention will feature speeches and discussions on what is wrong with the country in their opinion.

There is much uncertainty how this convention will pay off as some groups within the movement disagree with others and could cause minor divides. Also, what type of turnout will they get? This can be a step forward or possibly a step back depending what transpires over the weekend. One thing the convention looks to do is show that this movement and group is serious in their convictions and hold a convention and not just protests. It will also serve as a way to train many Tea Party members in how they can "create change" of their own. The tools that will be taught will allow the members to generate the knowledge and capability to train volunteers and thus become a bigger force in the 2010 midterm elections. This convention can serve as a way to show that the Tea Party has ideas and are not just a bunch of radical people with racist or political incorrect signs and rhetoric.

The Tea Party movement and many who support the conservative values at its roots are not exactly unified behind this convention. Some vocal members including Congresswomen Michele Bachman (R-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) are not exactly sold on the idea of a convention and those in particular have withdrawn from attending and speaking. Some objections come from the belief that this is a superficial gathering that is more about money and less about substance.

Republicans have utilized the Tea Party to gain momentum as they look to take back control of Congress. The Republican Party have a lot to gain from this convention. Firing up potential voters for their nominees could go a long way. At the same time, we might see the Tea Party nation rebel against mainstream Republicans who represent the establishment. Because remember: part of what makes the Tea Party movement tick is taking down incumbents and the establishment. Republicans are not immune as the Tea Party movement features a fair share of Independents and Democrats with certain conservative beliefs.

It should be interesting to see exactly what transcribes and what Sarah Palin just might have to say. Will this convention increase mobilization? Will this convention create energy for the party to grow? For it to grow into a potential wildcard with candidates and campaigns for the fall? What we have seen so far from the Tea Party is a lot of unpredictability at times. That is one thing I expect: the uncertain and some controversy. Beyond that, who truly knows, but the Tea Party. Nothing like a good old fashioned tea party in the South to gather a group of "reformers".

SuperBowl Preview

After a season of dominance by both the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts, it is not too surprising that the two will meet for the right to be called Super Bowl Champions. They both started 13-0; the Colts got to 14-0 before "losing". It is not the undefeated matchup that some might have been dreaming of at Thanksgiving, but it will be a shootout with plenty of fireworks. The Saints beat the Cardinals and the Vikings to get here. The Colts beat the Ravens and the Jets to get here. The two teams possess two of the best quarterbacks in the league including one who is a 4 time NFL MVP.

Breaking down both teams:
OFFENSE: Both possess great quarterback with a serious pass threat, but have at times lacked a consistent running game. The quarterback who makes less mistakes will give his offense the edge. That is pretty obvious, but both quarterbacks have made few bad decisions thus far. EDGE: PUSH

DEFENSE: The Colts' defense went up against two good, but not great offenses while the Saints' defense had much tougher offenses against them and stood up and were able to hold down those offenses enough for their offense to score enough. Overall, though, I think the Colts' defense is better in various areas and at certain positions. EDGE: COLTS

SPECIAL TEAMS: We have seen nothing over the top from the Colts' special teams, but if HB Reggie Bush is given openings and time he has proven to be a threat for the Saints. EDGE: SAINTS

COACH: Jim Caldwell has replaced Tony Dungy with perfect precision and guided his team to one of its best seasons. Sean Payton has given a boost to the Saints and the city of New Orleans since his first game. He has gotten the Saints to their first Super Bowl and someone with four years head coaching experience is the veteran in this one. But don't overlook Caldwell just because this is his first year. Both are very even, however Payton might have a few tricks up his sleeve that gives him the edge. EDGE: SAINTS

INTANGIBLES: The Colts were in the big game 3 years ago while this is the first trip for the Saints and many on their team. QB Peyton Manning knows a second Super Bowl title will only enhance his resume and legacy while QB Drew Brees also can add to his ascension. I just like the unknowns and grit of the Colts, who essentially gave those last two regular games away. EDGE: COLTS


After breaking it all down, you can clearly see it is going to be a close one between the Colts and Saints. I think the Colts will come out a little slow in the first quarter, but should have enough to take the early lead. Peyton Manning seems to figure out defenses 9 out 10 times and I don't think the Saints will have too many difficult reads for him. However, I would keep an eye out for Sean Payton and his high risk, high reward philosophy at times. His success rate has been pretty high. The Saints will make it tough in the second half and put pressure on the Colts. However, the Colts will do enough late to score the go ahead touchdown, possibly force a turnover, and take one last big punch from the Saints late with a chance to go ahead.

PICK: COLTS, BY 4

NFL Hall of Fame: Who Will Get the Call?

It's that time of the year again. The Super Bowl is on the horizon and that means that a new class of Hall of Famers for the Pro Football Hall of Fame will be elected. This year's class has two of the biggest slam dunks possible: the all time leading rusher and the man who probably has every major receiving record. There are men who have been finalists multiple times and some who are fairly new to the process. Either way by the end of Saturday, there will be between 4 and 7 new members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Here is my breakdown and predictions.

Tim Brown, Wide Receiver/Kick Returner
Brown spent the majority of his career with the Raiders before one last year with the Bucs. He played in 255 games over 17 seasons. As a rookie, he led the NFL in kickoff returns, return yards, and yards per return average. Led the NFL in catches in 1997. Set records for receptions, receiving yards, and punt return yards for the Raiders' franchise. He retired with the second most receiving yards with 14,934, the third most receptions with 1,094, and tied for third with 100 touchdowns. He netted 3,320 punt return yards and 1,235 kickoff return yards. He was voted nine times to the Pro Bowl. There is no questioning his resume is well beyond worthy. The only problem is Jerry Rice, the man whose records eclipse all of Brown's and it is not very close. Voters tend to make their selections sort of diverse and will also look hard at other receivers from previous years. For all these reasons, someone who should be in will have to wait another year at least. PREDICTION: NO

Cris Carter, Wide Receiver
Carter spent his early years with the Eagles, the bulk of his career with Vikings, and the last year with the Dolphins. He played in 234 games over 16 seasons. He was the second receiver ever to catch 1,000 balls. He retired with the second most receptions with 1,101 and touchdowns with 130. Set a then NFL record for receptions with 122 catches in 1994. A member of the 1990s All Decade Team. He was voted eight times to the Pro Bowl. His numbers are beyond solid and Hall worthy. The last two years he has not gotten in because other top players have including another wide receiver in Art Monk. Carter will face a similar problem as Tim Brown with Jerry Rice on the ballot. He will be looked at with the other receivers and might miss the cut again. Other top receivers and players took three or so years to get like a Michael Irvin. I think he slides in, but would not be surprised if he doesn't get in. PREDICTION: YES

Don Coryell, Head Coach
Coryell coached 14 years and 195 games with the St. Louis Cardinals for 5 and 9 with the Chargers. His record was 111-84-1 with a 3-6 post season record. Won two divisional crowns with the Cardinals. Coach of the Year in 1974. His Chargers teams led the NFL in passing from 1978 to 1983 and he captured three divisional crowns during that time. His resume is good, but I'm not sure if it is Hall worthy. At least yet. His offenses with the Chargers certainly revolutionized the way the passing game was used. PREDICTION: NO

Roger Craig, Running Back
He spent 11 seasons and 165 games playing for mostly the 49ers before a few years with the Raiders and Vikings. He was one of the most versatile backs in the 1980s and throughout his career. His first year he combined for over 1,000 yards and was a big part of the 49ers' Super Bowl XIX win with his three total touchdowns. He was the first player to gain 1,000 yards on ground and through the air in the same season (1985) and led the league in catches with 92. When he retired, he ranked as the 13th leading rusher of all time with 8,189 and had the 19th most receptions with 566. He had 56 touchdowns on the ground and 17 through the air. He was voted to four Pro Bowls. Before the Marshall Faulks and LaDanian Tomlinsons, there was Roger Craig. He was the dual threat, but he still lacks that something extra. His resume may gain steam in future years, but I don't see him getting the votes this year. PREDICTION: NO

Dermontti Dawson, Center
Dawson played 13 seasons; all with the Steelers. He played in 170 consecutive games and was the replacement for future Hall of Famer Mike Webster. He was voted to seven Pro Bowls and was part of an offensive line that won 5 straight divisional titles and went to Super Bowl XXX. Dawson is certainly one of the best centers of the last 20 years. He had speed and size and had a very good career. I think he might get in down the road, but don't see this as his year. PREDICTION: NO

Richard Dent, Defensive End
Dent played 15 seasons and 203 games mostly with the Bears, but also played a year each with the 49ers, Colts, and Eagles. For a ten span to start his career, he recorded 10 or more sacks 8 out of 10 times. He was one of the most feared pass rushers. He recorded 4.5 sacks in a game twice. He finished his career with the third most sacks with 137.5 sacks with 17.5 in 1984 and then recorded 17 in 1985 on the way to being a major part of the 46 defense that ran through the NFL on their way to a Super Bowl title that included him winning MVP honors. He was voted to four Pro Bowls. There have been defenses that have defined football. The Purple People Eaters, the Steel Curtain, etc. One such that was part of possibly one of the best teams ever was the fierce 46 and Dent was a major cog in its machine. Mike Singletary was the hard hitting middle linebacker and he has a place in Canton and now it might be time for the man who rushed that outside to get the call. This is still 50/50 to me, but I think this is finally his year. PREDICTION: YES

Russ Grimm, Guard
Grimm played for 11 seasons and 140 games with the Redskins as part of the "Hogs" offensive line. During the 1980s, there were few offensive lines as dominating as the Redskins and Grimm was a huge part of that. He was voted to four Pro Bowls and went to 5 NFC Championship games and 4 Super Bowls and won three rings. He was a member of the 1980s All-Decade team. Grimm's resume is very strong. In recent years, he has been utterly close. I cannot tell if this is the year that he gets over or not. He is sort of a 50/50 to me and could interchange with one of the other borderline candidates I think will get in. He should be in very soon, but I think he misses out this year. PREDICTION: NO

Charles Haley, Defensive End/Linebacker
Haley played 12 seasons and 169 games mostly with the 49ers and the Cowboys. He came around at the right time and was an important part of 5 Super Bowl teams. No other player has a full hand of Super Bowl rings. He led the 49ers in sacks every year during his first stint with them. He had four years of double digit sacks with a high of 16 in 1990 during his time with the 49ers and then added two more such seasons with the Cowboys. He retired with 100.5 sacks and was twice the NFC Defensive Player of the Year. He was voted to five Pro Bowls. During a seven year span, he played in six NFC championship games. Only twice during his career was he not on a division champion. If rings are the thing that many are judged on, then Haley passes with flying colors. He was not some role player either as he was a difference maker throughout his career. He has been on the border for a few years now and to me is sort of in the mold of Richard Dent; a worthy candidate who should be in, but something is still missing. For that reason, I cannot be sure if voters will vote Haley in this year. I think either he just misses or just makes it. PREDICTION: NO

Rickey Jackson, Linebacker
Jackson played 15 seasons and 227 games mostly with the Saints, but ended his career with the 49ers. He was a big part of turning the Saints around during the 1980s and had six seasons of double digit sacks. He was voted to the Pro Bowl six times. He was a member of the Saints' first winning team in 1987 and first divisional champion in 1991. He retired with 128 career sacks; not including his rookie total as it was not a statistic yet. I will honest, I have not heard of Jackson as much as the rest of the ballot nominees. However, after looking at his career, I see his numbers and career are comparable with many in the Hall. It also seems fitting that Jackson is a finalist the same year as the Saints are in their first Super Bowl. For that reason, I think Jackson's chances get a boost, but I am not sure if he gets over the edge. He will probably battle with both Dent and Haley among voters and one or two of the group will most likely get in and Jackson seems like the odd man out despite his stellar career. PREDICTION: NO

Cortez Kennedy, Defensive Tackle
He played 11 seasons and 167 games with the Seahawks. He hardly missed a game throughout his career and played in 116 straight games including starting in 100 straight. He was voted to 8 Pro Bowls and was the Defensive Player of the Year in 1992 on a 2-14 team. Kennedy was a force in the middle on a team that wasn't very good for much of his tenure. Very good career, but not sure if he has enough at least this year. PREDICTION: NO

Dick Lebeau, Cornerback
Lebeau played 14 seasons and 185 games with the Lions. Most see Lebeau as the creative and crafty Defensive Coordinator of many great Steelers teams. However, Lebeau was one of the best cornerbacks of his era if not all time. He started 171 consecutive games; a record for cornerbacks. He had 12 straight years with three or more interceptions. He was voted to three Pro Bowls. His best year in terms of interceptions was 1970 with 9 and retired with 62 interceptions, which ranked second among pure corners and third overall. To tell you how good he was, he only fell one place in the near 40 years since his retirement. This selection is probably long overdue, but Dick Lebeau will finally have his big day. Of the two senior committee selections, this one seems the most likely to result in selection. PREDICTION: YES

Floyd Little, Running Back
Little played nine seasons and 117 games with the Broncos. He was a return specialist early on and then became a dual threat and the Broncos' first 1,000 yard rusher in 1971. From 1971 to 1973, he scored 32 total touchdowns either on the ground or threw the air. He was voted twice to AFL All Star games and three Pro Bowls. He retired with 12,000 all purpose yards that included 6,323 rushing yards and 2,418 receiving yards from 215 catches. His career wasn't long, but he made the most of it. His numbers don't jump off the page, but during his career he was one of the better backs in the league for much of it. He was a triple threat and a lesser version of Gale Sayers. Both had short careers. Sayers got in right away; Little has had to wait. He is one of the senior nominees and he is a slightly harder one to choose. I think he gets just enough because of his versatile career. PREDICTION: YES

John Randle, Defensive Tackle
He played 14 seasons and 219 games mostly with the Vikings before going to the Seahawks to finish his career. He finished his career with 137.5 sacks and had 8 straight seasons with 10 or more followed by a ninth the following year. He was voted to 7 Pro Bowls. He was a major part of the Vikings' defensive line during the 1990s. He was a disruptive force who reigned havoc on quarterbacks and offensive lines. He is a tricky one for me, but I think voters will be high on his career. His numbers are solid and will probably get the call. PREDICTION: YES

Andre Reed, Wide Receiver
Reed played 16 seasons and 234 games with mostly the Bills before going to the Redskins. He basically rewrote the Bills' receiving record book. He retired with the third most receptions with 951 and 13,095 receiving yards, which include 36 games with 100 plus yards. He had 13 seasons, which included 9 straight, where he had at least 50 receptions. That is only bested by Jerry Rice. Until Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison passed him, Reed along with Jim Kelly had the most receptions (663) between a quarterback and receiver. He was voted to seven straight Pro Bowls. He was a member of four Bills teams that went to the Super Bowl in consecutive years; losing all four. In any other year, his numbers might have a great chance. But he is competing with other receivers who will most likely steal votes from him; especially Rice. This year will be tough and thus he will fall short. PREDICTION: NO

Jerry Rice, Wide Receiver
Rice spent 20 years and 303 games mostly with the 49ers before going to the Raiders and Seahawks. In 1987, he set a then single season record for touchdown catches with 22. He had four seasons of 100 or more catches. He set an NFL record for receiving yards in a season in 1995 with 1,848 yards. He finished his career with 1,549 receptions, 22,895 receiving yards, 14 1,000 yard receiving seasons, 208 total touchdowns, and 23,546 combined net yards. These are all records for a career. In addition, he holds many playoff and Super Bowl records for a receiver. During his career, he played in 8 conference championships and four Super Bowls including 3 wins and an MVP. He was voted to 13 Pro Bowls. He was voted a member of both the All Decade teams of the 1980s and 1990s as well as the NFL's 75th Anniversary team. There are few slam dunk candidates like Rice. The man virtually rewrote the record books for a receiver. He was one of the best receivers for over a decade. Age was the only thing that truly caught him otherwise he might still be making catches today. This is an easy prediction. PREDICTION: YES

Shannon Sharpe, Tight End
Sharpe played 14 seasons and 204 games mostly with the Broncos, but also played a couple years with the Ravens. He retired with 815 receptions, 10,060 receiving yards, and 62 touchdowns. These were all records for a tight end. Had over 1,000 yards in a season three times. He was voted to 8 Pro Bowls and was a major part of two Broncos championship teams and one Ravens championship team. Sharpe raised the standards for tight ends and ranks among the best pass catchers overall. Sharpe's resume is certainly Hall worthy, but some off the field antics with the media could hurt him. He will get in one year, but not this year. PREDICTION: NO

Emmitt Smith, Running Back
Played 15 seasons and 226 games mostly with the Cowboys before ending his career with the Cardinals. He won four rushing crowns during the Cowboys' dominant years. He was crucial in 3 Super Bowl winning teams over the period of 4 years and won an MVP in one of those. He had 11 straight seasons of at least 1,000 yards rushing. He was selected as a member of the All Decade team of the 1990s. He finished his career with 18,355 rushing yards and 164 rushing touchdowns; both most by a running back. He also racked up 3,224 receiving yards and 11 receiving touchdowns. Along with Jerry Rice, Smith is one of the easiest picks in recent years. He wasn't always the biggest back, but he was one of the smartest and injury-free. That certainly assisted him greatly racking up the numbers he did. Smith will join Troy Aikman and Michael Irvin in Canton and the Triplets will be reunited again. PREDICTION: YES

The list of 17 candidates each has a worthy argument for being enshrined among the greatest of all time. However, some of the greatest of the last 25 years will have to wait at least one more year. The day before the Super Bowl, I see 7 men getting the call. Cris Carter, Richard Dent, Dick Lebeau, Floyd Little, John Randle, Jerry Rice, and Emmitt Smith should get the call. The latter two are pretty much locks; the 2 senior choices will probably get in; the other 3 are a toss up. Either way I'm excited to see who gets the call.