Tiger Woods and his Sponsors Should Focus on Golf

Posted by Janet Hinz

Tiger Woods is back on the golf course. His return to golf started well when he scored a birdie on the third hole of The Masters tournament in Augusta, Georgia on Thursday, April 8, 2010. But Nike is airing an ad that takes the focus off his golf skills.

The new Nike TV commercial is a failure. The black and white commercial has a voiceover with his late-father’s voice admonishing Tiger and features a pensive Tiger Woods wearing a Nike hat and vest. He looks guilty. The voice of Earl Woods says, “Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive; to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are and did you learn anything.”

Why would Tiger Woods approve this? Why would Nike think this would rebuild his credibility and Nike’s as well? The commercial is certainly is getting a lot of media exposure, however. Perhaps that was Nike’s goal.

Nike did stick with him while most sponsors dropped him. Woods lost some $50 million in our endorsements deals as the scandal of his infidelities has unfolded since November.

Public figures enjoy tremendous fortune and have high visibility. It’s in their best interest to safeguard their favorable status with the American public. Then they are rewarded with celebrity endorsements from companies eager to form a partnership with them. When that happens, companies hope consumers will associate the goodwill they feel for the celebrity with their product.

If a celebrity wants the endorsement contracts, he or she must meet expectations. That means celebrities must not only excel in their professions, but behave without reproach in their private lives as well because everyone is watching and millions of dollars are at stake.

While Tiger Woods is arguably the greatest golfer of this century, he’s lost many of his fans in light of the scandal. He should have stopped at one sincere public apology and then continued about what he does best—play golf. That is all he should be speaking about. In a press conference on Monday, Woods said, “That first tee, I’m looking forward to it. I haven’t looked forward to that tee shot in a long time, not like this. It feels fun again. You know, that’s something that’s been missing.” Statements like those are what will help to rebuild his image. Focus on what you do well, not on what you’ve done wrong.

Nike’s newest commercial doesn’t help create the comeback story Americans love. Critical thinkers should ask, why does Nike continue to use Tiger Woods?

Is Obama’s Plan to Remove Certain Words from National Security Document an Example of Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

Posted by Janet Hinz

The April 7, 2010 Associated Press (AP) headline, “Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document” causes critical thinkers to ask many questions. Firstly, is this an example of political correctness gone too far?

According to the AP article, “President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as ‘Islamic extremism’ from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.”

Words matter. We change the way we speak to indicate a change in the way we think. It works the other way too. Words influence our views. It comes down to a difference between denotation and connotation. A word’s dictionary definition is its denotation. The feeling or image a word evokes is its connotation. The spirit behind political correctness is an admirable one because of this.

But the era of political correctness has held us back in some ways because it seems to justify an absence of critical thought. Americans are at war, but is it the War on Terror as President George W. Bush called it? President Obama refuses to call it that.

The events of recent months prove we are still very much threatened. Our enemy seems to be hard to define, however. Just consider the attack at Fort Hood as well as those arrested in Denver, Detroit, New York and Pakistan in connection with potential threats to American’s safety this winter. There are threats, but who or what is the enemy? These threats come from extremists who have declared jihad against the United States. Why is it politically incorrect to call them Islamic extremists? What unifies these terrorists if not their religious fanaticism? Can you be tolerant of religious differences while still distinguishing when one group hides behind a religion to push forward a criminal agenda?

Or is the argument one against profiling? Americans aren’t condemning an entire faith or race. We must embrace Muslim nations while still being mindful of those extremists intent on attacking our nation. Most believe racial profiling is wrong in that it is discriminatory. This can be true as profiling has often been a tool misused by law enforcement. Shouldn’t we concentrate on how to use the law enforcement tool properly and effectively?

Obama wants to distinguish his National Security Strategy from Bush and Obama’s administration seems to find fault with the word terrorist. In some ways this makes sense since one country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter. The phrasing frames the reaction. We cheer the freedom fighter and attack the terrorist. Therefore, I can understand why anyone involved in a cause would like to have freedom in the title. But Americans are left wondering what to call our enemies.

The Bush Doctrine stated, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” Is this no longer true?

Will this debate over language be so distracting that it will cause us to be more vulnerable to our enemies?

Please cheeck out The Americano website for more.

Are negative ads a fixture of political campaigns?

Posted by Janet Hinz

Join us on Wednesday, March 24 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm CT on Critical Thinking in the Real World at http://www.toginet.com/shows/criticalthinkingintherealworld as we discuss negative campaign advertisements. Studies show negative ads help win political campaigns. Reframing from negativity speaks volumes about character, however. Will voters respond? Are negative ads a fixture of political campaigns?

Call in and share your thoughts at 877-864-4869 or post a comment here.

There is Good News Out There and the Media is Covering It

Posted by Janet Hinz

Where do critical thinkers find good news? A regular feature on NBC’s Nightly News is Making a Difference and it’s the part of the news that helps us believe there is good news out there. Our family looks forward to that brief part of the nightly report. Tonight’s feature focused on a family in Grafton, WI and how the community rallied around them in their time of need. The project was called Hometown Heroes and it was inspiring. Instead of devoting just a couple minutes of the 30 minute broadcast, this story continued on NBC’s Dateline with a special edition called America Now: A Circle of Hands.

Ann Curry reported, “What’s special about the people of this community is that what some would see as adversity, they saw as opportunity.”

Karen Longoria is a single mother and the center of the family. Two of her triplets were born with cerebral palsy and a host of other medical difficulties. They were then diagnosed with an irreversible degenerative disorder called spinal muscular atrophy at 13. Soon they were mostly confined to wheelchairs and there wasn’t money to remodel the home. Then more devastating news came when Karen was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Jim Kacmarcik, a Grafton businessman, learned about the family and decided he had to help. When ABC’s Extreme Makeover rejected the family’s bid to be on the show, Kacmarcik spearheaded the effort to form Hometown Heroes. The town rallied and rescued a family. He said, “We called for heroes and they were there.” More than 1,000 people answered that call and donated their time and money to the effort. In doing so, they made a difference in the lives of this family and also strengthened their community.

When we see the power of grassroots initiatives like these, it does more than inspire. It also helps to restore our faith in our media. The media does report good news. Critical thinkers just have to look for it.

A Call for Critical Thought, Not Violence

Posted by Janet Hinz

Argument is an intellectual exchange of ideas. It doesn’t mean coming to blows and it’s a shame today’s political climate has resulted in violent threats. If you are passionate about health care reform or any political issue, write letters, make phone calls, conduct research and then vote. Don’t make threats, insult or act violently.

The recent passage of health care reform has caused many to resort to violence. Both the Republicans and Democrats are receiving threats. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said someone fired a shot at a building that broke a window at his campaign office. “Security threats against Members of Congress is not a partisan issue and they should never be treated that way.”

A March 25 Washington Post article states that there were, “at least 10 House Democrats reporting death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week.”

Many trace these threats to an Alabama blogger who tried to insight violence on March 19. He posted on his website Sipsey Street Irregulars “So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows. Break them NOW.” The Washington Post reported, “These were the words of Mike Vanderboegh, a 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama, who took to his blog urging people who opposed the historic health-care reform legislation — he calls it “Nancy Pelosi’s Intolerable Act” — to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide.” Vanderboegh refuses to apologize because he really believes that throwing bricks is an effective way to get a message across.

The FBI and Capitol Police are aggressively investigating the threats that have come in the form of hate-filled voice mail messages and emails, broken windows and even shots fired. Hazmat crews in New York City responded to the Queens office of Rep. Weiner (D-NY) on March 25 when an envelope arrived containing a suspicious white powder as well as a threatening letter.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called the incidents unacceptable. In Fox News Channel interview, he said, “I know many Americans are angry over this health-care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening, but, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”

No one who makes threats, hurls racial slurs or resorts to name calling is a critical thinker.

Read more at http://www.theamericano.com

Gaps in Health Care Protection for Children

Posted by Janet Hinz

When will children with pre-existing conditions be covered with the new health care reform legislation?

The Associated Press reported March 23, “The Obama administration is scrambling to fix a potential problem with a much-touted benefit of its new health care law, a gap in coverage improvements for children in poor health, officials said Tuesday.”

This is a big concern for many Americans including myself because I have a four year old son who was first hospitalized with respiratory syncytial virus (commonly known as RSV) and Bronchiolitis at five months old. Since then he has had pneumonia and several other respiratory problems a few times a year. This history of respiratory problems could be considered a pre-existing condition and if we choose to switch insurances, I worried a new insurance company could refuse him coverage.

President Obama has talked about how the new protections for children in this bill at nearly every speech advocating its passage. This was one of the things in the health care bill I supported whole-heartedly.

When as spokesperson for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said full protection for children would not come until 2014, I felt misled and angry. Why is the legislation so complex that even the President can’t understand it fully? Or did Obama knowingly mislead the American public?

On Friday March 19, Obama spoke to an audience at George Mason University in a campaign-like speech and said, “This is a patient’s bill of rights on steroids. Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage–this year.” The crowd cheered and I was also pleased.

Obama didn’t sound a bit confused then. How could he have been wrong about something so important?

The administration assured reporters on March 22 that Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would resolve the situation by issuing yet more regulations. HHS spokesman Nick Papas said, “To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term ‘pre-existing’ exclusion applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today.”

I don’t feel assured and I’m left with more questions. Why isn’t legislation more transparent? Is it written to intentionally mislead and confuse Americans? Critical thinkers must demand more of our elected officials.

Now Can We Focus on Jobs, Immigration Reform and National Security?

Posted by Janet Hinz

For the past several months, talk of health care has dominated political conversations. Now that health care reform has passed, we can turn our attention to other important issues that have been ignored or at least not been given the attention needed–jobs, immigration reform and national security.

The March 29 issue of Time magazine focuses on jobs. The article, How to Create a Job, reports that the economy lost a net of 36,000 jobs in February. It states, “ Were the economy to magically start generating jobs at a healthy clip—say 200,000 a month—it would still take 3 ½ years to return to where we were, never mind the jobs we need for new entrants to the workforce.” In his State of the Union address, President Obama said jobs would be his number one focus. Congress did pass a jobs creation bill on March 17 which included $13 billion of tax incentives to encourage companies to hire unemployed Americans. This is far from a quick or permanent fix, however. Private enterprise, not government, is the big job creator. In order for companies, big and small, to overcome their fear of taking risks in today’s troubled economy, confidence must be restored. It’s difficult to take a risk on new ideas, technologies, and production when companies are still feeling effects from the longest recession since the Great Depression and consumers have cut back on spending. How can that confidence be restored when companies are so uncertain about how new health care reform regulations will impact their bottom lines?

Tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered on the National Mall on Sunday March 21 out of frustration with the lack of action in Congress to overhaul the country’s immigration system. Obama promised to make fixing a broken immigration system a priority in his first year of the presidency, but it’s been more than a year and little has been accomplished. Sunday’s demonstrators came from all over the nation by busses, cars and planes. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) voiced his own disappointment in an article published March 19 on The Americano website, “Now, in his first year alone, the President has deported a record 387,790 immigrants, ordering ICE to remove 13 percent more undocumented immigrants than George Bush did during his last year in office.” What has happened to Obama’s commitment to helping families torn apart, bringing “12 million people out of the shadows” and stopping employers from exploiting those without proper documentation?

Obama’s national security policies have faced major scrutiny in light of a security breach when Michaele and Tareq Salahi crashed a state dinner at the White House in November, an attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airplane at Christmas, and now a possible reversal on the 9/11 trials. White House officials are reportedly recommending that Obama reconsider trying the self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other accused terrorists in New York City. Opting for military tribunals is far better for Americans. Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama had wanted to prosecute the terrorists in civilian court in New York City. During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay prison and was a vocal opponent of military tribunals. A civil trial in New York City would be bad for all Americans because of the estimated $1 billion cost and significant national security risks. According a March 5 Fox News report, “The president has already disappointed his supporters by maintaining military tribunals after temporarily suspending them, by continuing the option of indefinite detention and by faltering in his vow to close Guantanamo Bay one year after his inauguration.” What are the missing pieces to this national security puzzle?

Now that health care reform has passed, it is time for critical thinking Americans to start asking questions about other very important national concerns. We must now focus on jobs, immigration reform and national security.

Can the Ends Really Justify the Means?

Posted by Janet Hinz

If the cause is just, shouldn’t the means to pass health care reform be free of legal trickery? Most of the 37 representatives that voted no on the bill last time around are up for reelection and are therefore very concerned about how their constituents will react to this most important vote that will impact all Americans.

The fate of health care reform is at stake and on March 17 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama helped to persuade many including Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) despite the fact that the bill does not contain the public option he fought for. He said, “This is not the bill I wanted to support.” But after a trip to his district and much discussion, Obama got Kucinich’s vote.

Some representatives refuse to vote in favor of the Senate bill because they don’t like some of what is in it and they don’t want it held against them in November. But it must pass before any of the changes House members want can be made. How then can this be accomplished? A little known rule called “Deem and Pass” may be the solution. The House would not vote on the Senate bill directly, but would vote on a separate bill that does contain the changes and then the Senate bill would be “deemed to have passed.”

In a very contentious interview on March 17 with Bret Baier of Fox News, Obama was challenged to explain why, after weeks of saying “the United States Congress owes the American people a final up of down vote on health care” he could support use of the deem and pass rule. Obama responded, “But here’s the thing, Bret, I mean, the reason that I think this conversation ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington process. And yes, I have said that is an ugly process. It was ugly when Republicans were in charge, it was ugly were in Democrats were in charge.”

The process is ugly. But when the bill represents one-sixth of the U.S. economy, it seems a traditional vote is necessary even if it takes longer to pass.

What are the changes respresentatives are so concerned about? One is the impact this bill may have on the deficit and on March 18, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimated cost of the updated package. CBO said it would cost $940 billion over the next decade. This would not add to the deficit which remains a key concern for many representatives. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said, “We are absolutely giddy over the great news that we’ve gotten from the CBO.”

Obama promised to expand coverage while slashing the deficit. This strategy is intended to win over fiscal conservatives. He delivered on this promise. But there are other concerns.

Rep. John Boccier (D-OH) voiced another concern on CNN’s “American Morning” March 18. He said, “I’m encouraged by that. But there needs to be changes. The Senate version — there’s no way Ohio should have to pay for Nebraska. I want those deals out.” Boccier was referring to “deal” in the Senate’s bill which exempted Nebraska from the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage in order to win the vote of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE).

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has argued that he could not support the Senate bill because it would, “ban illegal immigrants from using their own money to buy insurance on the exchange.” Some reports indicate Gutierrez may be willing to change his vote if there are trade-offs which could help immigrants with housing issues.

The vote will not occur before Sunday because House Democrats are upholding their promise to post the bill 72 hours before a vote. It will take time to read this bill and even longer to comprehend it all.

These convoluted deals and trade-offs leave a bad taste in the mouths of most American voters. Critical thinkers must ask, why do they have to be there?

House Republicans Pass Ban on Earmarks

Posted by Janet Hinz

On March 11, House Republicans adopted a ban on earmarks. House GOP leaders should be applauded for pushing members of their party to break their addiction to earmarks.

Earmarks have also been called pork barrel spending or pet projects. An earmark is basically a pet project a lawmaker seeks for his or her own district and state. It could include military spending, road projects, community development grants and a host of other things. One famous wasteful earmark cost taxpayers $50 million and was approved years ago to build an indoor rain forest in the middle of Iowa or that now infamous bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Another earmark is the one included in the 2009 Omnibus Bill which allocated $950,000 directly to the controversial National Council of La Raza. Another from that same bill include $2.9 million for “shrimp aquaculture” in Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

This practice of directing federal dollars to home districts and has been a widespread practice amongst both parties. It’s resulted in far too much waste at the taxpayers’ expense.

Voters are frustrated by Washington’s out of control spending. The Treasury Department said on March 10 that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.

There is little question that this is an election-year appeal to voters and an attempt to trump House Democrats and their failure to pass such a ban yesterday. It is at least a sign that House Republicans are listening and acting to fix the problem.

“The time has come for House Republicans to adopt an immediate, unilateral moratorium on all earmarks,” said Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and nine other GOP leaders in a joint statement on March 10. He’s right. It’s true that both parties are guilty of earmarks and members of both parties have tried to end it. Democrat Senator Russ Feingold and Republican John McCain have both been fighting earmarks for years, but the Senate and the President haven’t budged. Perhaps things will change as a result of the House Republicans success on the issue.

According to Roll Call, today’s “ban would affect all earmarks, including those that are tariff- and tax-related.” House Republicans reached agreement on this self-imposed, across-the-board earmark ban in a closed conference. This reflects a unified commitment to control spending we haven’t seen in far too long.

This ban on earmarks is a huge step in the right direction. Voters will respond to the ban now and in the 2010 elections. Just as we must carefully watch our own household budgets, we must also continue to question how our elected officials spend our tax dollars.

Pay-Go or No-Go?

Posted by Janet Hinz

Critical thinkers are open minded because they seek to draw conclusions after asking many questions both about the information they receive and that which they locate through research. This can be challenging when all the headlines seem to proclaim the same thing.

On March 2, 2010 the major news of the day was that Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) was responsible for blocking legislation to extend unemployment and healthcare benefits and transportation funding. Most people reacted quite strongly upon reading this news. First responses might have included: “That’s outrageous!” or “What was he thinking?”

Critical thinking requires us to think further and consider both our position and try to see the other side. Bunning refused to grant unanimous consent to extend the 30-day benefits because the measure wasn’t paid for. He offered to grant unanimous consent if his Democrat colleagues could fund it.

On March 3, 2010 Bunning wrote an editorial for USA Today, “Why I took a stand” to explain his action. He wrote, “For far too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers’ money as a slush fund that does not ever end.” He admitted to feeling regret over some of his own previous votes.
In June 2009 President Obama urged passage of “pay-as-you-go” legislation that would require any new tax cut or automatic spending program to be paid for within the budget. This seemed to indicate that he was serious about fiscal responsibility. “The ‘pay as you go’ principle is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere,” Obama said in a speech at the White House on June 9, 2009.

In February 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation back into law. This restored a 1990s law and reflects a commonsense principle that helped turn a $600 billion deficit into a $237 billion surplus by forcing legislators to spend money only by saving money elsewhere.
In his USA Today editorial, Bunning said, “Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats’ Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was a dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks.”

It’s true that even since the Pay-Go rule was passed, the national debt has gone up to $244,992,297,448.11.

So why did Bunning decide to take a stand this week when Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs? Bunning answered, “Why not now? Why can’t a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for?”
Bunning had hoped to offer an amendment to pay for the extension offering three options for doing so: 1) use unused stimulus money, 2) take the money from other programs, or 3) with a new tax.

In his editorial, Bunning said, “I reached a supposed deal with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on a pay-for the amendment that would fully find the legislation and not add to the debt.” Except at the last minute Democrats used a parliamentary procedure to set aside his amendment. Bunning explains, “The Democrats did not want to vote on my amendment because they knew they were in the wrong and ignored their own rules.”

While we may argue with Bunning’s timing and even his actions, it’s clear that the national debt is major issue of concern. We must be critical thinkers and hold our elected officials responsible for their actions. It’s also important to question what they do.