Not sure how I went this long without talking about some big news regarding my favorite tech company. Nonetheless, here is my take on Steve Jobs’ announcement that he his stepping down as CEO of Apple. Simply put, Apple will live on. They will continue to put out innovative products that make tech geeks hold their breath. That is not to say their won’t be a void, though.

After all, Apple was a company that was left for dead in the early ’90′s. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. Jobs had been forced out of the company he co-founded, and it was floundering. Then, in 1996, Apple bought NeXT, a new company Jobs had started. He was back at Apple, and by March 1998, he was CEO. We all know the rest. Apple has since famously released a very long string of hit products.

I think the reason this is such big news is the sheer size of the Jobs’ cult of personality. The man was truly larger than life. Who can forget his introduction of the iPhone in 2007? Not to make him out to be the messiah, but it is remarkable that he was able to accomplish all that he did. After all, when has any cell phone maker been able to dictate terms to a cell phone carrier? That had never been done before.

So, Apple will live on, but the tech-scape will be a bit less interesting. It’s unclear whether we’ll find another tech personality to fill the void. I guess that really is okay. Once a legend retires or fades into the background, there doesn’t have to be an immediate replacement. I know that Tim Cook will do just fine as CEO, but regardless, we should definitely take a minute to marvel at all that Steve Jobs accomplished at Apple.

What has happened to the so-called Grand Old Party? To borrow a bit of British slang, they’ve become a party of nutters. Establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell are a dying breed. The ascendant members of the party are of the Tea Party ilk. This strain of conservative lawmaker has decided that idealogical purity is much more important than compromise. Their level of zealotry is virtually indistinguishable from the Muslim fundamentalists they so fiercely rail against.

The Tea Party as it is now is not just a band of libertarians that want the government out of their lives. It’s something much more malevolent than that. It has become an unholy mix of social fundamentalism and regulatory abolitionism. Of course that abhorrence for government oversight only goes so far. They are all too happy to make regulations that prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying. They are more than willing to enact laws telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. They are more than willing to have the government force poor people to take a drug test in order to get the aid that is going to keep the lights on. In essence, this new conservative Republican is not a proponent of individual rights. They are a proponent of their individual rights.

In years gone by, the extremists on either end of the spectrum were not allowed to make policy. They were useful during primary season, but were marginalized once it came down to actually running the country. This is no longer the case, as the recent debt ceiling crisis made abundantly clear. There is no debating these people, because debate involves two parties engaging one another. The Tea Party seeks only to obliterate it’s perceived opponent.

I once thought there is no way these people could come to power. They were just too over the top. The average American could never accept a group that swings so wildly to the right. Unfortunately, I was wrong. This country was so pissed about the economic meltdown, they simply punished the people who were in power. My fellow Americans allowed people like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin to woo them with tales of a President who wanted to take away everything they held dear. A black man with a foreign sounding name made a convenient bogeyman.

I have no interest in trying to win over the rank and file teabaggers. Logic and reason are foreign concepts to them. I just hope the average American sits back and thinks about what they are being told by the Bachmanns, Palins and Glenn Becks of the world. Do they want these people dictating what they can and cannot do? I sure as hell don’t.

I have long been a fan of the 77′s. While they were categorized as a “Contemporary Christian” rock band, I always found them to be much more than that. Peter Bjorn & John remind me of them, at least musically. The 77′s always had an indie pop aspect to them, never fitting into the mainstream. They especially didn’t fit into the “Contemporary Christian” mainstream.

PB & J definitely aren’t off the radar like the 77′s, but you’re unlikely to hear them on your local pop station. At least you won’t in Nashville. My favorites on Gimme Some sound a lot like the 77′s. Take May Seem Macabre for instance. It feels like a mix between This Is The Way Love Is, Don’t This Way and You Walked In The Room. Some other highlights for me are Tomorrow Has To Wait and Second Chance.

Some folks didn’t like this album as much as Writer’s Block, with it’s hit song Young Folks. However, in all honesty, I think it to be just as good. As great as the former was, the latter followed in a great direction. If you are a fan of the 77′s, or are just a fan of indie pop, I would highly recommend Gimme Some. This album is a definite mood raiser in the best tradition of pop. It’s hooks will have you repeating the entire album in iTunes!

Okay. He didn’t really answer my question, but he talked plenty about Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Committee. Here is what he had to say.

Dear Mr. Sanders:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me in regards to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. I appreciate your input and am happy to respond.

As you know, this case essentially confers free speech rights on corporations and gives them the right to spend money on political ads right up to the day of an election.  I have heard from a number of constituents who are concerned with the potential impact of this decision.  I share those concerns, and am disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to roll back a number of important reforms that were implemented under the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The role of money in political campaigns has long been a concern of mine, and a simple legislative fix to the Citizens United decision is going to be difficult in light of the decision’s Constitutional implications.  I believe that now is the time for broader election reforms and that is why in the 111th Congress I co-sponsoredH.R. 1826, the Fair Elections Now Act.

This bill would have allowed federal candidates to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, and corporate lobbyists. Instead, qualifying candidates would raise small contributions from individuals in the communities they serve, not from Washington, D.C. If a candidate raises enough of those small donations, the candidate would qualify for Fair Elections funding in both the primary and the general election. This financing would be enough to run a competitive race against even the most well funded opponent and address some of the concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision.  It should be the people that decide this nation’s elections, not corporations, interest groups or unions. Unfortunately, the legislation did not make it to the House floor for a vote before the 111th Congress ended.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this important matter. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Jim Cooper

Member of Congress