I ran across an article on MSNBC about The National Association of Man/Boy Love, aka, The North American Man/Boy Love Association. At first, I was torn between the idea that this was an internet hoax or an ultra-right wing conspiracy imagining. But a simple entry in a search box netted this 'organization's' home page.
The initial article I read on MSNBC, and it's attendant commentary was fairly predictable, though, I did find one of the posters to be fairly pithy. The gist of all the back and forth was how homosexuality is immoral, at least Bibically, and the arguments devolved from there. However, I kept going back to the idea that there are people out there who think man/boy sexual relations are not only okay, but justifiable.
This group has links on it's page for those who are currently incarcerated; links about articles (or rants) about "Extreme Sentencing"; "The Myth of Recidivism"; "Self-Discovery"; and of course, "How to Help" and "How to Join".
Their basic stance is that it is an important and integral part of discovering oneself in their homosexual identity by experiencing 'love' with an older, mature man, for a boy to become a fully functional, self-satisfied homosexual. It does state that not all homosexuals are interested in young or younger than themselves partners, but, the idea is that young, developing homosexual boys need these associations to grow in and fully understand their own burgeoning sexualities.
I had to stop reading at several points, to wipe up the spittle that dropped onto my keyboard from my gaping mouth. I even navigated away from the page and back to it again, to make sure that I had not entered some alternate universe unawares.
While I expect that many of my conservative Christian friends will be in an uproar when they read this, I think those who should be in the biggest uproar are those of my friends who happen to be homosexual. This group, if given the opportunity, could single handedly set back gay rights by a half-century or more.
Let's examine just a few of the obvious flaws in these arguments. By the logic of this group, all young girls should be introduced to sexual relations with older men, so that they can fully understand and experience their heterosexuality with someone who understands them. This group argues that popular media and society in general already teaches girls and heterosexual boys how to develop their sexuality, and that only homosexual boys are being left to flounder through the confusing and confused time of self-discovery.
This group argues that they provide a service, a 'how to' manual for men who are drawn to boys that rather than being ostracized, penalized and imprisoned for their 'desires', they should be lauded for the selfless service they are wanting to provide to these poor, unguided youths.
I guess it is a good thing that I have found this site, and I am publicizing it. I would think that every law enforcement agency in the nation should have this site monitored, particularly those in law enforcement charged with 'watching' those who have already been convicted of offending against children. Just as it is appropriate to monitor those who are logging onto, sympathizing with and/or supporting Terrorist Training websites and bomb-building 101 sites for the home-made jihadists. Yes, that is Big Brother, but, really, I have no problem with that.
There are few offenses that are more vile, more insiduous, more heinous than those committed against children. There are currently no laws strict enough, no punishments harsh enough for those who commit these offenses. Personally, I like to think back to when my grandmother was a child...she told me that when someone was 'funny' with children, that person had a freak farming accident, getting caught up in their combine, or was 'accidentally' shot during a hunting expedition. And no one blinked or lost a moments' sleep.
The idea that homosexuality is a sin, is denounced by God, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, are all arguments for another time and another place. There is no argument, no rational, reasonable, legal or moral reasoning that can justify equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Personally, I have no opinion on whether or not homosexuality is a 'crime' against God, as I view all such things as ultimately between that person and God. I happen to be heterosexual. I happen to believe that homosexuals DO have the same rights as anyone else. I don't care what happens between two (or even more) consenting adults, though preferrably in the privacy of their own homes. I am not a big fan of public displays of affection, no matter the gender of the participants, I view that as something private, and should be conducted in private. I don't want to see a man and a woman in an intense lip lock on the public way. But, with all my tolerances now listed, I can unequivocally state that I find an older man and a young girl as equally offensive as any adult and child, whatever the gender of either.
The idea that there are those out there who are doing all they can to promote an acceptance of child molestation is something I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around. I know I am not alone. We just need to find a way to bury these monsters, without giving them an opportunity to infect the public consciousness more than they have. I'm writing this in hopes that others will be as sickened and outraged as I am. I'm open to suggestions.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
My Grandmother is a Registered Democrat
My grandmother was born in 1912. She suffered through both World Wars, the Great Depression, raised three children and worked in a factory most of her adult life. Her parents came from Eastern Europe, without a word of English between them, and they prospered, raising 12 children, all of whom became successful, productive members of society.
My grandmother's life led her to the opinion that there should be a 'hand-up' from the government, but no 'hand-outs'. There is only one instance of familial accord that I am aware of, between my father and my maternal grandmother. She fervently believed what went on in people's homes was none of the government's business, as long as no laws were being broken. Because of these opinions, she, like my father, voted Republican, through and through.
One might be tempted to think this is a wonderful story of an elderly person taking an active interest in the state of our nation. On a personal note, it is a wonderful example of family unity, where my father and his mother-in-law are in complete accord.
What makes this story not so wonderful is the fact that both my grandmother and my father are currently registered as Democrats in the great City of Chicago. What's so bad about that? Well, for one thing, my grandmother died in 1977, and my father died in 1990. More importantly, at their deaths, they were both registered Republicans.
Not only is this unequivocal proof of voter fraud, it is a personal insult. If possible, my grandmother and father would unite in death as they did on this one subject in life and rise from their graves and throttle the miscreant who dares to smear their names by casting votes for them as Democrats. I for one am staying far, far away from that particular cemetery for the time being. Talk about the unsettled dead!
How did this information come to light? Well, some half-wit had the audacity to mail the voter registration cards to the last known address on file for each of them, which happens to be the same house where my mother still lives. On the one hand, my mother got a chuckle out of the unneeded reminder of the corruption of the City of Chicago. She, who is a life-long registered Democrat also got a chuckle from the thought that she finally has the last word on the political debate that raged around our dinner table.
Everyone who lives in or hails from Chicago knows Mayor Daley is corrupt. Knows the 'Political Machine' in Chicago is alive and well. Knows Daley will never be convicted, much less removed from office except by death, as was his father. I admit to having voted for Daley time and again, despite this knowledge, not out of respect for or belief in Daley. But simply because Chicago Works. And because there has never been an opponent who was not equally corrupt.
"At least things get done" is the mantra of most Chicago Daley supporters. Whatever his faults, Daley has turned Chicago into a jewel, a truly world-class city. And his opponents have never been about change, about rooting out corruption. They have all been about removing Daley and his cronies so 'they and theirs' could get some. So, I voted, without a qualm, for Daley, as did the rest of my family, even those like my father and grandmother who were otherwise avowed Republicans.
'Vote Early, Vote Often', has been the only partly tongue-in-cheek expression of the voting system in that fair city for longer than I can remember. I remember being surprised to learn in Civics class that each person has only one vote. I truly thought that people were allowed to vote more than once, if they felt strongly enough about who they were voting for (or against). I don't recall thinking how many votes each person was allowed, but, I do remember my parents getting a good laugh at my confusion. I also remember that the conversation that followed swiftly flew over my head.
As a young adult, I remember going to the voting place, and being surprised that our next door neighbor of more than 20 years was an election judge. As she scanned the list to check off my name, I was shocked at seeing my grandmother's name, as she had been dead at that point for more than 10 years. I clearly recall the sneer I received from that neighbor when I asked her why she didn't say anything about this oversight of which she was well aware, as she had attended my grandmother's wake and funeral. I learned then and there that all the rumors and accusations about voter fraud and the Daley Political Machine were true, accurate and valid.
In subsequent elections, I paid attention when I was at the voting place. I looked for my grandmother's name, as well as my father's and was pleased to see their names were not on the rolls of registered voters. So it was with more than a little surprise that I discovered they are back on the voting roster. I guess it is appropriate, days before Halloween and Day of the Dead. There is macabre humor here, and luckily, my mother appreciates that flavor of humor above all others. I too, usually get a good laugh from gallows humor. Somehow, this time, I just can't muster a smile.
My grandmother's life led her to the opinion that there should be a 'hand-up' from the government, but no 'hand-outs'. There is only one instance of familial accord that I am aware of, between my father and my maternal grandmother. She fervently believed what went on in people's homes was none of the government's business, as long as no laws were being broken. Because of these opinions, she, like my father, voted Republican, through and through.
One might be tempted to think this is a wonderful story of an elderly person taking an active interest in the state of our nation. On a personal note, it is a wonderful example of family unity, where my father and his mother-in-law are in complete accord.
What makes this story not so wonderful is the fact that both my grandmother and my father are currently registered as Democrats in the great City of Chicago. What's so bad about that? Well, for one thing, my grandmother died in 1977, and my father died in 1990. More importantly, at their deaths, they were both registered Republicans.
Not only is this unequivocal proof of voter fraud, it is a personal insult. If possible, my grandmother and father would unite in death as they did on this one subject in life and rise from their graves and throttle the miscreant who dares to smear their names by casting votes for them as Democrats. I for one am staying far, far away from that particular cemetery for the time being. Talk about the unsettled dead!
How did this information come to light? Well, some half-wit had the audacity to mail the voter registration cards to the last known address on file for each of them, which happens to be the same house where my mother still lives. On the one hand, my mother got a chuckle out of the unneeded reminder of the corruption of the City of Chicago. She, who is a life-long registered Democrat also got a chuckle from the thought that she finally has the last word on the political debate that raged around our dinner table.
Everyone who lives in or hails from Chicago knows Mayor Daley is corrupt. Knows the 'Political Machine' in Chicago is alive and well. Knows Daley will never be convicted, much less removed from office except by death, as was his father. I admit to having voted for Daley time and again, despite this knowledge, not out of respect for or belief in Daley. But simply because Chicago Works. And because there has never been an opponent who was not equally corrupt.
"At least things get done" is the mantra of most Chicago Daley supporters. Whatever his faults, Daley has turned Chicago into a jewel, a truly world-class city. And his opponents have never been about change, about rooting out corruption. They have all been about removing Daley and his cronies so 'they and theirs' could get some. So, I voted, without a qualm, for Daley, as did the rest of my family, even those like my father and grandmother who were otherwise avowed Republicans.
'Vote Early, Vote Often', has been the only partly tongue-in-cheek expression of the voting system in that fair city for longer than I can remember. I remember being surprised to learn in Civics class that each person has only one vote. I truly thought that people were allowed to vote more than once, if they felt strongly enough about who they were voting for (or against). I don't recall thinking how many votes each person was allowed, but, I do remember my parents getting a good laugh at my confusion. I also remember that the conversation that followed swiftly flew over my head.
As a young adult, I remember going to the voting place, and being surprised that our next door neighbor of more than 20 years was an election judge. As she scanned the list to check off my name, I was shocked at seeing my grandmother's name, as she had been dead at that point for more than 10 years. I clearly recall the sneer I received from that neighbor when I asked her why she didn't say anything about this oversight of which she was well aware, as she had attended my grandmother's wake and funeral. I learned then and there that all the rumors and accusations about voter fraud and the Daley Political Machine were true, accurate and valid.
In subsequent elections, I paid attention when I was at the voting place. I looked for my grandmother's name, as well as my father's and was pleased to see their names were not on the rolls of registered voters. So it was with more than a little surprise that I discovered they are back on the voting roster. I guess it is appropriate, days before Halloween and Day of the Dead. There is macabre humor here, and luckily, my mother appreciates that flavor of humor above all others. I too, usually get a good laugh from gallows humor. Somehow, this time, I just can't muster a smile.
I have Hope!
This morning I saw something I had despaired of ever seeing again. I sat, eyes wide, mouth agape, as I attempted to process what my senses were perceiving. I actually saw Fox News return to it's slogan of "We Report, You Decide" instead of it's recently more appropriate epithet of "We Distort, You Decide".
Wednesday, October 28th 2008, just 6 days prior to one of the most important, momentous occasions in our Nation's voting history, Fox News began to reclaim it's journalistic integrity. They have reported, both on TV and on the Internet (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/)
that there is a bias in the media against John McCain. Fox reported that the LA Times is 'burying' a video tape that, if released, would severely damage Obama's position as the heir presumptive of the White House.
The LA Times has in it's possession a video tape of a farewell dinner thrown for Rashid Khalidi, where Barak Obama spoke about his personal and professional relationship and camaraderie with Rashid Khalidi.
Who is Rashid Khalidi? He was Professor of Middle East History in the Department of Near East Languages and History at the University of Chicago. He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1970, and his D.Phil. from Oxford University in 1974. He has taught at the Lebanese University, the American University of Beirut, and Georgetown and Columbia universities. He is past President of the Middle East Studies Association, and was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993. Currently, he holds the anonymously endowed Edward Said Chair at Columbia University in New York.
He is the author of several books and articles on the Palestinian/Israeli affairs. He is staunchly pro-Palestinian, against Israeli and American policies in the region, as reported in the past by the New York Times and the Washington Post. He calls Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a "racist state" that "brainwashed" Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, he deems "an Arab city" whose control by Israeli "foreigners" is "unacceptable." He now denies his involvement with Yasser Arafat in the 1970's and 1980's, when Arafat and the PLO were still considered terrorists for their penchant for hijacking airplanes and blowing things up. He states he was never an 'employee' of the PLO or of Yasser Arafat, and cites that distinction as proof of his distance from Arafat and the PLO during that time frame. Recently, he has owned and bragged about his position and influence of and by the Palestinian Authority leadership both past and present.
Just to keep the waters crystal clear, I happen to believe in the creation of a Palestinian Soveriegn Nation. I do not believe Israel's right to exist is any stronger than Palestine's. I simply do not believe ANYONE, has a right to exist at the expense and exclusion of another. I do not pretend to have the answers to the 'Palestinian Question', but I do believe that Americans do not fully understand the situation there, nor are we likely to in the near future, at least on a national scale because of the equally wrong fear-mongering and hyperbole issuing from both sides.
Why does it matter who Rashid Khalidi is? In the long haul, it doesn't matter as much as the relationship between Khalidi and Obama. The definitive answer to the question of how much Obama supports Khalidi's ideals and his true feelings on this subject are contained in this unreleased video tape the LA Times is suppressing. What will be most telling is listening to Obama's words on that tape, then his words prior to the full disclosure of the tape, and ultimately his side-stepping, tap dancing and loop-de-loops to cover his inconsistencies and flat-out lies. This tape will also show Obama's relationship both personal and professional with William Ayers, another attendee of the event.
And the LA Times simply cannot allow any of this. Their pretensions to journalistic integrity would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious. They claim they are protecting and honoring the wishes of their 'source'. They claim they reported on the existence of this tape months ago, and have issued their last statement on the subject. They have also endorsed Barak Obama in his bid for President.
So, the LA Times is either protecting their candidate, or protecting themselves. They admit they knew the contents of this tape prior to their endorsement. Which means that either in spite of or because of the sentiments expressed by their candidate on this tape, they chose to endorse him for the highest office of the land. Sad to say, but it will probably be left to the National Enquirer or some other traditionally viewed 'yellow' journalistic outfit to find and release this or another tape of the event.
What in all of this has given me hope? Fox News has been as guilty of partisanship and biased reporting as all the other news outlets. I have already commented on my dismay at realizing the charge of 'liberal, biased news organizations' has some validity in this campaign. The fact that Fox News, and now other outlets, are 'outing' this scandalous situation tells me the 'heir presumptive' thinking may have been premature. There is nothing the media hates more than being wrong.
The media in this country have become self-appointed prognosticators. The media want to tell us they know, because of their position as investigators and editorialists, where the country is headed. They know the American people, are one of 'us', and therefore can predict the mood of the country. This is not their job. Their job is to report the facts that are out there, not create them, not slant them, and most certainly not to even attempt to influence them.
They have been by and large reporting that Obama will win. Now that the election will by all measures be much closer, and in all probability too close to call until the fat lady actually sings, they cannot afford to have been wrong. So, they are at least in this one small measure, attempting to level the playing field.
There have been small, quiet noises for the past week or so, with headlines like "What if McCain wins?" and "Will people actually vote the way they have told the Pollsters?". I think the term 'hedging their bets' is appropriate.
And that is what has given me hope. I have been fearing the outcome of this election was a foregone conclusion, largely because of the media bias. There have been stories, and valid accusations that have gone mostly under-reported if not all together ignored, that if given the full spotlight the media is capable of mustering, would completely sideline Obama's chance of a win on November 4th.
To continue to appear valid and unbiased, the media has been guilty of practicing 'damning with faint praise'; when a question is raised, the question is publicized, but editorialized and spun to favor Obama. The media can then justifiably state the question was covered. What cannot be justified is the lack of investigative follow-up required to unearth the truth, which ever way that truth will point.
I will make a prediction here and now. I will predict that over the coming days, media outlets across America will begin to air stories that question the validity of the polls they have so lovingly broadcast. They will begin to air stories that the American people, while not perhaps completely abandoning Obama, are looking at the depth, scope and sheer number of unanswered questions about Obama's associations, refusals to release records from birth thru college and what all that means about his character. The media will report that because of this, the election is far from a foregone conclusion. They will call McCain the underdog, and state it is a tradition in this country for the underdog to win, that it is the definition of the American Experience. They will turn McCain's possible win into a Horatio Algiers story for the 21st Century. And they will then point to their 11th hour prognostications as proof of their ability to accurately take the temperature of the American people. There are some media outlets that will, however, be unable to distance themselves from their obvious bias, and they will hopefully suffer the consequences of the justified wrath of the American public.
This Presidential election has become a three-way race in that if McCain wins, there will be two losers. Barak Obama and the American Media. The media holds a public trust no less important than that of our government. Actually, more important and more sacred. We turn to the media for truth. We hope that at least the media won't lie to us, won't put it's needs, it's agenda, ahead of the welfare of the people. We rely on the media to root out the dishonest, the untrustworthy and the downright dangerous demagogues we errantly place in public office. We expect the unvarnished, un-whitewashed facts to be placed before us for us to use in making our decisions. When the media loses that trust, as many outlets stand to over this election, the American people have lost their one, last best hope.
Wednesday, October 28th 2008, just 6 days prior to one of the most important, momentous occasions in our Nation's voting history, Fox News began to reclaim it's journalistic integrity. They have reported, both on TV and on the Internet (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/)
that there is a bias in the media against John McCain. Fox reported that the LA Times is 'burying' a video tape that, if released, would severely damage Obama's position as the heir presumptive of the White House.
The LA Times has in it's possession a video tape of a farewell dinner thrown for Rashid Khalidi, where Barak Obama spoke about his personal and professional relationship and camaraderie with Rashid Khalidi.
Who is Rashid Khalidi? He was Professor of Middle East History in the Department of Near East Languages and History at the University of Chicago. He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1970, and his D.Phil. from Oxford University in 1974. He has taught at the Lebanese University, the American University of Beirut, and Georgetown and Columbia universities. He is past President of the Middle East Studies Association, and was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993. Currently, he holds the anonymously endowed Edward Said Chair at Columbia University in New York.
He is the author of several books and articles on the Palestinian/Israeli affairs. He is staunchly pro-Palestinian, against Israeli and American policies in the region, as reported in the past by the New York Times and the Washington Post. He calls Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a "racist state" that "brainwashed" Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, he deems "an Arab city" whose control by Israeli "foreigners" is "unacceptable." He now denies his involvement with Yasser Arafat in the 1970's and 1980's, when Arafat and the PLO were still considered terrorists for their penchant for hijacking airplanes and blowing things up. He states he was never an 'employee' of the PLO or of Yasser Arafat, and cites that distinction as proof of his distance from Arafat and the PLO during that time frame. Recently, he has owned and bragged about his position and influence of and by the Palestinian Authority leadership both past and present.
Just to keep the waters crystal clear, I happen to believe in the creation of a Palestinian Soveriegn Nation. I do not believe Israel's right to exist is any stronger than Palestine's. I simply do not believe ANYONE, has a right to exist at the expense and exclusion of another. I do not pretend to have the answers to the 'Palestinian Question', but I do believe that Americans do not fully understand the situation there, nor are we likely to in the near future, at least on a national scale because of the equally wrong fear-mongering and hyperbole issuing from both sides.
Why does it matter who Rashid Khalidi is? In the long haul, it doesn't matter as much as the relationship between Khalidi and Obama. The definitive answer to the question of how much Obama supports Khalidi's ideals and his true feelings on this subject are contained in this unreleased video tape the LA Times is suppressing. What will be most telling is listening to Obama's words on that tape, then his words prior to the full disclosure of the tape, and ultimately his side-stepping, tap dancing and loop-de-loops to cover his inconsistencies and flat-out lies. This tape will also show Obama's relationship both personal and professional with William Ayers, another attendee of the event.
And the LA Times simply cannot allow any of this. Their pretensions to journalistic integrity would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious. They claim they are protecting and honoring the wishes of their 'source'. They claim they reported on the existence of this tape months ago, and have issued their last statement on the subject. They have also endorsed Barak Obama in his bid for President.
So, the LA Times is either protecting their candidate, or protecting themselves. They admit they knew the contents of this tape prior to their endorsement. Which means that either in spite of or because of the sentiments expressed by their candidate on this tape, they chose to endorse him for the highest office of the land. Sad to say, but it will probably be left to the National Enquirer or some other traditionally viewed 'yellow' journalistic outfit to find and release this or another tape of the event.
What in all of this has given me hope? Fox News has been as guilty of partisanship and biased reporting as all the other news outlets. I have already commented on my dismay at realizing the charge of 'liberal, biased news organizations' has some validity in this campaign. The fact that Fox News, and now other outlets, are 'outing' this scandalous situation tells me the 'heir presumptive' thinking may have been premature. There is nothing the media hates more than being wrong.
The media in this country have become self-appointed prognosticators. The media want to tell us they know, because of their position as investigators and editorialists, where the country is headed. They know the American people, are one of 'us', and therefore can predict the mood of the country. This is not their job. Their job is to report the facts that are out there, not create them, not slant them, and most certainly not to even attempt to influence them.
They have been by and large reporting that Obama will win. Now that the election will by all measures be much closer, and in all probability too close to call until the fat lady actually sings, they cannot afford to have been wrong. So, they are at least in this one small measure, attempting to level the playing field.
There have been small, quiet noises for the past week or so, with headlines like "What if McCain wins?" and "Will people actually vote the way they have told the Pollsters?". I think the term 'hedging their bets' is appropriate.
And that is what has given me hope. I have been fearing the outcome of this election was a foregone conclusion, largely because of the media bias. There have been stories, and valid accusations that have gone mostly under-reported if not all together ignored, that if given the full spotlight the media is capable of mustering, would completely sideline Obama's chance of a win on November 4th.
To continue to appear valid and unbiased, the media has been guilty of practicing 'damning with faint praise'; when a question is raised, the question is publicized, but editorialized and spun to favor Obama. The media can then justifiably state the question was covered. What cannot be justified is the lack of investigative follow-up required to unearth the truth, which ever way that truth will point.
I will make a prediction here and now. I will predict that over the coming days, media outlets across America will begin to air stories that question the validity of the polls they have so lovingly broadcast. They will begin to air stories that the American people, while not perhaps completely abandoning Obama, are looking at the depth, scope and sheer number of unanswered questions about Obama's associations, refusals to release records from birth thru college and what all that means about his character. The media will report that because of this, the election is far from a foregone conclusion. They will call McCain the underdog, and state it is a tradition in this country for the underdog to win, that it is the definition of the American Experience. They will turn McCain's possible win into a Horatio Algiers story for the 21st Century. And they will then point to their 11th hour prognostications as proof of their ability to accurately take the temperature of the American people. There are some media outlets that will, however, be unable to distance themselves from their obvious bias, and they will hopefully suffer the consequences of the justified wrath of the American public.
This Presidential election has become a three-way race in that if McCain wins, there will be two losers. Barak Obama and the American Media. The media holds a public trust no less important than that of our government. Actually, more important and more sacred. We turn to the media for truth. We hope that at least the media won't lie to us, won't put it's needs, it's agenda, ahead of the welfare of the people. We rely on the media to root out the dishonest, the untrustworthy and the downright dangerous demagogues we errantly place in public office. We expect the unvarnished, un-whitewashed facts to be placed before us for us to use in making our decisions. When the media loses that trust, as many outlets stand to over this election, the American people have lost their one, last best hope.
Monday, October 27, 2008
A Natural Born Citizen
Boy, this has been an active day. ANOTHER email, this one with a link to a YouTube video about a law suit filed against Barak Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfIV1ntYggc
There are a few factual problems, however. First is the idea that if Obama was claimed as a citizen of Indonesia by his step-father, that act somehow nullifies his US Citizenship. This would only be true if after Obama became an adult, he continued to claim Indonesian Citizenship.
Another issue is the question of how he returned to the United States years later. Again, he was still a minor, therefore, citizenship claims would have been the provenience of his mother and/or step-father.
There are also a few troubling, and valid questions raised by this video. First and foremost is why Obama and/or the DNC would not simply supply the Judge with the original Birth Certificate, rather than rely on an image posted on a website, to be verified virtually by another organization. So much simpler to turn over the original Certificate of Live Birth to the Judge.
The fact Obama has refused to release his college records is another area that is controversial because of that refusal. The video purports that it would be possible to ascertain his citizenship from these documents, and they are correct. It has been theorized that Obama may have claimed citizenship of either Indonesia or Kenya, to expedite his admissions. This does not necessarily prove he is a citizen of either country, but it does raise some more questions about his character and integrity. Again, the simple solution is to open the records.
I actually voted for Bill Clinton, both times. And the number one charge against Bill Clinton, and by extension Hillary (by her own actions as well) is the refusal of the Clinton White House to release records. The argument that Obama himself made during the Primaries was that when there is nothing to hide, refusing to release documents becomes the story, and is more damning than the contents of those documents. Except of course if the allegations are founded. Then you are guilty of the lie and the attempted cover up.
Barak? Are you listening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfIV1ntYggc
There are a few factual problems, however. First is the idea that if Obama was claimed as a citizen of Indonesia by his step-father, that act somehow nullifies his US Citizenship. This would only be true if after Obama became an adult, he continued to claim Indonesian Citizenship.
Another issue is the question of how he returned to the United States years later. Again, he was still a minor, therefore, citizenship claims would have been the provenience of his mother and/or step-father.
There are also a few troubling, and valid questions raised by this video. First and foremost is why Obama and/or the DNC would not simply supply the Judge with the original Birth Certificate, rather than rely on an image posted on a website, to be verified virtually by another organization. So much simpler to turn over the original Certificate of Live Birth to the Judge.
The fact Obama has refused to release his college records is another area that is controversial because of that refusal. The video purports that it would be possible to ascertain his citizenship from these documents, and they are correct. It has been theorized that Obama may have claimed citizenship of either Indonesia or Kenya, to expedite his admissions. This does not necessarily prove he is a citizen of either country, but it does raise some more questions about his character and integrity. Again, the simple solution is to open the records.
I actually voted for Bill Clinton, both times. And the number one charge against Bill Clinton, and by extension Hillary (by her own actions as well) is the refusal of the Clinton White House to release records. The argument that Obama himself made during the Primaries was that when there is nothing to hide, refusing to release documents becomes the story, and is more damning than the contents of those documents. Except of course if the allegations are founded. Then you are guilty of the lie and the attempted cover up.
Barak? Are you listening?
Democratic Public Relations Machine
I am posting this, in it's entirety, hoping for a wider circulation than would be acheived by a mere 'forward' of an email. This open letter to American Newspapers is fascinating on several levels, the primary of which is that it is true. Yes, the facts as put forward all check out. Yes, the author really is Orson Scott Card, probably best known for his work as a science fiction writer. On that, I turn the floor over to the inimitable Mr. Orson Scott Card:
WorldWatch First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
By Orson Scott Card
October 5, 2008
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.
WorldWatch First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
By Orson Scott Card
October 5, 2008
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.
Bar Stool Economics
Once again, I am motivated by an email. This one has been circulating for a couple years, and it has been inaccurately attributed to a variety of people, Professors of Economics at leading Universities, etc., but the truth is the authorship is unknown. Still, it is both accurate and humorous. And timely.
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you areall such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost ofyour daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could theydivide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out
the amounts each should pay. And so:The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointedto the tenth man,' but he got $10!
''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'
'That's true!!'shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!
''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and
gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The President We Deserve
...or Who Gets Elected and Why.
I would hope that every school child, whether or not they are of voting age, watched the Presidential Debate in school. More, I would hope they watched some of the commentary by the talking heads after the debate. It was much more instructional than the debate itself.
Rather than go over, point by point the content of each side, an inordinate amount of time was spent discussing the facial tics, the reactions and the general appearance and demeanor of each candidate. The content of the statements, accusations and defensive positions of each, much less the facts, were a distant second, and hardly merited a mention.
It was repeatedly said that Obama merely had to look Presidential, meaning calm, smooth talking and unflustered. McCain, being the less eloquent and glib of the two, by this measure, lost.
Fox News used the analogy of a tennis match. It was said that Obama merely lobbed back McCain's questions, and thereby won the set. Then the discussion turned to the candid reactions caught when the candidates thought they were not on camera. It is these candid, honest reactions that received the most discussion.
It was said that McCain had 'interesting' facial expressions, and it was unclear what those expressions meant. I can only assume the looks of incredulity and utter disbelief are what was being questioned. This was also intimated to be something derogatory about McCain. I was wondering at this point if these people and I had just watched the same debate.
I was not in the least bit confused by McCain's reactions, and actually found them refreshing. In real life, if someone denies something to you that you know is a proven fact, that you know others know is a proven fact, a look of shocked disbelief at what you were hearing would be normal. If I were the first person listener, I would have a hard time not busting out laughing at the audacity of the statements.
The same commentators said Obama's snickers at McCain's statements were hinted at as being a possible turn-off to the American public. It was said that he may have seemed condescending. Actually, being the mother of son's, I recognized his reaction. It is the snicker of the 'guilty as charged'. When caught with crumbs on their lips and they say "Not me!" to the question "Who took the last cookie?". They know they are caught, but, they think it is an inconsequential thing, there will be no real repercussions, so they are determined to stick to their story. They do grow out of this, eventually, and learn that no matter what they did wrong, the only way to make it worse is to lie.
The consensus was that Obama won the debate, not on substance, but on perception. Even McCain's supporters were disappointed in him for his refusal to go on the attack on William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, not to mention a whole list of his questionable at best associations, both past and present. A McCain supporter was actually questioned if McCain didn't appear negative, of running a negative campaign, for posing the few questions he did about William Ayers.
McCain said repeatedly during the debate and all throughout his campaign that he will not spend his time attacking Obama and being negative. He does not want people to vote 'against' someone, he wants to give people something to vote 'for'. He has chosen, perhaps to his detriment, to address the issues he believes in, the policies he wants to enact, and the experience and integrity he brings. This is both noble and honorable. McCain proved his integrity again during the debate when he roundly repudiated statements made by others, that are factually inaccurate about Obama, as well as those that are simply derogatory, inflammatory, or down-right vicious. McCain made it abundantly clear this is a mark of his character. Interestingly, Obama spent more time complaining about what was said about him than he did decrying what his supporters have said that has been inaccurate, inflammatory, derogatory or down-right vicious about McCain. Obama even accused McCain of not denouncing statements made by supporters at rallies where McCain was not even present. McCain responded that he did at the time, and he did so again at the debate. Again, a shining example of the character of both candidates.
However, I too was a bit disappointed that McCain did not address Obama's associations. I do not believe questioning Obama, to his face, on national television about his choice in spiritual mentor (Jeremiah Wright), his choice of political godfather (William Ayers) and his choice of professional associates (Tony Rezko) and economic advisers, (Tim Howard, James Johnson and Franklin Raines) is running a negative campaign. I believe this would have been the appropriate venue. The American voter would have had an opportunity to see the character and judgement of each candidate in clear, concise terms.
Character particularly becomes an issue when Obama's answers to and reactions to these associations were first publicized. To be kind, let's just say he 'minimized'. Once it was widely publicized how racist and Anti-American Jeremiah Wrights' sermons often are, Obama quit the congregation. As if after 20 years of sitting in a pew in this man's church, his views were suddenly news to Obama. Obama called this man his spiritual advisor, but then denounced his association with him. The campaign went so far as to repeat a statement of Jeremiah Wrights' that Obama didn't attend church that often, as if to excuse his 20 year association.
During the debate, and on the campaign trail, Obama said that the crimes against this country that William Ayers committed happened when Obama was eight years old. While that is true, the acts of William Ayers, the co-founder of The Weather Underground, were acts of terrorism, and he has since stated that his only regret from that time is that he didn't conduct more bombings. That statement from Ayers came in 2001, AFTER Obama sat in the man's living room and launched his political career. Interestingly, because of his known, admitted and proven association with William Ayers, Obama would not qualify for the Secret Service, would not qualify to be his own bodyguard.
Obama then attempted to characterize Ayers as simply a professor of education. He flat out denied that Ayers launched Obama's political career with a fundraiser and exploratory meeting in William Ayers' living room on the south side of Chicago. Previously, Obama has said Ayers was "just a guy who lives in the neighborhood". The fact that this man is someone Obama turned to early in his career, associated with through several organizations, raises some troubling questions, to say the least. The fact that Obama has chosen to attempt to hide this association is the most troubling of all.
It is perfectly acceptable to have one or even two people close to you that would be viewed by the public at large as 'marginal'. It is perfectly acceptable to say, "this person is a personal friend, or a neighbor, and as they have been kind to me, I see no reason to thrash them publicly". However, when those associations rise to the level of political godfather and spiritual advisor, the character of those people should be examined. When that character is shown to be radical, extreme and Anti-American, the judgement of choosing those people to be such an integral, fundamental part of your life is an appropriate area to be examined. When you then deny these associations, lie about the extent of involvement in and affect on your personal and public life, and then characterize questions about these individuals as personal and negative attack ads, the questions raised are troubling to say the least.
It is a testament to McCain's character that he has, possibly to his own detriment, taken the higher moral ground. My fear is that in not directly addressing this, he has done a disservice to the American people. Voters are smart, contrary to popular belief. Voters will listen to a question and an answer, and judge for themselves, particularly if that question and answer came from the candidates themselves. The fact that those questions seem negative is simply because they are about a negative situation. By not addressing them directly, McCain did the honorable thing and kept his word, but I fear that because these issues have not been addressed, voters are being forced to make a decision without all the facts.
Americans and everyone else in the world, let this be your civics lesson for the day. We do not elect the most qualified, honorable, honest, intelligent person for the highest office in the land. We elect the one who, according to the talking heads at least, LOOKS the part. At some point, the media has hijacked our electoral system. Thank God for the Internet, or there would be nowhere to turn for if not the truth, then at least the substance.
And that is how we get the President we deserve, not the President we need.
I would hope that every school child, whether or not they are of voting age, watched the Presidential Debate in school. More, I would hope they watched some of the commentary by the talking heads after the debate. It was much more instructional than the debate itself.
Rather than go over, point by point the content of each side, an inordinate amount of time was spent discussing the facial tics, the reactions and the general appearance and demeanor of each candidate. The content of the statements, accusations and defensive positions of each, much less the facts, were a distant second, and hardly merited a mention.
It was repeatedly said that Obama merely had to look Presidential, meaning calm, smooth talking and unflustered. McCain, being the less eloquent and glib of the two, by this measure, lost.
Fox News used the analogy of a tennis match. It was said that Obama merely lobbed back McCain's questions, and thereby won the set. Then the discussion turned to the candid reactions caught when the candidates thought they were not on camera. It is these candid, honest reactions that received the most discussion.
It was said that McCain had 'interesting' facial expressions, and it was unclear what those expressions meant. I can only assume the looks of incredulity and utter disbelief are what was being questioned. This was also intimated to be something derogatory about McCain. I was wondering at this point if these people and I had just watched the same debate.
I was not in the least bit confused by McCain's reactions, and actually found them refreshing. In real life, if someone denies something to you that you know is a proven fact, that you know others know is a proven fact, a look of shocked disbelief at what you were hearing would be normal. If I were the first person listener, I would have a hard time not busting out laughing at the audacity of the statements.
The same commentators said Obama's snickers at McCain's statements were hinted at as being a possible turn-off to the American public. It was said that he may have seemed condescending. Actually, being the mother of son's, I recognized his reaction. It is the snicker of the 'guilty as charged'. When caught with crumbs on their lips and they say "Not me!" to the question "Who took the last cookie?". They know they are caught, but, they think it is an inconsequential thing, there will be no real repercussions, so they are determined to stick to their story. They do grow out of this, eventually, and learn that no matter what they did wrong, the only way to make it worse is to lie.
The consensus was that Obama won the debate, not on substance, but on perception. Even McCain's supporters were disappointed in him for his refusal to go on the attack on William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, not to mention a whole list of his questionable at best associations, both past and present. A McCain supporter was actually questioned if McCain didn't appear negative, of running a negative campaign, for posing the few questions he did about William Ayers.
McCain said repeatedly during the debate and all throughout his campaign that he will not spend his time attacking Obama and being negative. He does not want people to vote 'against' someone, he wants to give people something to vote 'for'. He has chosen, perhaps to his detriment, to address the issues he believes in, the policies he wants to enact, and the experience and integrity he brings. This is both noble and honorable. McCain proved his integrity again during the debate when he roundly repudiated statements made by others, that are factually inaccurate about Obama, as well as those that are simply derogatory, inflammatory, or down-right vicious. McCain made it abundantly clear this is a mark of his character. Interestingly, Obama spent more time complaining about what was said about him than he did decrying what his supporters have said that has been inaccurate, inflammatory, derogatory or down-right vicious about McCain. Obama even accused McCain of not denouncing statements made by supporters at rallies where McCain was not even present. McCain responded that he did at the time, and he did so again at the debate. Again, a shining example of the character of both candidates.
However, I too was a bit disappointed that McCain did not address Obama's associations. I do not believe questioning Obama, to his face, on national television about his choice in spiritual mentor (Jeremiah Wright), his choice of political godfather (William Ayers) and his choice of professional associates (Tony Rezko) and economic advisers, (Tim Howard, James Johnson and Franklin Raines) is running a negative campaign. I believe this would have been the appropriate venue. The American voter would have had an opportunity to see the character and judgement of each candidate in clear, concise terms.
Character particularly becomes an issue when Obama's answers to and reactions to these associations were first publicized. To be kind, let's just say he 'minimized'. Once it was widely publicized how racist and Anti-American Jeremiah Wrights' sermons often are, Obama quit the congregation. As if after 20 years of sitting in a pew in this man's church, his views were suddenly news to Obama. Obama called this man his spiritual advisor, but then denounced his association with him. The campaign went so far as to repeat a statement of Jeremiah Wrights' that Obama didn't attend church that often, as if to excuse his 20 year association.
During the debate, and on the campaign trail, Obama said that the crimes against this country that William Ayers committed happened when Obama was eight years old. While that is true, the acts of William Ayers, the co-founder of The Weather Underground, were acts of terrorism, and he has since stated that his only regret from that time is that he didn't conduct more bombings. That statement from Ayers came in 2001, AFTER Obama sat in the man's living room and launched his political career. Interestingly, because of his known, admitted and proven association with William Ayers, Obama would not qualify for the Secret Service, would not qualify to be his own bodyguard.
Obama then attempted to characterize Ayers as simply a professor of education. He flat out denied that Ayers launched Obama's political career with a fundraiser and exploratory meeting in William Ayers' living room on the south side of Chicago. Previously, Obama has said Ayers was "just a guy who lives in the neighborhood". The fact that this man is someone Obama turned to early in his career, associated with through several organizations, raises some troubling questions, to say the least. The fact that Obama has chosen to attempt to hide this association is the most troubling of all.
It is perfectly acceptable to have one or even two people close to you that would be viewed by the public at large as 'marginal'. It is perfectly acceptable to say, "this person is a personal friend, or a neighbor, and as they have been kind to me, I see no reason to thrash them publicly". However, when those associations rise to the level of political godfather and spiritual advisor, the character of those people should be examined. When that character is shown to be radical, extreme and Anti-American, the judgement of choosing those people to be such an integral, fundamental part of your life is an appropriate area to be examined. When you then deny these associations, lie about the extent of involvement in and affect on your personal and public life, and then characterize questions about these individuals as personal and negative attack ads, the questions raised are troubling to say the least.
It is a testament to McCain's character that he has, possibly to his own detriment, taken the higher moral ground. My fear is that in not directly addressing this, he has done a disservice to the American people. Voters are smart, contrary to popular belief. Voters will listen to a question and an answer, and judge for themselves, particularly if that question and answer came from the candidates themselves. The fact that those questions seem negative is simply because they are about a negative situation. By not addressing them directly, McCain did the honorable thing and kept his word, but I fear that because these issues have not been addressed, voters are being forced to make a decision without all the facts.
Americans and everyone else in the world, let this be your civics lesson for the day. We do not elect the most qualified, honorable, honest, intelligent person for the highest office in the land. We elect the one who, according to the talking heads at least, LOOKS the part. At some point, the media has hijacked our electoral system. Thank God for the Internet, or there would be nowhere to turn for if not the truth, then at least the substance.
And that is how we get the President we deserve, not the President we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)