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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

McCain booed for 'supporting' Obama?

On Friday, John McCain showed the world just what kind of man he is, and why he is needed as our next President.

For one of the articles, follow this link:

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-booed-after-trying-to-calm-crowd/207841


AOL is far from my favorite news source. But the point is still there, even in this decidedly liberal, unprofessionally slanted news forum. Some salient quotes from this article:

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."


McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:


"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."


Where the article gets loopy is when it goes on with:


"The anti-Obama taunts and jeers are noticeably louder when McCain appears with Palin, a big draw for GOP social conservatives. She accused Obama this week of "palling around with terrorists" because of his past, loose association with a 1960s radical. "


I'm not sure how Obama's association with William Ayers can be considered a 'loose association'. Obama's political career was launched from William Ayers living room. They were both associated, at the ground floor, each by chairing a committee, for the same decidedly liberal, most say socialist, organization. The list of their known, admitted, shared friends reads as a 'who's who' of radical liberal and socialist leaders. Not to mention their shared admitted affection for, appearance with, support of and support by such stellar characters as Louis Farakhan.


So, what should be a resounding round of applause for McCain's honorable, appropriate and sadly too uncommon in American Politics reminder of the need for civility, becomes an at best backhanded compliment.


This article, as well as just about every other I have read, states that it is both common and customary, if unsavory, for supporters to become over-zealous and even slanderous in their attacks on the political opposition. If the fanatical, uneducated shouts of McCain/Palin supports are going to be reported, the same standard should be applied to Obama/Biden supporters.


Some examples that have come from Obama rallies:


"McCain's family were slave owners, and that proves he is a racist".


Fact: McCain's family have been living on this continent since the very early 1700's. His family fought and DIED on both sides of the Civil War. Since then, he, his father and his grandfather all fought for THIS country.


"McCain is a gold-digger, and married Cindy McCain to use her money for his political agenda. Cindy McCain's family were privileged racists, too."


Fact: Cindy McCain's parents started a beer distribution business, and by virtue of hard work amassed a small family fortune, which Cindy inherited. ALL Cindy's money is in Cindy's complete control. If she didn't believe in and support, in every way she could, the man she married, that would be a story.


"McCain has faked his war injuries, and has greatly exaggerated his POW experience".


FACT: He has consistently credited his fellow POW's as saving his life as well as his sanity. He is still unable to lift his arms above his head due to 'rope' torture he suffered at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors. This in addition to having both of his legs broken and one arm broken when he was shot down. He credits his belief that his country, for all it's faults, was something worth fighting for, something honorable, bigger than himself or any one person. It is this belief and character, life long, tested and proven in the most extreme way, that we want in the White House.


I have intentionally not repeated some of the more inflammatory, defamatory and ridiculous attacks on McCain. I can not, without calling into question the intelligence and tenuous grip on reality these people obviously have. I am taking my cue from McCain, and hope to conduct myself with a fraction of the integrity he has displayed.


At least for now.


One final, fun FACT. No one with a known association with William Ayers would be allowed to serve in the Secret Service. Because of this, Obama can not get clearance to be his own bodyguard. McCain held Top Secret clearance in the military, as do all Aviators.

What Obama Reads

Once again, I am motivated by an email I received:

Open your eyes and see what he's reading!!!! Pass this on!!!

This certainly makes me question the whole candidate and what he says!
This will open your eyes.
What does Obama read?is reading "The Post-American World" -- it's a Muslim's view.

I am most certainly not an Obama fan, yet, I do not believe in baseless and/or erroneous attacks. According to Snopes.com, this picture is undated, and factually inaccurate as a characterization of the author and the thrust of the book.

Snopes quotes a review from Publishers Weekly, "...it is not about the decline of America but the rise of everyone else...a stimulating, largely optimistic forecast of where the 21st Century is heading...Zakaria predicts that despite it's record of recent blunders at home and abroad, America will stay strong, buoyed by a stellar educational system..."

Further, it is noted that the author, Fareed Zakaria, an Indian-born, Naturalized Citizen of the U.S., a political journalist, authored "Why They Hate Us". In that tome, he uses his upbringing as a secular Muslim, who also celebrated Hindu holidays, and attended Christian schools, to bring perspective to the issues of a post 9/11 world. He is described as a political moderate, though very critical of Bush adminstration policies and activities in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

Because someone reads a particular book, conclusions cannot be drawn about the opinions of the reader. In addition to needing a full understanding of the author and the work itself, a simple question or two of the reader is required. I admittedly have not read "The Post American World", nor have I been able to find any questions or responses from Obama on his take of the book. Substitue McCain for Obama in the above picture, and the answer remains the same. Reading authors and viewpoints diametrically opposed to your own is to me, the hallmark of a responsible, intelligent person. If the Pope reads the Koran, does that act make him less Catholic?

There are a host of things that can be said about Obama's choices being less than appropriate, so his choice of reading material is by default low on the list. Particularly when he has provided so much material that is a much more damning and illuminating indictment of his character. Let's remember Obama's membership in the good Reverend Wrights' congregation; his choice of political godfathers in William Ayers; his personal, political and financial ties to the convicted Tony Rezko, for starters.

Any one of these issues should have been enough to remove Obama from serious consideration for the highest office in the land, much less any position of public trust. Not just for the judgement these acts display, but for the distortions, revisionist history and outright lies told to excuse and/or distance himself from those choices when they turned out to be polictically expensive.

Whether or not I agree with a position or opinion is actually secondary. My primary concern is the honesty and integrity of those beliefs, and whether or not they are owned, particularly when they are unpopular. I would rather have a leader with whom I disagree than one who lies about his beliefs to acheive that leadership role. That is the definition of integrity in my world. Tell me you were wrong. Tell me that you have changed your mind because of a deeper, fuller or simply different understanding of a situation, person or position. Don't insult my intelligence and lie.

I am not a political strategist, but I really don't understand why the McCain-Palin campaign have not simply hammered Obama for his judgement, choices and character. Further, they have allowed one of the most basic qualifications for the Office of President, experience, to be spun into an attack on McCain's age. Of course McCain has more experience, they say, because he is older than dirt. It has only been in the past week or so, since the Palin-Biden debate, that the campaign has forcefully, directly addressed Obama's judgement, as evidenced by his choices.

Perhaps this is the right strategy, bringing these central issues of character and judgement to the forefront at this time. I long ago stopped being a single-issue voter. It's one of the perks of age and experience...learning that the character of the person is more important than the stated position on a single hot-button issue. I refuse to believe I am alone in this perception, but, the vote will tell if I am mistaken in that supposition.

The Obama camp studiously avoids debate, conversation and scrutiny of the issues of character, instead focusing on ephemeral ideas, ideas that have changed based on political expediency. I am generally not a fan of the strategy of negative campaigning, as are most voters. However, when those negative statements are just that...statements...it can not be fairly characterized as a negative, attack focused campaign. Keep telling us what McCain-Palin stand for, but also remind us that a central, integral base of their stance is character, judgement and integrity. Have McCain and Palin merely refer to the astoundingly large body of evidence that shows the lack of character, judgement and integrity of Obama.

On the long list of questions I have for Obama, I would love an honest, forthright response from his former political and social activist allies on their opinion of his current distancing from and disowning of beliefs he once claimed to share. I think the fact there has been no outcry from the extreme left is telling. Perhaps they know something the rest of us are unaware of? Perhaps they believe he remains true to their ideals, regardless of the current spin taken in this campaign? McCain and Palin need to allow this deafening silence speak for them.

As much as I hate even the appearance of defending Obama, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. The man is most assuredly intelligent and educated. I have no qualms admitting I admire this in him. I simply do not agree with the conclusions and opinions of all that intelligence and education. Nor do I agree with the methods he has chosen to employ in furthering the agenda and outlook his intelligence and education have led him to embrace.

So, keep the emails coming. Keep redirecting the discussion away from spurious attacks on ideas, returning to the important issues of character, judgement and integrity. If this is where the country turns as the deciding factor in this race, there can be no doubt we will have elected the best candidate.

And yes, history will be made...the oldest elected President; the first female Vice-President, and most importantly, the first time in too long proof that the American public is above being suckered in with lies, innuendos, race-baiting and class warfare. This last part represents the most important part of a McCain victory, a victory of common sense.

Again, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I voted for Clinton and for Bush. I felt Clinton at the time was the best antidote for GHW Bush, and I didn't believe stongly enough in Gore. I do admit my vote for Bush was one of default, and I consider Bush-Cheney one of the most corrupt and corrupting White Houses in our Nation's history. This time however, I will vote FOR the Republican candidate based on my belief in his merits. It is just bonus to me that I also get to vote AGAINST Obama.

Judgement and Bias, McCain and Obama

When I started this blog, I gave a long list of adjectives that do and do not describe who I am and how I refer to myself. One of the labels I rejected was 'conspiracy theorist'. I still reject that characterization, however ...

This morning, I have cause to question my long held belief that conspiracy theories are the refuge of the weak minded, because that is a trait I have worked long and hard to make sure never applied to me. Yet...

Three of the first five "Election News Headlines" on AOL:

"McCain Revisiting Keating 5 Banking Scandal Again"
"McCain linked to private group in Iran-Contra case"
"Obama Widens Lead Over McCain in Poll"

Pretty incendiary, biased headlines, particularly when the articles are read in their entirety. Sadly, to get to the balance and the truth, the entire article must be read, and carefully, as the truth is buried.

In the first of the above referenced articles, the first quote from McCain expresses his 'regret' for having his sense of honor questioned. It is not until four paragraphs further that the truth that McCain's inclusion in the ethics committee hearings, conducted by a special prosecutor in a Democrat controlled congress was simply because the Democrats did not want to take all the heat, as McCain was the only Republican called before the committee. This was the questioning of his ethics McCain regretted. Further on, one finally reads, after many paragraphs, that the ethics committee ruled that McCain's actions "were not improper nor attended with gross negligence."

The second headline referenced above again would lead one to believe that McCain had done something improper. Once again, after a full and careful reading of the article, McCain's involvement predated the Iran-Contra scandal, Further, he had voluntarily distanced himself from the group, which had as it's stated goal the stamping out of Communism around the globe.

This particular article is most telling in that it refers to this entire incident as a response to the McCain-Palin campaign pointing out very close, important relationship of Obama and William Ayers. It actually states "Obama was roughly 8 years old when Ayers, now at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was working with the Weather Underground, which took responsibility for bombings that included nonfatal blasts at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol." Just for the record, Ayers wasn't working with this group, he was the co-founder. Sarah Palin said Obama "pals around with terrorists". Bombing the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol are pretty much the definition of terrorism, at least in my book.

The third headline above encapsulates everything that is wrong with polls. It talks in generalities, then cites specific numbers. Any reporting of a poll's results is truly meaningless without a complete recitation of the original questions, the choices of specific answers, and the exact totals of each response. Who was polled is equally important, but none of that information is included in the article.

All this brings me to the conclusion I may have to reconsider my rejection of the label 'conspiracy theorist'. I have never before seen such blatant evidence of the often touted "Liberal Media". The good news, if any such can be gleaned from this, is that there must be enough in the "Liberal Media" who truly fear what a simple recitation of the facts would do to Obama.

I am actually quite happy that the McCain-Palin campaign is finally taking on Obama in the most important, meaningful way. Character. An election should be decided on the basis of the character, beliefs and judgement of each candidate, a decision that must be based on that person's known actions, not merely on their words. At first blush, one would think Obama's lack of experience and national exposure would work in his favor. He has less on the record to answer for. And this is the reason I won't vote for Obama. The very little on the record about him, overwhelmingly, repeatedly shows a judgement that is at best flawed, at worst, inimical to the principles of this nation.

There are a few key points I want Obama to answer.
How did he pay off student loans that grossly exceeded his and his spouses annual income?
His relationship with the controversial Rev. Wright.
His relationship with the controversial William Ayers.

The best that can be said about Obama's response, so far, to these issues is that he is disingenuous. Even a cursory reading of Obama's financial timeline raises questions about where the money came from.

The best that can be said about Obama's membership in Rev. Wrights congregation is that he was supporting his community. Obama calls this man his spiritual mentor, but try as I might, I can't see how that is a good thing. For more than twenty years Obama sat in a pew and listened to Rev. Wrights rants, an act that condones the sentiments expressed. An act he didn't stop practicing until a national spotlight illuminated the core and substance of those rants. Leaving the congregation under those circumstances does not distance Obama, it shows he would rather have continued attending, and supporting the good Reverend, but was forced into this action only because of the public disgust heaped on him, and the Reverend for his decidedly un-American, un-Patriotic, Racist pronouncements.

The best that can be said about Obama's relationship with William Ayers is Obama was only a child when Ayers committed his most publicized acts of terrorism. In other words, this was established fact, well known history, when Obama chose to launch his political career from this man's living room. William Ayers has done nothing, said nothing, to indicate a change in his beliefs since his hey-day as co-founder of the Weather Underground.

In each of these situations, Obama's character and judgement are clear. His character is such that when faced with inconsistencies, lies and questionable at best decisions, rather than own those opinions, he obfuscates. And that is the clearest picture of his judgement. These are not attacks with questionable spin, to smear the man or his character. These are the facts, and the reason I have said Obama is the most dangerous man in America.

Our Founding Fathers

I am very fortunate in that I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, of varying backgrounds, educational experiences and religious beliefs. There are some drawbacks, of course, when dealing intimately with people who have fervently held, divergent at best and diametrically opposed at worst, outlooks on life. Recently, I had the opportunity to be reminded of this mixed blessing. I received an email...

How many rants have been precipitated by those four words? In my case, more than I can count. Whether or not those rants remain internal is determined by a variety of factors...the specifics that set me off, who the originator of the thought was, who sent it to me, what if any good would come from venting my spleen. The deciding factor is usually simply a matter of just how much it pissed me off.

Here is where the little graciousness I possess can, and sometimes does, come into play. If the offending piece is a matter of opinion, I generally just let it go. If the piece offends because of factual error, I will more often than not graciously point out the factual error. If I am offended by the rank stupidity of the piece, I take it as an insult and am often less gracious in my response. This particular rant was set off by a combination of things that appealed to my basest and least pretty character trait, my inability to tolerate stupidity compounded by factual ignorance. Try as I might, I have just never mastered that whole 'suffer fools gladly' thing.

I have tried to find the author of this supposedly anonymous piece, to no avail. I suspect this is in part because the thoughts contained in this particular piece have come to represent commonly held beliefs by a certain segment of the population.

The email I received was entitled "No Longer a Christian Nation", and was in itself a rant against Barak Obama for a statement he allegedly made in a speech.

"We are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists"

was in quotes, and taken as a horror, that such a statement could be made by a Presidential candidate. This statement was so offensive to the author of this anonymous piece because, in the author's words,

"To think that our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation - and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has come from what our founding fathers intended it to be!".

And that is what set me off.

My response, in part, to the unfortunate soul who sent me this dribble was as follows:

Time for a history lesson. Our country was founded on basic, Judeo-Christian ideals, ideals which have very little to do with the practice of too many 'modern' Christians. Our founding Fathers, specifically, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, would not be termed Christians by 'modern' Christian definition. They all, to a man, fervently believed the Bible was a moral guide, inspired by God, inspiring mankind to revere and respect God, but a construct of MAN, specifically a construct of the Catholic Church. They did not believe that simple belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour was the sum total definition of Christianity, nor was it a prerequisite to live a moral life, nor was it a prerequisite to ensure entry into the Presence of God, Jesus and Heaven. Therefore, they are at complete odds with 'modern' Christians.

This is most certainly not my 'opinion', it is historical fact. This is what they each, separately and collectively said, and wrote, for us, their posterity. True, some were closer in their personal beliefs to 'modern' Christians, and they most certainly were not in lock-step on every point, particularly on the specifics of religious belief. But the articles of incorporation, so to speak, were intentionally devoid of requirements of faith in any particular religion, to be as inclusive of all mankind as possible, while respecting the sensibilities of the time.

The more one studies the lives and writings of our Founding Fathers, the more convincing and apparent is their individual and collective genius. They were not creating new thoughts and ideas never before discussed, however. The very concepts of the rights of man, to pursue life, liberty, happiness, and egalitarianism, are all Masonic concepts. Our Founding Fathers borrowed heavily, and in part, took wholesale from, Masonic code in writing our Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights, and in setting up our system of government, with separate branches of government and separation of Church and State. Yes, it is established fact that many if not most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were 'card-carrying', practicing Masons. There is a famous painting of George Washington swearing in...he is wearing an apron. No, he was not cross-dressing, it is a Masonic Apron, and a well appointed one, showing 'rank' in that organization.

'Modern' Christians, to bolster their own beliefs, and to justify imposing their religious sensibilities on a national, secular stage, repeatedly refer to things such as "One Nation under God" as proof that the Founding Fathers believed this nation was designed to be a Christian nation. When our Founding Fathers spoke of, wrote of and referred to "One Nation under God" they were specifically referring to the concept of the egalitarian rights of man, as opposed to what was then commonly accepted as the Divine Right of Monarchy. "Under God", another favorite of the 'modern' Christian, meant that all men had equal rights, at birth, and no one had more right to rule or lead, based merely on the accident of birth. "All men are created equal", "under God", and other "Christian" statements and sentiments were a direct attack on the system of Monarchy, and the system they were trying to distance this country from. These ideas, while not the exclusive property of Masons, were discussed, fleshed out and spread through the intelligentsia of the day, through the Masons and other Fraternal Organizations in the Old World.

Our Founding Fathers believed, and incorporated into the documents of our nation, the concept that religion, on a national scale, was the most evil, the most inhibiting, the most corrupting institution of man. They equated religion, specifically Christianity, with man's oppression of man, and rightly so. In their day, there was no higher authority than the Church, whether that was the Church of England or the Church of Rome. No Monarchy could exist without the blessing of their respective Church. Their legacy to us was a government and a national identity that placed the individual above all else, with the exception of God. Their definition of God was intentionally fluid and amorphous, as it should be when speaking of God, individual belief and government in the same sentence.

If after reading the words of our Founding Fathers, their letters, their speeches, their correspondences of the day in newspapers, records and minutes of meetings both public and private; if after reading history, understanding the hermeneutics of phrases such as "one Nation under God", and "separation of Church and State", you agree with the principles of Washington, Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, et al, THEN and only then can you say you share the Christian Faith of our Founding Fathers. What Christianity has become in modern America, how it is practiced and believed by these 'modern' Christians, is the antithesis of the beliefs and intentions and principles of our Founding Fathers.

As much as I dislike Barak Obama, his ideals, his politics, his character, he is closer to being right about this country not being a "Christian" nation than those who claim it was founded as a "Christian" nation. I am absolutely sincere when I state I don't know which prospect is more frightening...Obama in power or these modern-day, self-proclaimed "Christians" in power. In either scenario, what we are, what we were intended to be as a nation, is in extreme jeopardy. I will fight Obama with my vote. And I will fight, with honest, true, historically accurate logic and reasoning, to the best of my meager ability, these uneducated, misleading and factually wrong emails circulating, spreading lies, half-truths and delusions.

May each of you live, hope, pray and die as you see fit. I hope and pray you share my beliefs. But I will not, now or ever, allow myself or anyone else to force my beliefs on you or on anyone else. I respectfully request the same from you to me and to everyone else.

And that last paragraph is both the true definition of Christianity, as well as a true reflection of the ideals of our Founding Fathers. My son put it best. While I don't know if it is an original thought on his part or not, I am beyond proud of him for if not originating it, then for repeating it. I think it is the perfect sentiment to end this rant, as well as the perfect segue to the next ... (though that is for another time).

The difference between Jesus and Muhammad is, our Prophet says "decide"; their prophet says "submit".

Capitalism and Citizenship

This is one of those times when my opinion is still forming...meaning I am not pretending to have the end all and be all of answers. Common sense and intuition alone are not sufficient to provide surety here, but for the most basic of reasons...lack of unbiased information. So, I will give you my preliminary thoughts and reasons for them, then you, dear reader, can bring up the points I am missing.



As a typical Middle American, one who has worked for every paycheck, has never been rich enough to worry about a personal stock portfolio, (beyond the 401k), but also never poor enough to qualify for Public Aid, (actually, not true, but, I didn't know I qualified until I no longer qualified), I have a deep seated, instinctual suspicion when it comes to the Big Boys. You know, corporate America, politicians in general, and all those who's lives are beyond my reality.



So, I am listening to the news, reading the papers and trying to sort out what this 700 billion dollar bailout really means. These are some of the things I have heard and/or come across in the past few days...


There is a new, supposedly more difficult, test for those who want to become Citizens of our Nation. At least that is what the headline says, and offers a quiz for those of us who were born here, to see if we could pass. Follow this link for the new test :http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm



Question number 11 is most telling, and most pertinent to this discussion.

11. What is the economic system in the United States?*
A: capitalist economy
A: market economy


According to the site, there sometimes is more than one correct answer, as in this case.

For a definition of a capitalist economy, lets use Wikipedia's:

Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market, rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money provided by central banks, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land. In theory, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation, with state action confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.


Perhaps someone out there smarter than I can explain how the above definition jives with the action just taken by Congress. I just don't get it. One of the basic concepts required to be understood by those who wish to become Citizens of this Nation is understanding what Capitalism and a Free Market economy are all about. Yet, those who are already Citizens, and who have supposedly dedicated their lives to serving the principles of our Nation, either don't know or forgot this fundamental concept.


Yes, I did say I don't have a fully formed opinion, and yes, it is obvious which way I am leaning. I am merely leaning because there have been so many voices raised in support of this action, voices that in theory know a lot more about this than I do, so I figure there must be something basic I am just not getting.

HIV Traced back about 100 years

I ran across an interesting news article about the supposed origin and historical occurrence of the AIDS virus. To read the original article I read, go here: http://news.aol.com/health/article/study-traces-aids-virus-origin-to-100/197058?cid=14

I usually find the comments following these online stories more entertaining, if not more illuminating, than the article itself. This particular article, and it's attendant comments, is the impetus for my entire blog, so, I just had to share my thoughts.

The comment I was going to post, then decided to post here instead, is as follows:

The most frightening thing about all these comments is, these posters will vote. Anyone who says AIDS is an invention of Europeans (read WHITE people) is an idiot and needs to be locked up where they can hurt neither themselves nor anyone else, as they obviously don't have the common sense to function on their own. Same to the idiots claiming AIDS did not originate in Africa, as a mutated virus among the primates. People killed, butchered and ate primates, and the virus mutated. It was only since the population exploded and concentrated in cities that this mutated virus had the opportunity to infect large numbers of people, and therefore caught the attention of the world.

Scientists have speculated that the AIDS virus has actually been around for millennia...but was unrecognized because it is only in the last 100 years that we no longer look at an entire village being wiped out as an act of an angry God. No, wait, that's not correct, according to other posters, as AIDS is a judgement of God against...whomever.

As far are Europeans (read WHITE people) inventing AIDS as a tool to wipe out Blacks...silly, silly, silly. There is no need. Africans are completely capable of wiping each other out without any one's help, and have been for millennia. It was BLACK people who captured and sold slaves, to both other Black people as well as the rest of the world. Read history... slaves were an integral part of every African society, going all the way back to the Egyptians. Europeans were at that time still running around in animal skins, living in caves, but, I am sure some wit out there will tell us all how even 5000 years ago, it was a conspiracy perpetuated by Whites to hurt Blacks. There is nothing more pathetic than a few stupid, semi-literate people smearing the rest of their race. Again, White people have nothing to do with this, you are doing it to yourselves.

As for Blacks in this country, again, White America need do nothing, you are self-destructing. Those who believe this line of, let's say thinking for lack of a better term, deserve to live in slums, with cockroaches and rats and the rest of the lower life forms, if you actually believe these ridiculous notions. But all that is the fault of White America too, right? After all, it is White Americans who are going around and impregnating 12, 13, 14 year old black girls, and not taking responsibility. Wait, I'm wrong again. White America IS taking responsibility...it's called paying taxes for medical care, food stamps, Section 8 housing, preschool, school breakfasts and lunches, warm hats and gloves to ride the publicly funded buses back and forth to school, after school programs, drug rehab, law enforcement, public defenders, prisons and even burying the wasted, worthless bodies. So, you are right, White America is responsible. Really, anytime you want to take over and start taking responsibility for yourselves will be okay with us. But, we all know that is not going to happen, you're too busy screaming and shouting down anyone who says things like AIDS is a naturally formed, mutated virus that has killed uncounted millions. You know, because the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, and Reverend Wrights of the world have TOLD you, unequivocally, it is not your fault, you are not responsible, it is all a conspiracy to keep the black man down. How you are not insulted by this, is truly beyond my understanding.

One last thought....AIDS is nature's way of thinning the herd. There are too many people attempting to live off too few resources in some of the most unforgiving environments on the planet. While the initial disease is pure nature, the current epidemic is due solely to irresponsible behavior on the part of man, of all colors, races and sexual preferences. The only 'innocent' victims are the children born to carrier parents, the loyal partners of promiscuous cheaters, and those who receive blood products that were tainted. The rest should be allowed to die, as quickly as possible so as to reduce the burden on the natural and pharmaceutical resources wasted prolonging their worthless lives. A simple rule of nature...the faster a virus spreads and kills it's host, the faster it burns out and can be contained. So, let it burn out, and use the saved billions fighting things like malaria and cancer.

And by the way-I am NOT a racist. I hate stupid people equally, regardless of gender, race, religion, national origin or sexual preference. And if you identify with and are offended by my rant, you have properly self-identified as stupid and I INTEND you to be offended.

PS - another label I reject...I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean I don't believe there are those in positions of power who will stop at nothing in their quest for personal power, wealth, domination and control of their fellow man.

Solving the Worlds Problems, one common sense moment at a time.

...or, normal people answers. Welcome to the inaugural blog of a normal, average American. Why, you ask, read this blog? Because this will be the only place in the world to read the actual, original thoughts of an actual American. Whether or not you agree or disagree with what I have to say on any given subject is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that I say it, I mean it, and I stand behind my beliefs. Unless or until I receive information that persuades me to change my mind.

I will enjoy the titles and labels that will be assigned to me. The only label or title I assign myself is that which is above. Any label assigned to me I will request be fortified with reasoned argument. To give a head start, I will list what I am NOT.

I am NOT a born-again Christian. I was born right the first time, and I have only one navel.

I am NOT a Republican. That would require me to accept ideals I do not necessarily share.

I am NOT a Democrat. See above.

I am NOT a Liberal. See above.

I am NOT a Conservative. See above.

I am NOT Gay. No offense to anyone who is, I'm just not wired that way.

I am NOT a Racist. I hate stupidity, in all it's glorious colors, ethnicities, religions, nationalities, sexual and political persuasions.

With that cleared up, to make it easy for the intellectually lazy, I will tell you some of the things I DO claim to be...

I am a mom. By birth, marriage, avocation and choice.

I am a wife.

I am an American. By birth and belief. More on this later.

I am White. Caucsian. Northern and Eastern European extraction.

There are other labels with which I self-identify, but, I'll leave it at this for now.

The purpose of this blog is to give myself a place to vent my spleen, something I feel the urge to do more frequently, the older I get. Self discovery, self-examination, are the hallmarks of a life worth living, a sentiment I certainly have not coined, but have whole-heartedly adopted. I will offer opinions on the world at large, on a variety of topics, as the mood strikes, and I invite comments, opinions and thoughtful arguments in return. I promise only to be honest in my opinions, and not to spout vile, unjustified attacks. Whenever possible, I will include the source of my rant, whether it be another blog, a political pundit, a talking head, a journalist's article, or an event on the world stage.

My most fervent desire is to begin a dialogue with other intelligent life in the universe, and hopefully, maybe, someday, our common sense will come to the attention of someone in a position to enact that common sense. I do not think I am the smartest person in the room, though I do often suspect I am the only person in the room with a pulse.

I have often thought blogging was hubris at best, intellectual masturbation at worst. That is a working thought, and I am yet undecided, but, in the interest of keeping an open mind, I'll give it a whirl.