President Barack Obama

I still can't believe it. It's going to take me some time to understand what has happened here. I'm amazingly proud and excited, very amped. Right now, those who didn't vote for him are concerned about what he will do once in office. As for me, I'm concerned with who is going to pick up the Republican party and dust it off. They are in very bad disrepair, and I fear they are ripe for the picking of a very extreme direction. I'll be watching this closely. I also have my own ideas on what they need to make happen to come back and be effective again. We badly need them and as soon a possible. No representative republic can function in top form with a huge chunk of people missing in action.

Election '08: Are We There Yet?

I'm a politics hound, all over current affairs and the state of things from day to day from Washington and abroad. Thanks to the superlative onslaught of all things stupid that is Election '08, I'm officially over it. Well, for a while at least.

I'm ready for this thing to be done. I'm crying uncle. The McCain/Palin ticket represents all things that are insidiously wrong with our political system and the only thing that drives me more crazy is their audience. I've sat and watched this ticket tell lie after lie after relentless lie as people clap and cheer. In other words, they're barely listening and are obviously not checking into anything. God steady me if they win.

I don't think I could take another 4 years of unabashed idiocy, willful ignorance, insane personal agendas and dangerous decisions. I'm not saying an Obama administration would be flawless, but I literally can't perceive Obama putting out the sheer volume of dumb that I've watched being exported from the McCain/Palin campaign like plastic stuff from China.

By the way, it wouldn't kill me to have a President that is at least half-way sophisticated and well-spoken enough to herald back to "those days." Yeah, you know what I mean.

Cheering for Mediocrity

Sarah Palin's speech was an outstanding example of John McCain's dismal judgement when it comes to ultra-critical decision making.

The McCain/Palin campaign demands that the world keep off the Palin family. Even Obama himself said, "I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics." So we're all in agreement then? I guess not, since Palin saw fit to invoke the deployment to the middle east of her son and her nephew to prop up her patriotism (which is needed direly with revelations of the Palins secessionist involvements).

She went further to discuss each of her family members, making sure to highlight her son Trig with Down Syndrome while simultaneously politicizing him by making a campaign promise to the parents of special needs children: "I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

She noted her husband Todd, including his membership in the United Steelworkers Union. I'm confident we won't hear the cries from detractors of socialism on this little tidbit. After all, this is just inconvenient.

She discussed her parents, thanking her for one of their lessons being that "this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity." of course, nobody else is supposed to invoke her gender or they will be flamed by the GOP dragon.

While she meandered through her small-town story meant to further - and hopefully - invoke her love of America, she paused to mention, "I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." Subtext being she is a dangerous attack dog, which is what most people (don't) want to be second in line for Commander in Chief.

Then she trots in the first of what is to become an elitist and condescending attitude toward the Americans in need and the Americans who help them, saying, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

Mocking among the finest of ourselves, those who selflessly extend a hand to people on their last leg when most of us are drowning in our superficial dilemmas helps us define the Republican psyche of today's GOP. Only a soul tortured by the fruits of self-focus would think it's not only acceptable to think and say such a thing, but that it would actually energize a room full of people. She did, and it did. Behold the party that applauds the denigration of selflessness and roars with approval at the bashing of many people's last hope. The message is clear - unless you're holding a rifle, you aren't serving your country.

Enter a classic touchstone of the right-wing: blaming the media. "And I've learned quickly these last few days that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone." This is reality distortion at it's finest. What she describes as "member in good standing" is actually "someone mainstream."

This has nothing to do with the "Washington elite" she decries (while running on their ticket) and everything to do with all that is controversial and "different," all that is distinctly Alaskan.

The people of Alaska are a hardscrabble sort who thrive on a life bent more toward survival rather than the typical financial goals permeating the "lower 48." In Alaska, it is par for the course to utilize a position of influence to exact personal revenge. In Alaska, it is socially acceptable to embrace independence - even from America itself. In Alaska, most people hunt and fish. There's nothing wrong with hunting and fishing, it's just that most people in the rest of the United States don't hunt and fish.

In other words, there is a wide cultural gap between the American frontier that is Alaska and the hustle and minivans of middle-America, two worlds straddling a divide too great to generate a meaningful shared identify. Many Alaskans consider it a weakness that their suburbanite distant cousins to the southeast can't dress down a moose. Meanwhile, many suburbanites and metropolitans in the lower 48 consume reality shows about Alaskans as entertainment.

Unfortunately, Sarah Palin in all her hockey-mom pitbullness doesn't even understand she has become the focal point of this cultural divide. She is deluded to think the main argument against her is based on gender. Simply put, nobody knows what to do with the frontierswoman that just tracked in mud on our berber carpet.

She toils on to accidentally expose her naivete: "Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests." Sarah, politics is EXACTLY that.

She moves into a touching description of a public servant as only an elementary student could provide as she says, "We are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant's heart." Has she utilized integrity, goodwill and clear conviction against those in her government who allegedly refused to be a tool of vindictiveness? Somehow, amid all the hurrah of Wednesday night, we have to await the results of a state investigation to find out. And what's with the "servant's heart" line? I thought we already established that those who serve the people are only worth using to carpet the floor of a taxi cab?

She says, "I came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is a law." Let us bask in the double-irony of her alleged self-dealing being under investigation, along with her outright lie that Barack Obama has never written a law. Why is this ironic? Because one of the most prominent laws Obama's pen has helped push into existence was an ethics reform law in the United States Senate. Whoever wrote Mrs. Palin's speech failed to even so much as read Senator Obama's summary bio. I trust he's out of work before midnight Wednesday.

Palin takes time out to make herself grand for doing something the voters demanded she do as first thing in office: "I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over-the-top. I put it on eBay." Never mind the fact that the last guy who bought it and kept it lost to her because he did so (among other non-sensical things). She should have said, "To avoid political suicide, I put the plane on eBay." By the way Mrs. Palin, I hope if most of America is tied up somewhere, allowing McCain to win, that you won't put Air Force One on eBay.

She moves in to her months as Governor: "Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending, nearly $500 million in vetoes." Sounds impressive, but judging by the fact that you left your hometown of several thousand people in debt after leaving the office of mayor somehow makes me wonder if Alaska's surplus is because of you or the unparalleled cash machine that is oil.

Palin mentions that "We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere." Why didn't you mention the millions of dollars in your own earmarks? And what about the fact that you championed the Bridge to Nowhere but dropped it once it became too unpopular? An experienced politician would simply not have mentioned either of these things rather than paste a fat target on their back.

Here comes more confused rhetoric: "When oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged: directly to the people of Alaska." Gosh Sarah, didn't you just finish implying that the state budget surplus was due to your superhero-like vetoing pen? You must look down on Americans to think we're this slow.

Enter the energy debate - and her partly exposing how idiotic the Republican "drill here drill now" drive is. "The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we're forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve." Subtext: Which is exactly why we need to "drill here and drill now" in the Gulf of Mexico to increase the disruption hurricanes bring to our economy.

Enter the McCain energy policy preview: "Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources." Take note of how sustainable, non-dangerous technologies again take a back seat. It almost seems as though Republicans refuse to allow progress; perhaps it's because that word is inside the label of their enemy, the "progressives." To think that a group that wants to move forward is actually villified by ANY American.

So, their energy policy is "drill more oil. Oh, and by the way, we'll throw some dollars into green tech." Before we can get into any further policy definitions, we're wisked away to the land of Obama bashing.

"Listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate." Another shot in the McCain/Palin campaign since, as of tomorrow, they will be forced to retract on such a desperate and foolish lie.

As though her cloud of rhetoric feeding the roaring crowd under the stadium lights wasn't enough, she pushed on to say, "But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot..." (uh...Sarah? Sarah?) When that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?" AH YES, she finally invoked the alleged "messiah" complex.

This is worth examining for the desperation it represents. Many months ago, Obama showed up. He is an excellent orator with progressive ideas and a positive message. In other words, water delivered to the wasteland that is America after the 8-year Bush-induced drought. The people responded out of thirst, and not for "kool-aid" but for the real and tangible change of Obama's policies.

These policies reflected a powerful and festering undercurrent in the American psyche, one that has spent recent years wondering if we should give public health plans a shot and many years wondering why we developed six energy alternatives to oil many decades ago only to continue hammering our environment while sending our sons and daughters overseas to bleed for black gold. These policies also vacated seating in the McCain auditorium, one replete with policies that fail to reflect the people's needs, an orator severely disqualified to engage and inspire, and an image tarnished by the party of "the last 8 years."

What else could McCain do but become enraged that the spotlight he thought was ensured by his POW status and decades in Congress failed to materialize? And even worse, that an unknown interloper would be the stealer of all things thunderous and McCain. So he unleashed, enraged with the popularity of his opponent. How dare the people like him? How dare the media report it? McCain even went so far as to make and broadcast an ad mocking the major members of the media, a public and humiliating tirade never seen before in an election environment where politicians normally send steak dinners and sports tickets to journalists.

Hence, Palin dutifully grabs the baton and soldiers on with the McCain line. Death to the media! Death to unpatriotic POW haters! And so the lies continue...

"America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it." Three minutes spent reading the Obama energy plan disperses this for the fog that it is.

"Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit." Never mind the fact that the people found this idea to be popular enough that it forced George Bush to reverse five years of uninterrupted policy to do what Obama advocated. This left McCain fumbling to stop mocking this quietly and quickly, but apparently Mrs. Palin's speechwriter didn't get the memo.

"Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions." This neanderthal understanding of diplomacy as a tool of state is uniquely modern-day Republican. While others understand how opening negotiations without precondition actually generates higher moral ground for America (and consequently the ability down the road to react militarily while still enjoying the unfettered support of allies), those currently in power simply aren't able to appreciate something they don't know how to execute. Their inadequacy is understandable given their ranks are increasingly driven by militarism and a nationalism colored with exclusivity; this extreme aversion to interacting with those outside the party has led to diplomacy being viewed as alien and for the weak.

Mrs. Palin handily bumbles in to a major flaw in her party: "Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights." This is the most polarizing of issues; after all, how does one fight for justice while failing to execute it? How does one maintain credibility when simultaneously subverting the very freedom that is being fought for. The mistake here is that Palin needed to assert this as a society vs. defense conundrum, not mock one of the instruments of American freedom and justice as though it was worthy of ridicule and relegated to the weak.

If you're seeing a pattern, it's not incidental.

Lest she be lazy, time for another distortion: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars." Never mind that according to leading policy analysts, McCain's plan will cost America MORE than this, which is part of why McCain's economic plan doesn't resonate with the people. That, and it was written by a man who believes Americans are "whiners" and that the recession is "in our heads."

"Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speech- making, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things, and then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things." Subtext: Obama is hot air and does not do great things.

"They're the ones who are good for more than talk, the ones that we've always been able to count on to serve and to defend America." Subtext: Obama can't do anything, he is not military and Americans can not count on him.

"Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd." Subtext: Even though he picked me at the last minute because the religous right hit the roof at him wanting Lieberman.

"My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery." Subtext: Obama is a hippy on a road trip. It's time to get serious.

"This world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer." Subtext: You're life is in danger. Don't trust people foolish to spend their time on helping losers.

"And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you." Subtext: You fool, only the military counts. Only McCain is military. Only McCain counts. Obama and Biden have no place here.

"There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death. And that man is John McCain." Subtext: There is no greater military experience than POW. McCain is POW.

"You know, in our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world, the nightmare world in which this man and others equally brave served and suffered for their country." Subtext: McCain was a POW. There is no greater thing than this.
"And it's a long way from the fear, and pain, and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office." Subtext: McCain was a POW. There is no greater thing than this.

"For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. But for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds." Subtext: Obama only can talk. Obama is not military, he is useless.
...
She invoked the small town, the folksy family, the son going to Iraq, the rugged state, the frontier, the scrapping with the big leagues - all designed to appeal to rural voters who have waffled on their responsibilities as part of the GOP bloc.

However, Obama's early wins in the primary stunned a nation who watched rural, bread-basket, kitchen table, lunch-bucket white Americans stroll into high school gymnasiums and vote for Obama in vast numbers. How could that be? How could the staple of the party have left them?
What caused this attrition?

In a nutshell, time. Lots of time passed, and with time comes wealth and a different politic. The far right isn't in rural America anymore because the far right got rich and moved to the noise that is the city. Their past icons - the plains preacher, the high-school Army recruiter, the podium-pounding city councilmen of small towns - were not resonating. They transformed into high-powered, high-salary pundits like Limbaugh, Savage, Imus, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly.

In other words, their numbers decline because their leadership stopped being rural America (who help their neighbors - yuck!) and became the big city wealthy she fights tooth and nail against. The depravity of militarism and nationalism has caught up with them. What once were conservative values driven by trust brands like Reagan have devolved into the desperation, hypocrisy and hostility you see tonight.

They should have never had that convention. Day three of four is over, we have insults and insinuations aplenty and nothing available regarding economy or health care. In short, what on earth is there to respond to? John McCain is a POW.

I Am America

When I first heard Barack Obama speak, it was his "Yes We Can" speech. I was very impressed. It was clear he was trotting out a well-worn theme of change, tried on by very nearly every candidate for office before him. But, I kept my skepticism from turning into cynicism and decided to keep an open mind.

Between now and then, I've watched with interest and occasional fascination at this phenomenon. I don't mean the man, I mean the movement. At first, it was just a cadre of followers like any other politician will have. But I started noticing a specific energy to it all. There was an unmistakable skip in the step that was the Obama message. I watched it spread and grow, penetrating lands and towns I didn't think it could. I watched people I didn't think would, did.

Then the darkness started coming. The expected wave of smears typical of low-road dialogue. Like a wet blanket it started to lay over everything, smothering and disenchanting. Doubts were stirred, questions asked and re-asked in different ways. Revelations of this, discoveries of that. The noise level started getting significant.

My first sign that this movement had some legitimacy was the noise level. It started getting loud, significantly loud and more so than previous smear attacks. Obama's character was getting assaulted for sure, but not just that but a downright meanness crept into the dialogue. Insinuations of his being a corrupt liar or even willing to aid and abet terrorists. Then came the armchair political science minors, with their allegations of his being a socialist and a communist. Never mind the real definition of these ideologies, off with the commie's head!

Then came the worst. "I tried to find him on TV last night but all I found was a big gorilla in a suit." "How will they tell between the first family and the cooks?" It became "obvious" to some that his admission to Harvard, his becoming the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, and his becoming a law professor were all due to affirmative action. And of course, the veiled (and not so veiled) threats of hate crimes too unspeakable to relay here.

Then the night came for him to speak. The detractors were circling like buzzards, typically with nothing but baseless and vacuous noise - but noise nonetheless. Allegations of arrogance because of the set. Expectations of overt grandeur with "nothing real" as content. Mocking that "the prompter better be there tonight."

Then he took the stage. He graciously thanked a variety of people, told us America has always been a great place and then listed some central grievances that exist today. He said, "America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this."

He graciously thanked McCain for his service, then trundled on in to an effective several minutes of debasing the opposing Senator blow by blow to ultimately conclude that McCain cares - but doesn't get it. He indicated the failures of the Bush administration, implicating McCain along the way, and pointed out that we are not a "nation of whiners" as McCain's economic plan author Gramm said some months ago.

Barack went on to illustrate his roots, grounded in things hard-working and all-American; his grandfather, grandmother, mother and those he worked with on the south side of Chicago. He capped it by saying, "Now, I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes." McCain could consider himself cut down a notch right then and there, and rightfully so.

He then began to spell out the American dream. He did it in color, but most importantly he did it in a way that made it clear that this was a participatory dream, not one that his handed over or taken lazily.

"It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work. That's the promise of America -- the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

Barack then provided a punchlist of policy highlights, ranging from taxes to energy. Some were ambitious, but he pointed out that "now is not the time for small plans." I had to agree. He even threw in some fiscal responsibility to keep the bean counting detractors busy; the rest of us know that good ideas cost and it's whether we're willing to pay.

But then came the real speech.

"Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.

"Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility -- that's the essence of America's promise."

I was listening closely.

He called out McCain decisively on debating who has the temperament and judgement to be the next commander in chief. He made no bones about it. Here was some fight. "You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Then came cold, hard facts, easily validated by anyone who is aware of the American experience both past and present. "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- have built..."

Then the ultimate hat in the ring came. "what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism." Yes, indeed. Bring that noise down and bring the real arguments.

And finally the fatal blow. The shot heard from Los Angeles to Bangor. The game changer.

"So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America.

"So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first."

You see, once and for all, Obama changed the conversation. Someone needed to do it, but who would emerge as the one to take the leadership? Obama did. With this one fell swoop, all the dialogue that had stacked, all the worthless noise from "terrorist" to "muslim" to "unpatriotic" to "america hater" and to any given racial slur came tumbling down, exposing from here forward any of those who maintain that line as dishonorable and left behind.

It takes leadership to do that. And then he did it again.

"I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

"You make a big election about small things."

And then the money shot: "What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's about you."

When Obama said that, you could all but feel an awakening spread across the horizon. Some distant sense stirred, some instinct that had become long-buried by loss after loss domestic and abroad, by failed politics, by refusals for diplomacy, by lies and distortions, by irresponsibility bordering on negligence. This instinct was what I had years ago known as "I will do this."

I barely know what Obama said after that. I was immediately occupied with the realization that up until this very moment, I had approached the election the same way I had approached the government for some years now - with a demanding "what will you do about it" attitude. Before I had devolved to that level, it used to be "why can't we seem to do anything about this?" and before that was "what are we going to do about this?"

But before even that, before all of it, back when I was younger and less afraid of life, it was "I will do this." Back when I only knew two things - find something good and apply yourself to it. I didn't understand many things, but I understood these two fundamentals that operate only in harmony and never alone. They are what brought me years forward to a prosperous family.

Obama was finishing his speech, and I was enveloped with "I will do this." I realized that my apathy, my cynicism that I didn't even realize was dwelling within like a parasite was all falling away. Exposed and betrayed for the facade that it was.

You see, it winds up that I'm America. I always was. I always will be. So long as I'm here and breathing, I am the United States of America. And so are you. Each of us is America. So I say no to the apathetic, who have hammered "change" into the ground like a noisy plank on a hardwood floor. I say no to the naysayers, who replace susbtance with volume. I say no to the cynics, who are repulsed by and inspired to attack at anything that even hints at a positive promise.

I absolutely believe Obama. Not because he is amazing, not because I'm "blinded by the messiah." I believe he is right about ME. I believe my actions can make a big difference. I believe I am able to change the world around me. I believe I can do anything I want if I want it bad enough.

Great leaders are the ones that make you realize or remind you of your strength, not that they are the strong one. So it winds up that this November I'm not voting for Obama, nor am I voting against McCain.

I'm voting for ME, and I'm voting against all that is apathetic and cynical. All that is baseless, useless and negative for the sake of being negative. Thank you Barack Obama. Oh, and America? I'm back.

Can Repub's State Their Case Without Mentioning the Dem's?

John McCain has a lot of explaining to do. He needs to help us all understand why we should elect another Republican president after at least six solid years of Republican control has caused so many problems.

We went to war to retaliate against the terrorists who attacked us, but in seven years we haven't captured Osama Bin Laden and we haven't been able to bring Al Qaeda to it's knees in Afghanistan. Instead, the Bush administration decided Iraq was more important. One by one, the reasons we attacked Iraq have fallen down - there were never WMD's, there was never an Al Qaeda presence, Saddam Hussein was NOT corroborating with or assisting Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was no more a threat to the United States than any other lunatic dictator, and we are NOT spreading Democracy and Freedom to a region that culturally can't even interpret that the same way America does.

Our economy is suffering under the weight of skyrocketing energy prices, the subsequent domino effect into food and other costs, and a credit crisis. If I and my neighbors could tell that unacceptable and fraudulent lending practices were taking place (because I was mailed and called with them CONSTANTLY), then why couldn't the administration tell? Where were they on this? Nowhere. Instead, we had to come up with HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS to bail it all out (thanks again, China).

Health care has been an increasing problem for at least 20 years. For the last 6 of those, what did we do about it? Apparently nothing. In that time, I personally watched two single-income, middle class families with kids get completely wiped out. It was so horrible to watch, it struck fear in me and makes me want to vomit just thinking about it. I and other families tried to help them, but it was too much. The one family suddenly went from being able to pay a couple hundred bucks a month on medical to owing $170,000 or more. They lost their retirement, their kids college and their (*)(*)(*)(*)DED HOUSE. According to the AARP, 1.85 million Americans go bankrupt each year due to medical costs. I am afraid for my family, because clearly my hard work will amount to nothing if one of us gets sick (God forbid).

Energy, for God's sake, energy. We've had technologies to replace the reliance on oil for decades, DECADES. No investment to level out the costs and make them competitive, no significant government backing to bring these to the table in a truly viable and widespread way. Meanwhile, we sit and watch as oil hammers on the environment, rises in cost due to being an unsustainable model, and drive our foreign policy into ditch after ditch. Where was the Bush administration's leadership on this? I'll tell you where - they were in Iraq, destabilizing the region AGAIN so that we can pay through the nose. And if I knew that China and India were on a massive consumption horizon and I knew this back in the late nineties, what excuse do the Republicans have for their lack of leadership on this? They had nearly eight years. WHERE ARE WE? And to think McCain's energy plan puts nuclear power and more oil drilling at the forefront! You'll forgive me if I'm NO LONGER INTERESTED in the only two energy sources that screw up my kids' future.

The Republican party has a lot of explaining to do. Their candidate says he doesn't understand the economy, he thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong right now, his former economics mentor (gramm) was of the belief that the recession was "in our heads," and he thinks the middle class goes up to $5 million/year in income. I realize some of these are gaffes, but PEOPLE - where's the Republicans argument to get us out of this to replace these gaffes? Do they not realize that the economy is the #1 issue in the country right now (Gallup)?

It's high time they shut down the BS machine and start talking for real about what they're going to do for the U.S. of A. As far as I'm concerned, they have wasted precious time. To be quite frank, I am INSULTED that they see fit to wither away my days with "media bias" and "the messiah" and "paris and britney" and "celebrity" while MY FAMILY IS AFRAID, MY AMERICAN NEIGHBORS ARE SUFFERING, and my FRIENDS ARE DYING IN IRAQ. How DARE they take my time with such things.

I'm not only open to hearing what they will do, I'm BEGGING to hear it. I hear it loud and clear from the Democrats.

I'm here to pick the team that will keep this thing called the American Dream from dying on the vine and becoming the trite saying it's in danger of becoming.

I'm here to speak for my wife who agonizes over our lives and our money.

I'm here to speak for my Mom that I have to take care of after she had her stroke last year.

I'm here to speak for my son and daughter because they're not old enough to defend themselves against the checks being written right now that they will have to cash in 30 and 40 years.

I'm here to speak for my brother in the Air Force, my friend in the Army, my friend in the Navy, my friend in Marines, my friend in the CIA, and my father-in-law who fought served in Vietnam.

I'm here to speak for my neighbors, AMERICANS every one of them. Who I would help but don't have enough myself to make the difference. Who ask me why these things are happening and what we can do about them.

I've always believed it's a good idea to swap parties every once in a while, and keep one party in office with the other party in congress; I see this as a necessary balance and I see the last 8 years as the result of imbalance. But I'm willing to listen before I pull the trigger on a Dem president and Republicans in congress.

So, can anyone tell me about the Republican argument? State the Republican case? I'm not interested WHATSOEVER in what Republicans have to say about the Democrats or Obama, just as much as I don't listen to Dems about Republicans. I watch what is happening around me and I make up my mind. So can anyone present me the Republican argument - standalone and without mentioning the Democrats?

A 300-Degree Compass

The Lives of Others is a remarkable movie. I had the good fortune of stumbling upon it late tonight. It was nothing short of hypnotic for me, a tale of 1980's East German oppression distilled of any virulent strains of naivete regarding the reality of it. In fact, I find it wholly impractical to call this a "movie," rather it is a sincere, genuine and essential story told fictionally and applied to the screen too successfully to bear such a label.

I'm finding more and more talk on the Internet about how Barack Obama is a "socialist." Those labeling him as such don't seem to understand the term. One person mentioned that they are confused as to how so many European democracies can be socialist. Confused indeed.

I find this sort of political discourse so pathetically ill-informed, so ... distorted. It's bad enough to not understand how the world around you works, but to layer upon that a blanket of supposing one does is just plain useless. Nay, dangerous. Of course, most anyone who is convinced by these allegations from the ether would have probably drawn the same conclusions on their own because only one so impressionable and devoid of motivation to be informed would be attracted to such "information" and willing to pass it on as fact.

But this story, The Lives of Others, so deftly puts into focus where my heart should be with all this. Are these accusations of Obama being a "socialist" merely the ramblings of right-wing extremists who subscribe more fully (but without knowing) to fascism and militarism? Yes. But more importantly, they are an essential component in American discourse.

The Lives of Others is a vivid reminder that there was a place somewhere (not the first, not the last) where the state monitored and restricted expression carefully and methodically. The state conducted surveillance on artists, writers, pastors and activists. Why? What do all these have in common? Because ideas are dangerous to a state that pretends to provide for the people.

To those who allege Barack Obama is a socialist, I say play on. Run your mouth for all it's worth. Write and call in to the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage. I'd sooner listen to such drivel and know better any day of my life than live in 1980's Germany and watch critical discourse - all manner of it - die on a vine. I'll rail against it in my own way, sometimes quiet and sometimes indignant. But either way, The Lives of Others has reminded me that sometimes the most outlandish, the most inappropriate and the most off-the-mark opinions are critical to the environment of truth and justice, as necessary an ingredient as the rest. After all, without all being exposed there can never be a clear and total comparisons drawn, no honest rationale for or against anything. It would be as though trying to find one's way with a 300-degree compass.

Our Energy Crisis: Isolating the Problem

You may have taken note that I call this an energy crisis. This is for the reason that we have definitely entered an emergency state over energy. Our country (and the rest of the world) has very high energy demands and we are drawing on a finite, politically dangerous resource that is becoming increasingly problematic. Meanwhile, all the problematic points have converged to create an ever-inflating price of oil (and all the damage to our economies this implies).

Several camps have broken out in the United States over what to do about it. Items on the table include:

• Drill domestically for more oil, thus offsetting foreign supply.
• Reduce open-market speculation, thus reducing "speculative premium" in the price.
• Charge full-tilt into developing alternative, sustainable energy resources.

To be fair, many are of the mind that we need to do all of the above. Normally, I would agree. However, I have started noticing far too much attention - in fact, quite nearly all of it - paid to ideas that require short-term activity but will either harm the market or yield no long-term viability. This atmosphere persists in Congress and among the media talk mavens, thus it has permeated the American public once again with a dearth of terrible ideas and broken thinking. Americans need solid information and reasoning, not misdirected ideas that have nothing to do with the problem. Even less do we need outright ignorance and lies.

For instance, I submit Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), who recently said, "Nothing in supply and demand in the last year justifies the price of oil." Sen. Dorgan is either willfully ignorant or an outright liar. Why? Because either he's never heard of China and India, or he's ignoring them (and hoping everyone else will). China and India as a combined population represent 37% of the entire world. The rate at which they consume energy - OIL - began skyrocketing in the mid-90's. China's consumption is expected to rise 7.5% per year and India’s at 5.5% per year over the next decade or more. In other words, the force of market demand coming out of just these two nations (or, nearly 40% of humanity) is a major part of what is going on. Of course, Sen. Dorgan believes the China/India effect on demand is "nothing," and he clearly isn't aware of validtaions regarding Peak Oil (read: supply) coming about starting around 15 years ago.

Thus, like any large-scale project that must be completed successfully, I will isolate the problem. In fact, the immediate problem with all this intellectual laziness is in fact we have FAILED to isolate the real problem of the energy crisis.

One camp insists that the problem is that we are not taking advantage of the oil under our own ground, that if we did we could reduce price fluctuation by not being exposed to foreign affairs. This definitely makes surface sense, I'll give them that. However, this implies that the problem with our energy crisis is that we consume oil from foreign countries instead of our own. Is this the source of the energy crisis? No.

Another camp insists that the price of oil is artificially high, with as much as a 30% premium layered upon it by speculative trading in the open market. The theory here is to reduce/punish speculative trading on oil to control the price. This also makes some level of sense but only when accompanied by a willingness (and lack of fear) to interfere with open markets. Of equal note is that I wouldn't dare to pass this camp off as thinking this will solve the problem; rather, this camp feels this is an important step to take toward a grander solution.

Another camp believes "this is it." They believe this is time more than ever to transfer all available effort into developing the use of alternative, sustainable energy resources so that we can let our dependence on oil decline to a point of no concern. This is lauded as a permanent solution, and criticized as too long-term and too expensive a solution (but likely an eventuality). This camp says that dependence on oil itself is the reason for the energy crisis. Is this the source? Yes it is, we've found it.

But why is almost nobody talking about it, except for T. Boone Pickens (big-time oilman)? Because it is discouraging in it's size and scope and there are other ideas that would allow us to run around and shuffle papers and make us look like we're working RIGHT NOW.

Drilling domestically for oil is foolish and nothing else. First of all, the amount of money required to tap the reserve in Alaska is dumbfounding when you picture it being alternatively applied to developing sustainable resources. Second, the environment would take a (potentially permanent) punch to the gut and there's been more than enough of that for over a century. Third, by the time this oil reached the market in a meaningful enough way to affect price and importing, it will be 8-10 years later and the price will be outrageous. Further, our economy will take a one-two punch from a) pouring money into staid technologies (which develop less jobs) plus b) the outrageous price in ten years, instead of merely struggling with the price but pouring money into sustainable resource development (which involves FAR more jobs at all socio-economic levels).

The attempt to eliminate or quash open-market speculation of oil as a commodity will be a reckless and dangerous endeavor. First, government regulation and interference with open market dynamics is already as much as it can get before we can't honestly call ourselves a free capitalist market (we can barely call it such today). Second, this runs fully against open market mechanics and puts the decision of what is malicious speculation and what is not into the governments hands; in other words, the financial district's version of a Patriot Act debacle. Third, speculation is intrinsic to the dynamics of the market - interruption of which is poorly understood (i.e. artificially reduced speculatory forces on oil could spill over into natural gas, etc.). Fourth, the precedent that control of a commodity in the open market could establish would likely open doors that will be nearly impossible to shut for decades to come; how does one reverse this process and return it to a state of market normality/balance? Besides, this very force of speculation is precisely what woke us all up to the fact that something must be done and soon. How advisable is it to eliminate such a bellwether from our landscape?

The problem is our energy is derived from a finite resource with poor availability. Over many decades this has led to cartels and malicious controls, to warfare and political unrest, to injudicious foreign policies and unbeleivable American effort expended on things other than America. How do you solve this problem? Start using a different resource, one that is (seemingly) infinite and of inconsequential availabilty.

Does it seem like a good idea to poor vast amounts of effort and resources into obtaining more of something so problematic? Does it seem like a good idea to run roughshod over the inherent economic controls presented by the open market just to drop the price temporarily?

Just exactly how much time do we have to spend on ignorance and fool's errands?

McCain Is Losing Me

I'll say up front that I've like Sen. John McCain for a long time, probably close to ten years. Sure, he had his quirks but I found him to be straight-talking, genuine and with enough integrity to go for what he believes instead of drawing the party line. He had my respect.

I'm losing it quickly. I start with his two "jokes" about "bombing" or "killing" Iranians. Please tell me he's kidding. Far earlier in the election, he also said he didn't know as much about the economy as he probably should. Oh really? Exactly what I want to hear while our economy is taking the hardest punch in decades.

Add to that one of his top economic advisors, Phil Gramm, recently stated that Americans are "whiners" and implied the economic recession was in our heads (calling it a "mental recession"). Gramm even reiterated the latter statement when given a chance to explain, saying, "We don’t have measured negative growth. That’s a fact, that’s not a commentary." This is just plain, irresponsible foolishness.

I've already been leaning toward Obama (leaning, not flying into his arms just yet) and if the vote was today, he would get my vote. Yes, he has some issues of his own, but nothing like the McCain gaffes. Today's America has an economy in sincere crisis and a foreign policy so debilitated that it has put our nation in great danger - and McCain is failing me on both critical points.

T. Boone Pickens: Bold Man, Bold Plan and the Right Time

In 2005, it occurred to me that someone from the oil world was going to emerge with an aggressive plan to turn tail from drilling and pour massive effort into clean renewable development. I saw demand growing almost out of control to the point of price hyperinflation coupled with a public refusal to alleviate supply. As in the past, such market forces were colliding like tectonic plates which in turn would likely cause a mountain to rise from below. Why did I specifically think it would be someone from the oil world? Because nobody better to catch the oil companies with their pants down and take market leadership than a competitor among them. Another reason would be that oil men have nowhere to go once oil isn't consumed anymore - except renewable energy.

Enter T. Boone Pickens.

T. Boone Pickens puts forth a plan that would result in cutting a third of American oil demand - and doing it quickly. The Pickens Plan includes replacing natural gas for electricity generation with wind power, freeing up said gas for usage in automobiles and vastly increasing the usage of vehicles that can run on it. This idea of shuffling the power deck is intended to buy America enough time to develop a more comprehensive, long-term energy strategy. On the face of it, I have no criticisms and it seems like sound thinking.

The plan's author is not without controversy. Pickens contributed millions to the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth campaign effort to smear John Kerry during his bid for presidential election. He went so far as to offer a $1mm prize to anyone who could disprove any of the Swift Boat Veteran's claims. John Kerry took up the challenge and Pickens effectively backed out of his offer. The rest is history of course.

However, Pickens is probably best known for two things - rapid business building based on acquisition and philanthropy. He jogged through a series of acquisitions in the 80's that elevated him to celebrity status in the business world, some of them considered aggressive and controversial. Through these steps and his subsequent founding of BP Capital Management in 1997, he has amassed a personal wealth estimated at $3 billion. Meanwhile, he conducted his philanthropic affairs with nearly equal zeal. According to media reports, he has donated well over $100 million to humanitarian causes plus another $400 million to Oklahoma State University (his alma mater). The bottom line: Pickens is a bold man with a bold plan.

What timing he has, and it's exactly what we need right now. After all, in the vacuum of leadership that is current-day America, our government has zero solution to offer. Besides, a real leader would go to the private sector to mine for outstanding ideas in a time like this and that would wind up letting Pickens rise to the surface anyway. But instead, once again we are benefitting from the forces of a free capitalist market which reliably cause just such a man to rise at just such a time.

Whether the Pickens Plan is realistic or not is the subject of a different discourse. For now, I'm excited to see someone emerge with an appropriately ambitious and aggressive plan to get us out of oil. For many years I have felt the influence on U.S. foreign policy by our energy requirements has been increasingly devastating. I would even like to suggest that once America develops renewable, clean energy sources in a viable manner that the technology and means to do so be shared or exported to ALL nations in just as vigorous an effort. Even if America is able to pull itself out of the musical-chairs enviornment of oil-based energy, other states (i.e. China) will likely replace the U.S. as a world aggressor allowing a critical, finite resource to drive foreign policy. Until the world is rid of states motivated as such, we are all living on a more dangerous planet.

Will Picken's plan - and more importantly, his firey spirit and all-American ambition - be adopted and embraced, or will his effort fall prey to the venom, apathy and ridicule we've encountered all too often in today's national discourse. Either way, the clock is ticking and we needed to start this kind of thing 20 years ago. We're LATE as it is if you ask me.

Lack of Respect: The Achilles Heel of American Foreign Policy

An issue I consider critical regarding our country is America's reputation in the world. Specifically, how we are perceived both by the general populace and the leadership of other nations.

Many argue that our reputation is totally irrelevant, that we are the greatest nation in the world, and "who cares" what other countries think of us. This kind of response is as ignorant as it is dangerous. Others are sensitive to this issue because they understand what happens to someone in the neighborhood who eventually alienates and intimidates everyone in his community.

The heart of the matter is our own refusal to respect other nations, as expressed through several fully avoidable foreign policy gaffes over the past century or so. I've long bemoaned the fact that American foreign policy includes the ultimate Achilles Heel of being willing to interfere with the path of other nations using subversion and deception. To be clear, I'm not opposed with interference, but the use of lies and subterfuge.

Despite the seeming inability for many Americans to believe it, we find ourselves with significant problems today due in large part to the legacy of these such machinations. It is a well-documented fact that our financing, arming and (allegedly) training of the various Mujahideen groups of Afghanistan to bring about the Soviet-Afghan War was policy put forth by the Carter administration to force out a Soviet incursion into Asia without having to commit our own troops to a war. It is also painfully clear from how that situation devolved that America had zero intention on fulfilling the promise of rebuilding Afghanistan in exchange for their assuming the duties of conflict. This resulted in the Afghan Civil War in the near term (wherein the various insurgents turned on each other after the Soviets were driven out and the CIA stopped answering any calls) and the deathly grip of the Talibani authority in the later years.

Another result was to help transform the pro-Islamic flame of Osama bin Laden's world view to include hot anti-Americanism after he and his Afghan Arabs were left equally stranded. Osama's stated goal of establishing an exclusively Muslim world throughout the Middle East by restoring Sharia law and eliminating other ideologies was largely composed after having a front-row seat to American deception (and occupation).

The worst part of all this? It seems we STILL haven't learned our lesson, or it would seem so when one observes John McCain. Before the New Hampshire primary, Sen. McCain jokingly substituted the words "Barbara Ann" in the Beach Boys song of the same name with "bomb Iran." Not enough people regarded this as a serious lack of diplomatic accumen on his part. As for me, it represented (in such a simplified manner) the failure of American policymakers to respect foreign nations. What did the leadership and people of Iran think of this? What did the leaders and people of other nations think of this?

And he did it again. While campaigning two days before this writing, someone in the audience of an event mentioned data showing that cigarette exports to Iran increased significantly during the Bush administration. Sen. McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them," and chuckled.

Not only is this not funny, it's arguably some of the most dangerous rhetoric we can possibly produce in our newfound era. As for the candidacy of Sen. McCain, he has fallen a notch in my view. I doubt even after considerable soul searching that I could reconcile this one (though I intend to try). My Christian self wants to forgive Sen. McCain, but the trials this sort of injudicious foolishness could bring to the doorstep of our children forces me to recognize the distinctly un-Christian view of Sen. McCain. I only hope enough fellow Americans are cognizant enough of such infractions.

So, lets be crystal clear here. Why is the reputation of America important?

• Foreign leaders become more hard-pressed to conduct diplomatic or economic exchange with a nation their own people perceive as being a bully and liar. This results in weakened diplomacy, tenuous alliances and even the loss of foreign leaders due to the unwillingness of their constituents to support them any longer (i.e. Tony Blair).
• Foreign populations become abuzz about the poor reputation of a bully and liar, generating disdain and motivating the most sociopathic members to channel their hatred in vicious and violent ways. Perhaps just as worse, the educated and sophisticated ones refrain from emigrating to America (read: export their excellence to America) as their perception of us degrades.
• A poor reputation permits a wide variety of otherwise insignificant problems to be attributed to us, where in another political climate such things may be easily dismissed.
• A poor reputation has economic repurcussions including diminished export opportunities, a risk of inflated import tariffs (that's right, sanctions against the U.S.) and a stifling of academic and business exchange across borders.
• A poor reputation has the capability of dealing a crushing blow to America's ability finance itself; specifically, foreign investment. If America becomes regarded as too much of a fire-stoker then investment will dry up at some unknown point, leading to a fundamental collapse on our interior.

It's really quite simple math. If we expect to regain the leadership role we once had in the world, a key problem area is to put a stop to approaching our foreign policy with the occassional but egregious lack of respect for others. We're smarter than this, but apathetic toward a government that is representing us. Time to take it back.