Last debate this year

Despite thinking I would not, I did watch the last presidential debate. I knew it wouldn't change my mind. I suspect it didn't change anyone's mind. If you skipped it, there wasn't much you missed.

John McCain is still pouting that he didn't get ten town halls with Barack Obama. If he had, he said the campaign would have remained more civil. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I doubt it did to Obama but he didn't use it to attack McCain for being immature.

Goaded into it ahead of the debate, McCain brought up Ayers and ACORN which is what Obama clearly wanted as it gave him a chance to give the answers he has given so many times other places but maybe there would be some watching who wouldn't have watched him elsewhere. He has said he worked with Ayers. His connection to him was through education, a reputable committee who has helped Chicago's education system and he named who else was on that committee. He repeated that what Ayers did was despicable. He does not consort with terrorists as has been implied by Palin. He didn't bring up her close connection (sleeps with it) to the secessionist Alaskan group.

Obama did not attack McCain about his own praise of ACORN at one of their meetings only two years ago where McCain basically said all Americans should care as much as those people did about helping others. Now ACORN is being made the scapegoat if Obama wins because of them submitting paid registrations that clearly won't qualify for voting rights but did earn whoever collected them money.

Obama's answers had already been heard probably at least by anyone who does not carry around a Curious George stuffed monkey with Obama's name on it. I would have to assume McCain has not bothered to watch the videos of the kind of people who are attending those rallies. If he was, I don't think he'd have said he was so proud of his fans. Some of them have behaved in ways that won't help this country or themselves even if they think they are clever and are patting each other on the back for how clever.

There were times Obama could have attacked but he let it go as not worth it. One that comes to my mind was when they were asked if their Vice Presidential picks were good choices. McCain defended his pick ignoring everything that is negative, repeating all the false statements about her; and then saying yes, Joe Biden would be okay as president but he's been wrong about a lot and cited Gulf War I.

Well maybe Biden was and maybe he was not. Were there ways to resolve that without going to war? Might an administration that was better at diplomacy ahead of time, let Hussein know what would happen if he entered a neighboring country? I don't know the details of Biden's objection to authorization for that war; so can't say more about it but it was a perfect time for Obama to bring up issues about Palin's lack of knowledge, but he didn't do it.

It is possible that Obama really will have the ability to bring together the two parties when it is time to govern. If he doesn't feel a need to go for the gotchas, I don't think that's about lack of strength but more deciding where it matters enough to do it. Someone who can think ahead of time goes beyond the moment to where something leads. Clearly those arguments didn't lead to where he needed to go.

Watching the debate, I kept wondering why McCain kept referring to autism instead of Down's Syndrome when he was saying how much Palin knows about having a disabled baby. Claiming she is an expert based on having a four month old baby doesn't make sense. She hasn't begun to learn what that means from her own experiences. She might have done work with this cause previously, maybe the family has a history of such children (I don't know) but the fact she has a four month old baby certainly does not make her an expert even on Downs and from where did the autism come?

McCain showed his slim connection to reality when he discussed the campaigns and how they have been run and blamed Obama for what John Lewis said, thought he should have apologized for Lewis going too far. This was quite a disconnect to reality.You have a campaign that has people yelling out kill him and you think that Lewis saying what he did went too far? McCain never acknowledged that his fans were out of line and claimed he always stops them. He did twice but the rest of the time he and Palin appear to not hear what they don't want to hear. Palin has never rebuked any of them but nodded like yes, that's right.

There is no comparison to the difference in how these two campaigns have been run. There have been no threats on McCain's life at an Obama rally. Obama has never called him a liar. Obama has not stirred up emotions with suggestions that McCain is a traitor for picking a vice president who was connected to a group who wants to secede from this nation. When at Obama rallies, people even booed at McCain's name, something that is pretty mild in comparison to what we have heard coming from those McCain/Palin rallies, Obama has put out his hands and said we don't need that.

Obama doesn't go for the kill, but we are talking about our own country and people here who think they are being loyal to it. Some will never come around, but a need to get gotchas probably won't serve the next president well even if it might satisfy viewers of the debate who want some payback-- on both sides.

Hopefully all the viewers, who are still open to making a choice, saw the ideas and temperament from Obama that will persuade them of what I believe-- Obama is the right choice for our next president.

Disconnected from Reality

Over and over we see something proposed by politicians with no connection to whether it makes sense or how it will be made reality. Their suggested programs might sound good, but how do we pay for them? Nobody says.

Then there are the campaigns where supposedly small town people are better than big town people. Why? Nobody says.

In his campaigning John McCain has said he knows how to capture Osama bin Laden and will do it when he's president. So he has held it back as a secret to wait to get elected? Who believes he would do such a terrible thing as to withhold such information just to get elected?

Where it comes to money, the biggest disconnect with reality is with taxes, which nobody likes, but it's always a key voting point for Republicans. McCain tells us he will balance the budget in 4 years but how? Nobody says.

Let's look at a big talking point for McCain and Republicans. The rich should not have to pay a higher tax rate than the poor. Their apparent logic is if I make $300,000 a year (that's net not gross) and someone wants me to pay an extra say 4% on my taxes, I am going to be hurt as much by that increase as if I made $50,000 a year.

I understand it'd be nice for everybody to pay the same flat rate, no deductions, but let's look at this logically. Those making $50,000 are probably barely covering their expenses now. Their concern is putting healthy food on the table, getting gas to get to their jobs, keeping a roof over their family's heads, paying for unexpected medical expenses, handling escalating utility bills. A cut in their available income won't be about not taking a trip to Europe this summer. It will cut into their basics.

Isn't there a disconnect from reality to imagine our government (or us) can keep borrowing money without thinking about paying back? The Federal Government is paying interest every year amounting to $406,000,000,000 or $.22 of every tax dollar. How can we do anything about problems like infrastructure with that kind of interest payments? Take it on faith?

From what I understand, this disconnect began with Lyndon Johnson where he didn't try to balance expenses with paying. We have seen it flower completely under GW Bush with the Iraqi war that isn't even calculated into the budget. Now they, President and Congress, casually promise $700 billion to bail the country out of this financial meltdown (although nobody is sure it will work) but even if it does, how do they pay for it? Did you hear any talk about that?

If you are one who supported George Bush, perhaps still do, if you voted for him twice, if you still buy into the reason we are fighting this war is so we don't have to fight it here, how did you plan to pay for it?

If you are favoring John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are even willing to see us potentially fight more such wars around the world, and here comes another disconnect. Even if you are right and they are all justified wars, did you think those will come for free? And then there is the other leap of faith to believe people who haven't had democracy, who actually favor a theocracy, can be converted by guns. Okay, suppose it works, still who pays for it? Did you think it came for free: Cost of Iraq War.

This carries over into ordinary citizens and how we run our lives. So we buy a house we can't afford but have faith we will be able to someday. Why? What is supposed to make that possible? The loan officer said it was okay? Didn't we need to think what made sense to us?

How much of this thinking comes from religious ideas that lead to magical thinking where some divine being steps in to fix whatever goes wrong. Have you watched the Sarah Palin tapes where she talks of the African (for wont of a better word) witch doctor who anointed her and she believed led to her being elected governor and now possibly onto higher offices?

Palin, just as GW Bush had earlier, seems to believe she is on a mission for god. God is delivering this election for her and some, who maybe even read this blog, might agree with that idea.

I saw the tape where some from her church in Alaska compare her to Esther in the Bible sent out to save her people. Never mind that Christians are not being persecuted. It's thinking that is disconnected with reality and totally about faith. There is no test for this faith. Reality only gets in its way. Would god actually think someone totally unprepared to be president, with no real information on the problems ahead, was the best for the job? Take it on faith.

And now some pastor at an invocation at one of their rallies claimed that if McCain/Palin lost it would damage god's reputation. He wasn't kidding.

With that kind of thinking, whatever happens, it's not your doing. God wanted it to happen. This kind of disconnection from reality leads to thinking you can fund this or that (but not health care for all Americans-- magic only goes so far) and not pay for it through taxes. I don't remotely excuse the Democrats or Republicans from bringing us to this point. They both will and have done it.

Our problem is not just an abstract one of government. When I was growing up, there was a thing called Lay Away. You would find something you liked but you wouldn't take it home. You would pay so much money down on it and when you had it paid off, you got it. I have done that with dresses I wanted back then. It was before the days of the magic credit card that has led many to acquire debts that they will never be able to pay off in their lifetimes.

Telling the American people and Congress that the party is over won't be popular-- no matter who is our next president-- if that leader is connected to reality.

The following is part of an email from a friend called The Great Consumer Crash of 2009 by James Quinn, Senior Director of Strategic Planning, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania:

"The steroid of choice for the American consumer has been debt. We have utilized home equity loans, cash out refinancing, credit card debt, and auto loans to live above our means. It has been a fun ride, but the ride is over. We can't get steroids from our dealer (banks) anymore.

















"After examining these charts, it is clear to me that the tremendous prosperity that began during the Reagan years of the early 1980's has been a false prosperity built upon easy credit. Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt. The leading edge of the baby boomers turned 30 years of age in the late 1970's, just as the usage of debt began to accelerate. Debt took off like a rocket ship after 9/11 with the President urging Americans to spend and Alan Greenspan lowering interest rates to 1%. Only in the bizzaro world of America in the last 7 years, while in the midst of 2 foreign wars, would a President urge his citizens to show their patriotism by buying cars and TVs. When did our priorities become so warped?"

how we treat the weakest among us

It is nothing new that some humans glory in power over others. When Jesus was speaking in what is called The Sermon on the Mount, he said how you treat the weakest is how you treat me. There are several ways you can take that statement, but one is that he saw the connection between us all as souls united beyond the physical to one big organism.

Have you ever seen a quaking aspen grove? It looks like it's a lot of separate trees; but in reality, it's one organism under the ground. The trees come up from that same root structure. If humans recognized this about ourselves, we'd treat 'others' differently, if for no other reason than simple selfishness.

Instead, we see it as them against us. This damages our ability to deal with any kind of crisis when it's constantly a bad guys against good guys and gotchas are the only way to win. John McCain and Sarah Palin have been taking this to the nth degree, but it's been here in many forms for a long time.

Do anything to win and then say we will all work together? How exactly does that work when you have done all you can to character assassinate the 'other'?

On a deeper, even more poisonous level, it impacts how we see something like torture. Some people, even those who claim to be most religious, feel torture is not only all right, but approve of it: America the Global Pioneer of Torture. Does this thinking come out of shows like 24 that glorify torture as how the good guys win?

Countless times I have heard the reasoning that torture is okay because what if your loved one was kidnapped and a bad guy had them and you could get the bad guy and torture him to save your loved one, then you'd do it-- which translates into justifying government torture as a valid tactic. That example is so full of shit (pardon my French) that I can't repeat it without some cursing.

That example is not where torture has been happening. We are not talking about one person doing it but about a government policy, fishing expeditions where Bush either gave or allowed to be given the orders to do it.

Who have been the victims of torture? Many were released later as mistakes. Some were combatants caught up in a net and forced to confess to a crime that they may not have even known what it was but would say anything to finally get relief. There were those who, under torture, told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and here's where they are-- except they were not there. Torture probably led to some of those orange alerts for planned terrorist attacks that were never planned but someone had to say something to stop the pain.

Get it! Torture does not work except in movies! Torture is sadistic and it's the bad guys who do it or should be. Torture is about taking advantage of the weak and brutalizing someone because you can. It's ordering someone to do that to another human being thereby dehumanizing both. It's about some feeling empowered because they can order such done. It has also probably made trials in any real court of law impossible because of the abuse of what has been a civilizing set of rules and for what?

When McCain first ran for president, he was against torture. He knew very well that it doesn't work from first hand experience. It seems that was before he saw the polls and began his hedge. Might not be okay for the military to torture but might be okay for the CIA (so turn over prisoners to the CIA?). Did he lose his honorable stance in order to make points with a key voting block? In this country, especially in the South, it's a big deal to be pro-torture, a winning issue: Southern Evangelicals and Torture.

The irony is those who think this way often call themselves Christian while they are condoning torture as a perfectly valid approach to fighting terrorists who also torture. Christians? As in following who? "Whatever you do until the least of these, you do unto me." Matthew 25:40

Barack Obama's unequivocal statement on torture from October 4, 2007:

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It’s time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."

So where do you stand? There is a choice to make. Who are we as a people?From Farm Boss, for anyone interested in more information on quaking aspen groves: biogeography

What are we creating?

To be honest, I don't know who John McCain is. Hero? Prey? Anti-hero? Predator? Erratic, solid leader? Is he a today's Beowulf? I just don't know, but I know he has stirred up something that is pretty ugly. He didn't create it, but he has tapped into it.

He began this process in choosing Sarah Palin as his vice president without caring if she had the ability to actually be president. He felt or maybe knew she would arouse the extremists of his party. Palin also didn't create what we are seeing at these rallies, but she calls out to it and clearly is excited by it. McCain is the responsible one though as he is the one the Republican party chose to run for President. What follows during his campaign is his responsibility.

I am one of those people who typically reserves judgment on people, and likes to think they mean well-- until I am proven otherwise. This crowd that McCain and Palin have aroused, that's hard to see anything positive about it: Anger is Crowd's Overreaching Emotion at McCain Rally.

Do we generate emotions in others because of our own attitudes? Do we draw to us those who are like us?

Video of some McCain Palin Fans at a rally.

Senator McCain arouses these people's sense of being wronged, stirs up their anger and fear by suggesting they don't know who Obama is. Then last week he was himself booed when he tried to cool it off. His crowd didn't want to hear that Obama was a decent family man and someone not to be feared if he was elected president. McCain has been creating a whirlwind of negative drama. Is there any stopping that?

McCain and Palin say we don't know Barack Obama. Usually what they have been saying is the opposite of what is true. What if we do know Obama, his temperament, those who he has drawn to him, his mistakes, his successes, but it's McCain and Palin who we don't know?

So who is John McCain? He's been a senator a long time but how many voters really know him? Have people not taken seriously enough his famed vicious, out of control temper, his ego, his own lies or exaggerations? We now know how he responds in emergencies-- running off this way or that, reacting like a drama queen; but there is another way he responds and it is the one voters better fully be thinking about.

John McCain's temper is no laughing matter.

How much of what we think we know about John McCain came from him and the collegial environment in the Senate where they protect each other? He catered to the media to get them to like him and overlook what they might have seen. Watch this video and think long and hard about what you are seeing:

John McCain's Rage is a National Security Issue

How many people have we heard saying they love McCain, including Joe Biden. And yet... yet, there is this to understand. What is this instability when he runs from solution to solution, from idea to idea. There is this out of control rage. There is something more.

McCain is saying that we can't trust Obama because of a casual relationship with someone. What about McCain's casual relationships? Like this one: John McCain and his liking for rich and sometimes shady friends visits the yacht of suspected (at that time) con man. McCain was there for to celebrate his 70th birthday in Montenegro with Ann Hathaway, her Italian boyfriend, Raffaello Follieri, and someone else.

At this time Follieri had not yet been indicted but the investigations were ongoing. Why was McCain there? Tip: it wasn't working on an education committee. Follieri's connection was to a lobbyist that you will have heard of if you have listened to McCain try to explain his Fannie Mae connections away-- Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager.

Entering the yacht is the same McCain who partied with Charles Keating before his indictment. This is the one criticizing Obama for working with Ayers? There has never been any evidence that Obama had a friendly relationship with Ayers, that he vacationed with him, but there is with McCain and many who have less than savory reputations.

Okay, taking a deep breath and remembering a recent phone conversation with my daughter. She was telling me that they had their second Obama/Biden sign stolen from their yard. They live on a street where all the signs are McCain/Palin. They have now put up a third Obama sign. She has her children assigned with the responsibility to bring them in at night to try to prevent this one's theft. If McCain followers want to take them, they will at least have to do it in daylight.

As we talked, she added something which I think is very true and fits this idea I have been considering. She said we can't let ourselves think on them too much. When we do, we are giving them energy, our energy.

I know that it's true. Don't let anger at them fester inside us. Do what we can, stay informed, act when we feel it is right, but then release the results and let the emotions go because anger is what they are seeking to grow. When we become angry, aren't we building their power?

Obama said in a recent rally of his own that anger is easy to generate, but what does it do for the problems we are facing?

There are those who are trying to gain power by pulling negative energies to themselves. When we feel angry, we are adding to their power and losing our own.

We, who see the needs in the world so differently, need to center on white light, loving energy, and positive actions, building a contrasting power that swells up as it grows, that can show a better way even to those who are hate-filled because of their fear and mistaken in their belief that anger gives them power.

Anger doesn't give us what we want. There is another way. We need to illustrate it through our lives, and when we feel ourselves losing our own focus, take some time to get it back. If that's not easy for you right now, watch this video: The Shift. There is another way.

(It seems I should not have to add this but, I understand, that not everybody who is going to vote for McCain/Palin is like that crowd in the video tape. They aren't all racists, nor all being fooled into thinking a tenuous connection some years back means Obama is a secret terrorist. Some are voting for what they see as logical reasons. I think they are wrong, but that's America, that we can all make our choices for ourselves-- not be led or manipulated by someone else into a choice that goes against our own long-term, best interests for a strong nation and a good place for our grandchildren to raise their own families someday.

The photos are chosen because they are reflections from vacation this summer.Taking time to reflect is what we all need to be doing. The first is Sprague River, Oregon; the second in the Lamar Valley, Yellowstone Park.)

Who is a hero and how do we know?

No problem in knowing who the hero/predator is on this cover to the DVD for Troy. In life, particularly the political realm, it's not so easy. Masks often disguise someone's identity. Playing roles is popular in politics. Life doesn't divide up so tidily as there are many dimension to humans. Then add to the difficulty, some would see all predators as being bad guys; so predators might feel they had to hide their nature in a world where the ruler isn't chosen through physical combat but by reasons that sometimes defy logic-- like fun at a barbecue or just like you.

So, considering predators where it comes to our political parties, Republicans probably see themselves as predator/meat eaters (once you define this as not good guy/bad guy) as they would identify Democrats as prey. Over and over in comments other places, I see Republicans referring to Obama as being a wuss, who Putin would roll right over (when they aren't scared Obama is a bad man).

Those Republicans seem to believe that's true of all Democrats (well maybe not Hillary). Their fear is Democrats won't protect us nor will they stand up for the country. Their logic ignores the fact that our biggest terrorist attack came under a Republican watch, and that our full-scale entries into WWII, The Korean and Vietnam Wars were under Democrats. Still the belief is real that Republicans will defend the country, and Democrats will bend over, cringing and beg please don't hurt me too much.

The Republican says, Grab the world around the throat and demand what you want from it, you wuss!

The Democrat says, We must make the world a better place; so that all are happier and live better lives. Who do you think you are, Caligula?

Republican (thinking it's likely an insult but unsure) sneers, ELITIST!

The last person who the right wing decided was tough enough to stand up to Putin saw, when he looked into the Russian leader's eyes, a soul mate. How sweet, how tender, but were they? Might Bush being a predator explain some of what he did where it came to torture and establishing gulags? Come on, is he really of the same material as Putin (who is as feral as they come)?

This will offend the right, but I see Bush as manipulated and used by those with much keener minds and wills than his own. Even with the power of the presidency behind him, the Secret Service to protect him, Dick Cheney to run the country, a father who had been a predator, Bush is what he has always been-- prey. Because he denied his nature, he was ineffective prey.

Despite my assessment of Bush, I would not expect predators or prey to be all in one or the other political party (whether good or bad). Would they naturally gravitate to one or the other? I don't know but kind of doubt it as many things determine whether someone is a Republican or Democrat, issues that wouldn't give away the person's nature. It usually takes some thought to figure out if a leader is predator or prey and then are they good or bad-- effective or ineffective--unless like Putin, it's out in the open and obvious to anyone.

As a Democrat my whole life, when I am evaluating candidates, I will always look for a strong, wily, good, and determined predator to be able to deal with the world as it is. If he has to play a little rough, as long as he stays honorable, I don't mind at all.

Obama has the social sensitivity, the goodness, and yes, effective predator skills to make my voting for him an easy call. He doesn't have to posture or pose. He just is. You see it in his eyes, his organization, his confidence, his focus, how he carries himself, the ideas he's thought through. He knows his territory and sees the problems ahead of time. I think some undecided voters do see his predator nature (without naming it), but it scares them because he's different from them. If he was of the prey species, they'd be more comfortable.

I understand some of you will not be comfortable with this idea of labeling humans as predator or prey, but think about it a bit. Next time you watch a political debate, watch a rally, listen to a speech, ask yourself-- predator or prey? Then add effective, ineffective, good or bad. The combination of effective predator and bad is the last thing we want in a leader (Putin).

Before George bush, I'd have thought that if we have to choose a 'bad' leader, if it is chosen for us, then hope it's prey; but after him, I am not so sure. What we want is someone who knows who they are and is good at it. There are times in history where choosing a leader who is effective, good prey might be the right choice. The worst is someone who wants to be one thing, hasn't developed the skills for what they actually are and then postures, poses and is fooled by those who know exactly what they are.

What about the hero as a leader? Is that for whom we should be looking? Heroes are defined by being courageous, people of brave deeds, noble qualities, who perform heroic acts. To be a hero takes doing either something phenomenal or a lifetime of heroic actions. One deed doesn't tell you anything because one of the ironies of life is the same person can do something heroic beyond imagining and turn right around and do something equally evil.

We have been told to vote for John McCain because he is a hero. Is he? Was he? To help you fully decide, read this from Rolling Stone on the Make-believe Maverick. (the link to this informative and fascinating article came from GYMA). Whatever else John McCain is, he's not boring.

In terms of literary metaphors, the problem with McCain as hero is, even by his own telling, he was shot down on his first mission or thereabouts. What he did was not fight but rather resist and refuse to be released when he could have been (something I now wonder about given his now revealed propensity for lying). In terms of archetypes, McCain is the noble martyr, not the hero. If we take his own story, he suffered for his friends, for his country. This is like the Christ or say Prometheus.

What about predator or prey? He's certainly been aggressive enough for how his temper overflows. Does coming across as rude and nasty, running a sleazy campaign, no ability to stay focused, no concrete plan, make him possibly a lousy predator? Or is he prey who was thrust into the role of hero by his family and his own experiences but he was never able to truly live up to it? That alone could make someone into the nasty person he clearly has been recently as he heads into Gollum territory.

Voting for someone, who is supposed to be a hero, can be dicey and most especially if he turns out to be prey where you then have to look around for who is the predator running the actual show.

Well, what can I say, this is the writer's mind free-associating and looking at these characters. It does relate to the obstacles voters face in assessing who will make for a strong leader in our particularly turbulent time.

Whether you do think in terms of predator and prey, hero or villain, don't count on the media to help figure it out. The media won't or can't tell. It is driven by a need for constant excitement, for stirring things up. It's up to us to watch as they debate, interact with others, speak out, write, live their lives, and run their campaigns. Right now, running their campaigns is our best clue before they end up in office, and we all figure out what they are but it's too late.

I think, like the Spartan king, Leonidas, Obama has developed the skill set that he needs to do this job. He stays focused, he is directed by good purposes. Some fear his power because they aren't used to an effective predator in a power position.

We haven't had such a fully developed person running for the presidency in my lifetime. Barack Obama is the total package (which doesn't mean he is perfect or has not made mistakes.He's no Messiah despite how some want to milk that to add to the fear of others). He's a person who is highly skilled for these times. I hope this country doesn't lose its opportunity as it's now as much about us as about him.

Just had to add this piece from another article which I thought interesting as an evaluation by David Brooks, not a liberal, as to how he saw Obama:

"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So I say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

"And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception." David Brooks

After reading comments in the last blog, I wanted to add one more thought. Darlene wrote that people might go in and out of being predator or prey in a lifetime. That could well be.

What I feel most concerned about is that we not find ourselves with a culture turned into ineffective prey by those who want to feed on those weaker than themselves. I think this would worry people in both parties. This can be avoided by strong education systems, by an economy that is fairly run where all have a chance to rise up based on their abilities.

Ideally such a culture would be teaching how to be the best at what someone is; so that whether it's by nature prey or predator, they operate in their effective zone (maybe switching into another operating mode, if they can, when it's required) and thereby make the most of their true nature.

There is nothing wrong or weak about prey when it's effective, but trying to be something someone is not by nature leads to failure. It's a pretty advanced way of thinking though and could schools do such in a culture such as ours that often mistakes aggression for being effective.

Predator or Prey

So we had the hero and anti-hero, which generally speaking people are pretty familiar with, but now comes a way of looking at human behavior that is not so familiar.

Last year I wrote a post called Caretaker or Destroyer referencing in it something from the book, The Shape Shifter by Tony Hillerman. An element of the plot had interested Farm Boss enough to discuss with me. The villain had decided the world was divided into predator or prey. By his reckoning, predators take from prey. He saw everyone in terms of his definition. You will be one or the other.

After recently reading the book myself, I thought about the idea again. Is the breakdown that simple? And in our world, where we are generally so removed from the more elemental struggles of life, how would we identify which someone else was or maybe even know about our own nature?

When I sat down to write about it, something from The Long Hot Summer came to mind. Maybe you remember it, starring Paul Newman as Ben Quick, based on the book by William Faulkner. Ben Quick tells Clara Varner (Joanne Woodward), "The world belongs to the meat eaters, Miss Clara, and if you have to take it raw, take it raw." He was clearly a predator but what was she?

One thing to do here is look at this as it would be in nature. Predators are not villains, nor are prey innocents. If we go by animals who eat other animals, it would make most humans predators; but in the book, Shape Shifter, the definition is more of a spiritual or emotional one-- which can lead to action.

Determining who is a human predator might seem easy. If someone is posturing and blustering, predator, right? Not the predators I have seen in the animal world. Posing means no dinner. Attacks are focused, done quickly, effectively, or the predator doesn't continue to exist long. Posturing is reserved for mating. :)

Although I think Hillerman's villain presented an interesting concept, I think it doesn't go far enough, and his inability to see that was his downfall.

In the animal kingdom, there are effective and ineffective predators and prey. Some are skilled at what they do and some don't get very old. So if we are looking at humans as to whether someone is predator or prey, they might be a predator who isn't very good at it. Prey can attack if it has reason enough.

In humans, I think, there would be a further division-- good or evil. If you are looking at people and trying to decide is this person predator or prey, a good and evil addition further complicates the problem. (If you don't like the word evil, come up with one that suits you for those who do good and help others and those who do bad and hurt others).

Whatever word you use, if a predator is a good person, they won't be going around hurting others. They might even appear to be weak to someone who is flexing their muscles, but when the time comes to confront an event, they will deal with it effectively and to the level required-- which makes them a good, effective predator.

Looking around, thinking of what I read, I think, as did that villain, that there are some humans who are prey-- and not the wily, alert type, who in the animal kingdom live into their own old age. Are these people born such or trained? Does it suit some cultures to make a lot of their population into weak prey? Whatever the case, some are victims waiting for someone to take advantage of them. They want the world to be what they imagine it should be; and when it is not, they are incapable of adjusting. This is why all people need governments. The idea that no government is needed is ignoring human reality.

Is the dye firmly cast for whether we are predator or prey, effective or ineffective or even more so good or bad? Can we change once we have started down a certain road? Will we? If our nature is one or the other, perhaps it's better to stick to being sure we are good rather than bad and as effective as we can be rather than inept in what is for us our nature.

So where is this going? To the next blog--

(Fawn and doe photos from cabin near Livingston. Grizzlies from 1998 visit to the Grizzly & Wolf Discovery Center in West Yellowstone. My only photos of grizzlies in the wild are at a much greater distance, and I'd just as soon see it stay that way. )

Archetype of the Hero

[It might seem this topic doesn't relate to politics, but stick with me. It and the next one will be tied up by a third.]

As someone who writes, I am interested in the archetype of the hero. One of the best books on the hero as archetype is probably by Joseph Campbell, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" about the hero's journey. What are the characteristics that makes someone a hero? Books and movies are full of heroes and anti-heroes. What must a hero do to be so declared? Can a hero lose his mantle?

Taking two films, available on DVD, '300' and 'Beowulf,' I thought it would make possible a look at two types of hero. These films illustrate the modern slant on heroism as well as the mythology that leaves us these stories and names many many years after the hero's death.

In the film, 300, a story of ancient Sparta, the hero is King Leonidas, a man set in a world that was beautiful, mystical, brutal, and tragic, where men were trained from childhood to be warriors, to give their all for their cause and their people.

300 is a fictionalized version of the Battle of Thermopylae when the Persians were invading Greece and a small band of Spartans, led by Leonidas, stood off a huge army for three days.

Leonidas is the kind of hero who doesn't second-guess what he does. He knows how to love his woman, his child, his men, and his country. He has a strategic sense of what matters and stays focused on it at all cost.

What Leonidas does for his honor is more important than anything else. He has no doubts because the training has been ingrained his entire life. It does not come and go from him. He doesn't stumble into hero-hood. He knows the cost of what he is doing. He is a highly skilled warrior, but being a warrior is a tool for the greater goal in his mind-- protecting his culture. Personally, he wants glory but the right way through honor.

Beowulf, in one of our modern westerns, would be the professional gunmen who comes to town to rid it of the bad guys. Beowulf, if he existed, which is possible, was into that gig when English literature was still being barely written down. He was a monster and giant slayer who didn't mind enhancing his reputation to increase his pay.

Heroes do heroic deeds and some are noble in their doing of them; some get a little ignoble but rise eventually to being true to the hero creed. Beowulf fell into the latter category. He was into it for himself, wanted the reputation of being a hero, but in the end was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others.

It takes a mythological deed (or many of them) to be a hero whose story is still being told a thousand years later. Heroes of that stature generally have spent their lifetimes being heroic. There are heroes who do these kind of deeds and deserve heroic recognition, but they won't be talked about for a thousand years.

The archetype of the hero is strength, willingness to do what needs doing, the ability to carry out what is required, living by a code, and sometimes, when it's an anti-hero, doing it in spite of himself/herself.

The word, hero, is bandied around often, books are full of heroes who aren't mythic; but when they are, like Ulysses, Hercules, Alexander, and others down through history, they won't be forgotten by tribes far removed from their own.

In looking at the mythology of heroes, they all wanted their names to be held proudly. Money wasn't their only goal. Sometimes they would even refuse money as they knew there were things that mattered more. Above all was a reputation that would withstand the test of time. You could become a king and still go down in history as a monster.

Like Alexander, Leonidas, of 300, was based on a real king of Sparta in 480 B.C. The character of Beowulf, in the fictional fragments (8th to 11th century), in the old English, may have been fiction, as were possibly King Arthur, Ulysses, and Hercules, but based on actual historic personages. Exaggerating for artistic or political purposes obviously isn't new.

Seductress or Smalltown girl?

Masks, like the hero or martyr, the seductress or good woman, can fool us. It takes being aware they exist to effectively recognize them, assessing who the people really are behind those masks. The following came in my email and fit well into something, on which I have been thinking-- archetypes.

Debbie Ford wrote this explaining the Seductress. I think it's worth reading. From Debbie Ford's Shadow Blog her email newsletter:

*************************

Is she a Smalltown girl or a Seductress?

After my first and only political Shadow Blog, I received more mail from my readers than I've received in my entire career. Thank you for your overwhelming response. Obviously, my message gave voice to what many of you were already feeling. I apologize once again to those of you I've offended. (If you were offended by the last one, don't be a masochist. Close this one now as you're certainly going to be offended by this one as well.) Even at the risk of losing more of my readers, I feel compelled to continue to share my views on the upcoming election because we've got one of the best shadow figures -- literally -- that we've seen in a long time. And being a shadow lover, I just can't pass it up. We're all very lucky that this election gives us an unprecedented opportunity to see the shadow in all its disguises and all its glory. I would be remiss to ignore it.

This week, like most of you, I sat glued to my TV watching the Vice Presidential debate. Within three minutes and after the first wink, I became fascinated once again with Sarah Palin. I asked myself, "What is the deal with this woman? Why is she winking at me? Is she flirting with me?" I had to take a deep breath because I noticed this queasy feeling growing in the pit of my stomach.

Then it flashed before me. I recognized her. I had met her before, in many forms, and here she was again. All of the sudden, it dawned on me that the reason I was having this reaction is because Sarah Palin is the living expression of The Seductress, one of the 20 masks, the faces of the wounded ego, that I outline in my latest book. Of course I felt disturbed -- she was working me right through my HDTV!

In Why Good People Do Bad Things, I suggest that those who don the mask of The Seductress are after one thing and one thing only: to make themselves feel better about who they are by getting whatever they might be after. Birthed out of the fear that they are not good enough, loved enough, or smart enough, they search until they find suitable targets to trap in their energetic webs -- in the case of Sarah Palin, first the citizens of the great state of Alaska and now the entire country.

I consider The Seductress a predator because her main goal is to feed on the self-esteem of others in order to soothe her own emotional wounds. The Seductress literally throws out an energetic hook by being kind, loving, interested, sexual and, in this case, folksy -- luring her victims closer, all the while planning her next move. She spends her time thinking about how she looks, how others will perceive her, how she can win, and how she can get more of what she's after. The Seductress' "catch" enhances her inner perception of herself and covers, at least for the moment, the enormous pain and self-loathing that are stored in her psyche.

In my book, "dangerous, poisonous, and venomous" are the qualities I use to describe The Seductress because her main attack is disguised in love and, in this instance, service. Her signal broadcasts in all directions, sometimes loudly and at other times as a soft whisper: "I will give you some love and take care of you if you give me your power. I am going to make you feel better about yourself if you give me some control. I am going to tell you everything you ever wanted to hear if you just make me the next Vice President of the United States of America."

Can we as a nation afford to fall under the spell of Sarah Palin and give her what she wants? I would suggest that the cost is too high for all of us. No amount of twisting ("Oh Joe you're going backwards again," she croons) will be able to distract us from who she is, what she believes, what she's really after, and what it would cost us if she and McCain are elected. This is not a beauty or a personality contest. This is not a time to pick someone because of their smile, their style, their charisma, their down-home cloak, or their biting tongue. Instead, this is a time to dissect who Sarah Palin is -- her views, her experience (or in this case her inexperience), and how she lives her life. She will, if elected the next Vice President, be a role model for our daughters, sons and future generations. We must look at her carefully, behind her smiling, cute, winking persona. We must take off her very hip glasses (not her clothes, gentlemen!) to see what's hidden there. We must ask ourselves, "Does this woman have the ability to govern the greatest nation in the world?"

Although many will argue that we must stop focusing on Palin, it's vital that we take a closer look because she is a microcosm of the narrow, outdated views of the Republican Party. I'm not even going to talk about her choice to drag her four-month-old special needs child around the country to big events to prove that she's a good mother except to ask if she had a healthy baby, would she be dragging it around all night? You do have to wonder since most of us mothers know that their child shouldn't be in big public places with tens of thousands of people at 10:00 at night.

Instead, let's look at her choice to use her sexuality to lure innocent voters and hearts into her web. Rather than choosing to reflect the brilliance, the smarts, the power, or the merit she must obviously possess (even if hidden from view from some of us), she winks and flirts, reinforcing all the things for which women are mocked and not taken seriously in the political arena. Can you even imagine powerful female leaders like Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, or Margaret Thatcher winking at an audience? Here's what I'd like to say to Sarah Palin right now, from one pretty woman to another: Stop it! I know you want to take away our right to choose but do you really have to minimize our equality just to get votes? (And for those who of you who are now mad at me and projecting on me, for the record, I have never winked at an audience, although maybe I should try it since she's getting 15,000 people at her events.)

The choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate tells us loud and clear what kind of man "the maverick" John McCain is. Is he someone who diligently seeks to find the best person to take his place in the unfortunate circumstance of his death? Is he the kind of man that surrounds himself with brilliant thinkers of tomorrow who promise to take us out of the dark age of war, hate, and economic disaster? Or is he the kind of hungry politician who would sell his and his nation's soul just to win? We should all take a big exhale because John McCain's shadow has been exposed. He has proven not to be the hero of our time but instead an egocentric opportunist in search of the ultimate power. In one of the most important decisions of his political career, he picked an inexperienced woman because he believed that she could help him win over the Hillary Clinton voters. We all know this. Does he really think American women are that stupid? That we can't see the motives behind this irresponsible choice?

And on a final note, if you're not convinced that she would not be the best choice, Sarah Palin told us all loud and clear Thursday night, looking straight into the camera, that the only thing that matters is that we win this war. Not that we bring our troops home safely. Not that we heal the hatred that permeates our world. She didn't speak of justice, fairness or the good of all people. Because she is a good Seductress, all she wants is to win.

My friends, we must join together to pull off the blinders for those who are sucked into the trance of this now very famous and potentially very dangerous Seductress. If you're not registered to vote, register today and make it your duty to find just one unregistered person to invite into this most important election.

Second Presidential Debate

In my view, Barack Obama won this second presidential debate on substance and his overall view toward what needs to be done in the difficult times through which we are going. This election will be my twelfth time to vote for a United States President, and I have never felt so positive about any of the others for whom I have voted.

Obama's intelligence, his ability to use facts, his farsighted thinking all came though in this debate even more than it does in his speeches. Yes, he goes uhm, he doesn't have every answer ready the second the question is asked, he thinks about his answers, his words, but that's the thing. He does think.

This man truly has the most promise in his character, his emotional capacity, the most intellectual ability to carry out his ideas of any of those many candidates when sometimes I have voted for the lesser of evils. Not this year. I know I won't agree with every approach he will take, maybe not all of his ideas, but, to me, it's crystal clear that he has the most ability to work through this extremely turbulent time in history-- of which I also have never seen the like.

That Obama even wants the leadership right now says a lot for his character. He could easily have waited and let things play out, picking up the pieces later, but he has come forward when the country most needs him. He has put himself out there and not at little risk.

As for McCain. I can't write about him at the debate. I saw Palin last week act civil at a debate and go out and try to incite violence against Obama. I watched at one of his appearances as McCain kind of smirked when someone called Obama a terrorist. Those two are trying to incite a terrible act by some twisted mind and nothing McCain could have done at this debate could make up for what he has tried to unleash.

I just hope the Secret Service is extra alert, and all of us who pray or send white light for protection need to do so for Barack Obama and his wife. There are troubled minds in this world, and this week it looked to me like two of them are running for the highest offices in this land. They would not themselves do a violent deed; but if someone incites it, they are part of the whirlwind that follows. I only hope McCain sees this himself and backs off from what he's been inciting, goes back to the issues that this country faces, but it does not look hopeful-- so people, who care, need to be sending out protection for Obama and his family.

Joe Klein wrote Embarracuda about how embarrassed the right should be over where the extremists like Sean Hannity have encouraged John McCain and Sarah Palin to descend. If John McCain had honor, he threw it away this week. How can he ever get it back?

Here's another on Palin; and if this suits you to think this woman might be our next president, you long ago probably stopped reading this blog: Washington Post's Dana Milbank on the pitbull unleashed.

Let's look at this Ayers connection which Palin has been spouting off about and which McCain hopes to use to turn the campaign around. Ayers was a terrorist in the Vietnam War era. Should he have done time in prison for his evil and misguided attempts to bring the Vietnam War to an end? Yes. Ayers still doesn't admit he did wrong. So even though he now lives as an exemplar citizen who teaches in a university and works on education issues, he's not a guy I'd want to know.

What does Ayers have to do with Barack Obama? Not much. Obama said he didn't know what Ayers did when he first met him as a college professor who had written books on education. Should he have researched him before he allowed a kick-off to his senate race to be in Ayers home? Not hard to say yes-- now. Obama has said blowing up buildings is bad. I would guess as president he will not blow any up.

Why is Ayers even an issue? Mainly to avoid talking about what is. Some of these people, who are cheering on Palin's divisive hate talk and McCain's sly innuendos, still are mad that we lost the Vietnam War. I would like them to understand something. It's over. We did not get out of Vietnam because of Ayers. It was because the war didn't make sense to enough people; but what the heck, golly gee, fear doesn't operate on logic.

If you look at people's connections with bad guys, you have McCain on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program. Or even worse, his connection to this: Why McCain's Time with Council of World Freedom Matters. Or McCain and Iran Contra.

When bringing up these fringe groups, how about Palin with the Alaskan Independence Party, to which she never was an actual member but her husband was, where as governor, she gave an address in 2008 praising them?

AIP is a group who favors Alaska's secession from the United States. Their originator died in a plastic's explosive sale gone bad. How innocent. Now coming from the Pacific Northwest where some also favor the idea of forming their own nation, I don't think the idea of secession is totally wacko, but what I do think is she claims she's a patriot! To whom? Did you know that group encourages their members to infiltrate the major parties to bring about their chance to cut themselves loose from the US. Not surprising they'd think that way with all their oil wealth, but back to the question: is it patriotic?

It's almost tragic what McCain has done to attain the presidency. He doesn't care about issues. He accuses Obama of doing what he himself has done (wanting to win at any cost). I guess when it's what is in your heart, it's what you see in the heart of others.

McCain and Palin hear their crowd's cheer when they say inflammatory things. They seem to be okay when their audiences accuse Obama of being a terrorist or yell kill him. Are they surprised that this is where their words lead? If they don't like it, they show no sign as they smirk and don't try to bring sanity to those in the crowds who have clearly gone into hatred. Those cheers are coming from their base. Will any of this work with Americans at large? I don't know, but I don't see how it can if voters stop to think at all.

We are facing a LOT of big issues but the character of the people we are voting for does matter! So while Sarah Palin wants us to worry that William Ayers was giving Barack Obama bomb making instructions instead of meeting at board meetings around the problems of education, while John McCain is only mildly amused when someone in his audience answers his question of who Obama is by yelling out terrorist, while that's going on, what about the real problems the country faces?

People, who say they don't know what Barack Obama would do about any of these issues, are the same ones who fear he's a secret terrorist, the same ones who think a vice presidential candidate, who brings up Ayers, based on an article in the New York Times she either didn't read, didn't understand, or assumed the crowd wouldn't know what it said, they are the ones who believe that woman is fit to be president. Why is she fit? Well she's a woman, isn't she? She's nasty and they mistake meanness for power.

In the debate John McCain said this is no time for on the job training. I guess except for his vice president who he doesn't feel is able to face a press conference as he, Obama or Biden can do. The sad part is the people who loudly applaud McCain and Palin are likely to be the most hard hit by what is coming.

Worth reading for what we might need to do and what's happening:

David Brooks: Testing Time.
Bob Herbert: A Fool's Paradise.

Yes, Obama won the debate, and it's because of his character, his steadfastness, his intelligence and because his ideas are more sound. If you don't already think so, I hope you will read some of the links above. And then think hard on what you want for this country.

Rose of Sharon

The rose of sharon, hibiscus syriacus, isn’t really a rose. When I tried to remember when I first became fascinated with this shrub, I was not sure. It wasn't like the honeysuckle or Japanese rose, kerria japonica, (which also is not a rose) that came because of my childhood.

I am attracted to old plants with interesting histories that go back in time which is why I have so many antique roses but that doesn't explain the roses of sharon in my garden.

During the years when I wrote quite a bit of fiction, one was titled Rose of Sharon. The story was set in 1850s Oregon, and its central character was a widowed woman. Plants were important to her as she was a healing woman born into a family of healing women, the kind who knew how to help others, who knew how to use plants for health problems. Perhaps it was in researching about plants she might have used that I learned about the rose of sharon.

Perhaps I thought of it because of the scripture from The Book of Solomon in the Bible—I am the rose of sharon and the lily of the valley. What more could a woman ask than to be compared to those two flowers—both pristine white, one blooming early in the spring and the other in late summer and into the fall.

A rose of sharon can be grown from a slip, which is how many pioneer women brought their shrubs and trees to Oregon. At the right time, slice off a branch, protect it on the long trip west, and when they got to their new home, plant it in the ground, nurture it and hope for new growth.

Every winter my rose of sharon is only bare branches, looking all but dead. In the spring, the leaves sprout. With late summer the beautiful, exotic white blossoms appear. It is at its most beautiful when many other flowers in my garden are wilting down, tired of a long summer blooming. It did fit the premise of my story. Actually the analogy works for all of us who are old-- or could.

After writing about it, I knew I had to have a rose of sharon for my own garden. I now have three but two keep getting eaten back by the sheep. This one is behind protective lattice fencing. Some years are better than others for its blooms and this is such a year.

The plant looks pretty from a distance with all its white blossoms, but its greatest beauty is in its parts, in coming close and looking into its depths. The interior of a flower is so much more beautiful than what you see at a distance. The rose of sharon's petals are satiny, as they open to expose these beautiful tiny accents-- such a sensual plant. Hummingbirds (who are already gone from here), bees and other insects love it.

For several days I found great satisfaction in photographing these blooms in various lightings with the Canon Rebel using both the EFS 18-55mm and the EF 100-400mm lenses (part of a healthy garden break from thinking too much about negatives). I liked best the 18-55mm for satisfying my desire to move almost into the blossom. With it, I felt more part of the plant's environment. The telephoto forces me back about 4 feet but provides sharp detail while muting the background.

Health care plans

One of the big issues facing Americans is how to deal with health care. The candidates have two different approaches. Here is one explanation of them: McClatchy Report.

What McCain says constantly is that he won't raise taxes. Palin went so far, in her debate, to say he'd hand every American family $5000. She didn't explain the plan because she probably couldn't. McCain's proposal might and/or would end corporations paying for their employees health care. How long before the rest of the benefit package is also taxed?

If you think about this from a corporation viewpoint, they don't want to give benefits; but they have had to do so to be competitive. If that ceases to be a problem, if you end up being charged as if you received income for your health package, why won't this end up taxing your life insurance, extended disability, and dental insurance benefits? How long before these packages become too expensive for many families to be able to afford accepting them. Perfecto from a viewpoint where the bottom line is in an account sheet.

Joe Biden, in the debate, did explain this giving with one hand $5000 a year for health insurance to go straight to the companies while taking with the other hand what might have been a $12,000 benefit package that you either no longer get or now pay full tax rate on its value.

Here is Bob Herbert's explanation for how this will work: McCain's Radical Agenda.

This is not new thinking to tax benefits. It's been creeping in. When my husband got a job with a big corporation, he had his moving costs paid. Very nice. A few years later when newer employees got the same deal, they were in shock when it was accompanied by a tax bill on the $20,000 it had cost.

Some years back corporations were required to figure out what all of these employee benefits were worth and notify the employees. Do you think that was done just for fun? Likely the plan to tax them all has been out there for a long time. This will actually enable many corporations to reduce or take away benefits which benefits who again?

Most (if not all) of the people who do not favor universal health insurance already have it. Here is what Obama says about his proposals for health care. Health care in this country won't be easy to fix and he's not claiming it will. As it stands, a major health problem can totally destroy many families economically. Leaving the problem alone isn't working. Fixing it won't be easy for anybody. Something does have to be done. I know we will hear the right screaming socialism (as they did and still do about both Social Security and Medicare) when/if it happens.

Health care has become so complex, so expensive that it's not like when I grew up, and little could be done when something went wrong. If you had high blood pressure, you adjusted your eating, exercised, and if that didn't do it, you died. Today there are expensive drugs to lower cholesterol and blood pressure. They can extend quality life, but without any insurance they can also pretty well take a paycheck all by themselves. The alternative is dying or disability (that latter is not cheap either).

When I got pregnant with our first baby, we were living on a student fellowship in Tucson, Arizona. We could arrange to pay an obstetrician to give prenatal exams while there; and when we came to Oregon before the delivery, we found a doctor and package from a hospital to cover the delivery reasonably. It didn't bankrupt our starting out family. Today it would.

Obama speaking on his health care ideas.

Morphing into a Praying Mantis

"Praying mantises can swivel their heads 300 degrees and can actually look over their shoulders and move in several directions.

"They walk on four legs and use the other two to snag prey, which can be one of their own-- praying mantises are cannibalistic.

"Davis advises people to buy an egg case and put it in a glass jar but separate the insects as soon as they hatch." from Capital Press (Northwest agricultural paper) on October 3 by Julia Hollister.

So how does this relate to my morphing into one? Well maybe not the cannibal part (I'm still thinking about that) but the going after anything in their paths, ready to zap the insects that a garden would just as soon not have, the insects that suck life from the plants.

Yep, that's how I woke up this morning feeling. Except praying mantises also eat honey bees, they eat anything in their way, I don't want to be like that. But I sure woke up mad enough.

I get it that that kind of attitude is not beneficial; but I don't think we can ignore the garbage that is coming out of the McCain/Palin camp this month. Lies not rebutted can end up believed. What ticked me off, to the level where I felt ready to go ballistic and had to work to write logically, was what I read on a Drudge headline last night.

Palin was doing one of her toadie interview with Fox where she can find a friendly ear to spout her jingoistic garbage. She will be at lots of meetings of like minds but it's when her words travel beyond that venue that it gets to me. She was in fine form with that interview as her ego put down Katie Couric as the one responsible for her own inability to answer questions intelligently.

She did not and will not address her real problem which is talking to the moderates and independents and explaining to them why she is adequate to be president. She was irked with Couric for not giving her a chance to attack Obama. Obama has been running a year now. People know his stands. They know the things being said against him. What they don't know is this woman who entered the race 5 weeks ago.

What Palin should do and what the McCain people don't want her to do is approach the country and through things like press conferences, through places like Meet the Press, she should address her own understanding of the problems this country faces.

Sarah Palin could be president January 22. Shouldn't she give the American people a chance to know if she is ready? How dare the McCain people keep someone who could be president from places where that could be fairly evaluated. Even in the debate she said she wouldn't answer questions that she didn't want to, and she didn't. She would twist her answers to something she had memorized.

By now, I expected that from her; but she went a step beyond and Drudge went even farther to give her a headline when she said Obama was not fit to be Commander-in-Chief. How dare she! This woman, who two years ago or less couldn't offer an opinion on Iraq, this woman who has no clue what is really going on in the world and doesn't believe she has to answer to the voters. She evidently feels she is fit but he's not and what makes her fit? We have to take that on trust!

Reading Drudge led to my deleting his link, something I had not done all through the Bush years but this was going too far. He repeated her words as though they had weight and logic. I suppose he's done it before on other things, but too much is at stake this time to tolerate him doing it again.

You ask what is at stake? Possible ulcers, high blood pressure and that's just about me! What about a president who believes man walked with dinosaurs, who has no clue about science regarding anything, who would believe in a religious person who could anoint her because he had driven out a witch from an African village.

By now, I do get it. Some votes will come purely because the person says or does believe in fundamental Christianity. Some will come out of fear of a black man as president. Some will come because of the fear tactics that have worked so well in the past and have been thrown out again.

Some are like Peggy Noonan, who I had seen on Daily Show earlier during the week and thought how shallow her responses were. Those aren't looking at real issues but only want a reason, any reason to vote right wing. It didn't matter if Palin answered questions with real answers or if she had a phony accent. Noonan was carried away with the idea she had another Reagan for whom to vote.

Some like Rich Lowry, of National Review, were swept away by a wink. A wink? That's all it takes?

Obama/Biden in '08

Get out the vote!

Daily Show Nails it Again

Because we all need to laugh, check this one out from the Daily Show: [To the Poor House].

I tried to embed it but Comedy Central doesn't seem to work well with blogger. Please do click on the link. Jon Stewart is equal opportunity with how he nails them all!

Let's get politically incorrect

These days as soon as someone says John McCain is old, Barack Obama is a black, Sarah Palin is a woman, or Joe Biden is a white American male, immediately hackles rise. They wait for the next word to see if what is said will be politically incorrect.

The reason we all get frisked at airports by random searches, not by who is most likely a terrorist bomber, is because of politically correctedness. Some of that makes sense. It's not like every dark-skinned or Muslim appearing person is a terrorist, but some of it makes no sense. The 80 year old lady goes through the turnstile is singled out for the whole tamale of a search. Was this because she looked like a terrorist or was acting suspicious? No, it's because nobody dared say who did.

I understand some of the problem with politically incorrectedness. It labels people based on old stereotypes that often weren't true even when they were thought up. How many times have you heard it said that Hispanics are lazy and trying to exploit our system for free benefits? How interesting-- is this why they do jobs nobody else will do and often a lot faster? Is it why so many people are eager to hire them even illegally? It's a stereotype that holds water like a sieve.

When stereotypes are ugly or based on ignorance, then yes, let's get politically correct, but I think it's more about being accurate in our assessment of who people are to begin.

So back to my point. John McCain is old. I am old at 65, but he is really old. Now there are people who are 72 and are still running marathons, women who still look like Sophia Loren, but there are also those who are having heart attacks, skin cancers, strokes, becoming physically more frail, and are losing their ability to think acutely. Most states begin checking you every couple of years once you get to that age to be sure you have good reflexes and your vision is still good.

When I say John McCain is old, it's because his numbers say he is but even more that his behavior labels him an old man. He doesn't move fast, he goofs up his facts (which maybe he did all along but I don't know about that), he has to take week-ends off from campaigning. Was going to suspend his campaign to go save the bailout because he didn't have the energy to both campaign and go back there? Will he have the energy, for the next four years, to be a full-time president at an age where many men are retired and out playing golf-- with a golf cart? Presidencies, which have no real vacations, wear out even young men. What will it do to a really old one?

There are many examples of people in Congress who stay there until they die, and their constituents keep voting them in even when they can barely get down to the floor for a vote. There is no upper age limit for our political leadership, as there is in many corporations; but maybe there should be as there is for determining no one can be president before they are 35.

We are free to vote in someone who is too old to do the job, but should we?

I write a lot of these days ahead of time, taking ideas as they come to me; then schedule them where they fit. Thursday, I went to Sylvia's blog and found this: What is it about age that John McCain doesn't understand? Please read it, as it is a perfect conclusion to this blog.