Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved) To contact me with questions: rainnnn7@hotmail.com.
This was a particularly beautiful fall in the mid-Willamette Valley of Oregon. The colors were more intense for longer lasting until the beginning of November when the rains finally came to drive leaves from the trees.
Right now all leaves mean to me is get out the blower and clear the driveway, deck and lawns of oak leaves. The farm house here is in the midst of 7 huge oaks, totally gorgeous but also full of leaves and this year acorns; so I blow off the leaves and try to leave the acorns, as the sheep, who have free run of most of the yard, love them. Soon the leaves will all be gone and there will actually be more light around the house. Kind of a trade-off... Plus the blowing off of the leaves is exercise. Definitely not as much as a lawn rake but hey, I'm no purist.
These photos in this blog are all from the William L. Finley Nature Refuge south of Corvallis, Oregon on October 26th, we took a last walk on the road around the lake before they close the trails to humans and leave it for the birds and elk from November 1 until April. Part of the joy of being in places like this is taking quiet times to sit, watch, hear the different sounds. There are so many types of geese and all talking.
In one little pool, we saw a nutria swimming. That's not the greatest news as they are native to South America but were brought into this area illegally, thereby driving out other animals that compete for the same food and space such as the smaller muskrat. It does not make them less cute but just there is more involved with nature's balance that some people stop to think.
The geese were coming in the whole time we were walking. In some areas, they seemed to cover the water.
This photo of an osprey getting caught in traffic was a pretty good example of what it was like for the birds. When they would land on the water, in the main part of the lake, they would have to pick an open spot which led to some bird fights. Hey it's not like they are that different from us. The swans separated themselves from the geese. In this picture, you can also see a heron alongside the bank if you enlarge the photo.
During the election season, I got some news nobody wants to hear from a loved one as I heard my little brother telling me he had prostate cancer. They had caught it early, but it was the virulent kind; so he was facing chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. It had not spread to his bones which was encouraging. The chemo and radiation were to make sure it didn't when they operate which will be in January. He had a very positive attitude toward it all, but I was shaking at the idea that my baby brother would suffer or maybe worse. I am the oldest. I am supposed to die first and I reminded him of that!
I didn't write about this at the time because I was still processing it, plus I don't write much about my family as a general rule. I knew when he had surgery I would mention it and ask for those who would be willing to send energy because I believe in that.
This week I talked to him, and he sounds good after two weeks of chemo and radiation. I guess they do a lighter dose of that when it's prostate. When they complete the chem/radiation part, they will give him a few weeks to build back up before they do the surgery. It will then require taking two months off from his work.
When I decided to write about this for the blog was when I thought about how many men, over the age of 50, might skip that PSA blood test. It has some controversy attached to it: PSA pros and cons; but if my brother had not been regularly having the blood work, he would have died from the type of prostate cancer he has. Some kinds can sit there and you live out your life with them, but others will kill you. He had the second kind.
When he and I talked this week, we also talked about how fortunate he was to be a veteran. It's why he had that test. It's why he can afford the treatment. Even if he'd had regular health care insurance, it might not have covered all he is facing. My brother is a self-employed mechanic with his own garage. He works all the time. there is no vacation pay. He makes a living wage, but it's not enough to put much aside.
With medical costs as they are today, the terrible part would have been maybe we couldn't have afforded it all for him either. The idea that someone would have a treatable problem but either have to lose their home to pay for it or maybe die because the treatment was too costly, it's just not right. There have to be solutions. I don't know the answers, but I do know that people all across the country have faced or will face something that could take everything they have if they are not very well insured.
My brother asked the doctor why he had gotten prostate cancer. Could it be something he had done? The answer was one in three men will get it in their lifetime. It might have been hereditary and our father may have died before it evidenced itself. Once you have symptoms, your chances of survival are reduced.
So I am writing this to encourage men over the age of 50 to research for themselves the PSA test (link above); and if they see it as good, don't put off having it yearly. It could make the difference between life and death. Women know about the mammograms and most of us do them and they aren't fun either. Both strike at fears we all have about losing our sexual life, but fear isn't a good reason to put things off.
My brother has a good chance to beat this. He has a good attitude toward it. He is fortunate to be a veteran and where he has received excellent care. It is a powerful reminder to be regularly taking care of the tests that can make the difference between life and a sooner death than expected.
Also the US health care system only seems okay if you think you have a good job and excellent coverage. That can all change in an instant especially in this economy. I don't know the answers to it as I realize how expensive it will be to fix, how much howling there will be if anybody tries to put a brake on the costs, but something has to change. I have heard of too many people who were bankrupted by a treatable problem, but they were either under insured, lost their insurance, or never could afford it to begin.
Health care isn't a partisan problem. It's a humanitarian one.
If I were to walk into Drift Creek Falls tomorrow, the trail would likely be muddy and most of the leaves would be gone from the brush and deciduous trees. I might even see elk along the slopes. I would definitely be wearing warmer clothing than when I hiked there in late September.
Because of the heavy importance I placed upon the presidential election, a few photos and places I wanted to write about were put aside. Now seems a good time to bring them out.
For some years I had heard about a trail leading to a waterfall in the Coast Range about 10 miles or so from Lincoln City. In late September, with a need of ozone and seeing something beautiful, it seemed the right time to find out what was there.
The road to the trailhead is no fun especially if you come from Highway 18. The crossroads are not well marked. Farm Boss and I went two miles wrong at one such do-we-go-right-or-left? point before we turned back to find the right road. Only then did we see a small, handmade sign that would have properly directed us if we had noticed it sooner (hopefully, as when you see such markers, you always know they could be put up as pranks).
The road is unfortunately not gravel and mostly paved, on steep slopes of coastal hills, with abrupt edges to the pavement and no shoulders. Except for pull-outs, it's mostly a one-way road that must sometimes accommodate two-way traffic. It makes it a bit unnerving if someone comes the other way. As with many mountain roads, there were no guardrails. Looking out the window or rather down from the window, I visualized our car slipping into one of those canyons. How long before anybody would see it down there?
With little traffic, we made it the Drift Creek Falls trailhead, a surprisingly nicely paved, wide parking area with even a clean, well-maintained, single-hole outhouse, and instructions for where the trail took off.
The trail was an easy one with ups and downs but no slick or steep places. The woods were deep and intriguing, mystical feeling. We kept looking for elk but other than seeing one fresh hoof print, we didn't see the ghosts of the forest.
Is there anything more soothing than a waterfall? Sometimes words only get in the way.
At the falls there is a suspension bridge, a very high, swinging suspension footbridge which you walk across the get the finest view of the falls. It is the longest in either Oregon or Washington. I got about a third of the way across and realized I hadn't lost anything on the other side. Hmmmm I see the falls. That's enough for me. I am prone to vertigo; and although the bridge is fairly new, well built in 1998; and because of how it's constructed, you couldn't fall even if you tripped, it did swing and move with each step. Below was--- a long way down. Makes me dizzy just remembering it. Farm boss has no such problem with heights, and he walked across; then came back for my camera to take the best photos of the falls.
I did take one from about a third of the way across. Mine was hampered by my eagerness to get off the bridge hence not framed well. Maybe was a tad out of focus for moving quickly back to terra firma.
I want to go back when it's warmer, and we could maybe swim in the pool at the foot of these falls. That would make that bridge worthwhile for even me.
Click on any photo to see enlarged. All are from September along the Drift Creek Falls Trail in Oregon's Coast Range.
The United States, and along with us the world, has been through a momentous political season. This was that partly because of the things that had happened in the eight years preceding it. If you didn't know it, the world lost faith in us. Many of us doubted our own country. How could we have gotten so far off kilter? This, combined with the potential to elect an African-American as president, made this election season stand out.
Now it's over and from all around the world we have seen the headlines, heard the joy, gotten the congratulations. It is a huge deal that Americans elected Barack Obama as our next president. The world has shared the joy of those of us who wanted him and who felt he could make a difference. Tuesday night, a lot of tears were shed and they were mostly those of joy.
Not all feel that way. Obama knew that also when he gave his speech. Some are upset, fearful, angry, feel cheated, resent those who voted for Obama. Those emotions were stoked heavily during the election season by McCain/Palin. Some are already plotting his failure and even though it will hurt their own hopes, they will do everything they can to undermine what comes next.
I will be paying attention to what comes next in his administration, which of the many huge issues will he tackle first, but I don't plan to write much about it. I would like to see us all let this new president have a chance, without micro-judging every single thing he does. Some things we won't like or won't think he moved fast enough to do. Some might be mistakes, but I for one would like to let him do what we have elected him to do without second guessing every choice-- at least for awhile.
Not writing about it here won't mean I have lost interest. It will just be there are other things that matter also, and for months it's been so much about politics that it'll be a relief to write about something else. I also think it will be unhealthy for us to let the media turn everything into crises as you know they will. We don't have to let them take us along for the ride.
A couple of last thoughts about this election. What is it with Americans and wanting to ban gay marriage? After this election, 30 states have put through gay marriage bans. What is in the psyche that finds it satisfying to deny someone else the right to form families and have the community rights of any other mated couple? Is the reason gay marriage suffered a loss in California, Florida and Arizona because it doesn't impact enough voters?
Evidently, in the case of California, the Mormon church was the big supporter of this ban putting what some say was $17.6 million dollars into advertising. Here is an article from the LA Times on it: Mormon Church steps into the Prop. 8 battle. Why was this so important to Mormons who at one time believed in polygamy? Well I wrote about this earlier but it was a disappointment to me as I had hopes we had begun to move beyond it. This is not about special rights but about equal rights. I think it would be healthier to let all marriages be civil unions from a government perspective but that will have to wait for a future day.
Then, what was going on in Alaska re-electing Ted Stevens with a felony conviction hanging over him, likely expulsion from the Senate, and prison time? I suppose it was party loyalty and better your own convicted felon than a senator from another party? Al Franken apparently lost in Minnesota but Norm Coleman did have to move toward the center (whether he stays there is a good question) to do it. If Gordon Smith loses in Oregon, something I hope happens, the Democrats will still only have 57 seats.
President Obama will not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and I don't think that's bad. A lot of the solutions to our problems will be in the center. We need both parties working on things and creating solutions. We have seen too much bitter partisanship. Obama wants to end it, and we will all be better off if we have two political philosophies questioning each other and working together to fix what is wrong.
Because so much is wrong, we could make terrible mistakes if we tried to solve everything instantly. Throwing money at problems has never worked in the past. Where it comes to social issues (see above) most Americans are not ready for big change. A heavy Democratic majority would have put more pressure on Obama to move left, not what he said he wanted to do Tuesday night nor what is on his website.
As for those worried that he will roll over for Nancy Pelosi, I have one name for you-- Hillary Clinton, a far more formidable woman in my opinion. If there are those who want payback for the last eight years, Obama had never indicated he is one of them. The path forward is to not look back other than to learn from our mistakes. If crimes were committed, that is a matter for the legal system to evaluate (assuming Bush doesn't pardon his whole administration before he leaves office).
Whatever issues Obama sees as his first priorities, it's going to be an interesting time to say the least-- an exciting time. I hope all Americans come together to make it a productive time for the nation. We can't afford politics as usual any longer and for the first time in a long while, we have a chance to leave that behind.
[An after thought: America really dodged a bullet (at least temporarily) with Palin no longer in line for the presidency. The more that comes out about her ignorance, her temperament, her greed, the worse that choice looks, and it looked bad before! All I can say is wow, and there should be a better way of vetting vice presidential choices than a presidential candidate going eenie, meenie, minie, moe.]
Last night I watched the election results along with millions of others. When Pennsylvania and then Ohio went for Obama, I felt this was looking good. Little by little, the results moved across the United States and the numbers began to add up. Finally it was clear that when the polls closed on the West Coast, Obama would be our next president.
When California, Oregon and Washington came in, I cried. I didn't expect to do that. But I felt an overwhelming rush of pride in this nation in which I was born and where I grew up, raised my own family and always believed was special. The people had voted, and it was overwhelmingly to move in a new direction.
I listened to the commentators talk about what it meant. Some of them still didn't get it. Chris Matthews asked why would Obama have run a 50 state strategy? Why contest all 50 states when he wasn't going to win some of those states? There was an answer to that question and it came when Obama gave his speech.
But first another speech had to be given and it was from John McCain who showed graciousness and generosity of spirit as he told his followers to support this new president. McCain has been like two men all the way through this election. Last night, the good John McCain, the one a lot of us wanted for president in 2000, that man showed up to tell us he is still there. I felt warmth for him, but seeing the anger on the faces of his supporters told me a lot of them didn't feel that same thing.
Tom DeLay was evidence of more of that negative thinking. Nancy Pelosi will run the country, he told MSNBC with his usual nasty way of talking. The crowd listening to McCain would have been more ready for that kind of talk then what McCain said. They were mad that Obama won.
Will people like that really come together to support Obama for the good of the country? Will the Right engage in more of the negative, self-defeating tactics they used against Bill Clinton and whose distraction led to the inability (of Congress and President) to deal with the rising al Qaeda and bin Laden? Already there is a group out there, online, who have a petition up to impeach Obama before he even gets in office. Never underestimate the willingness of some to cut off their own noses out of spite.
Finally last night, Obama and his family came onto the platform in Chicago, and he gave his first speech as president-elect. He was somber, happy but made clear the work has just begun for him and the country. He took seriously what he has before him even in that moment of victory because as he said, it was never about just winning. It was always about being able to fix the problems in this country.
Obama gave the answer to why it was a 50-state strategy. It was to be the president of all the people. He wants to work for those who voted against him and those who voted for and supported him. He does not see one part of the country as the only thing that matters. He doesn't see us as red and blue but as the United States. He said he will tell us the truth about things and will work to make us all strong again. I believe him and I cried again.
We all won last night. Some of us just don't know it yet.
This week-end, Farm Boss and I spent in Medford. He went fishing with our son-in-law on the Rogue River, and I had quality time with our daughter and two grandkids.
With the campaign season almost over, I thought what my daughter wrote about why she supported Obama would make an excellent last post. It is okay to be against something, but it's far more powerful when we are for something. Here is what she wrote:
*****************************************
Why I voted for Barack Obama
This year will be the first time I have ever voted for the candidate of my choice. My primary choices never made it to the nomination (in fact they were either protest votes or incredible long shots). I am proud to say that I voted for Barack Obama in the primary and the general election. For the first time ever, my vote is not for the "lesser of two evils", but the candidate that I honestly believe will be a good president.
I took the kids to see John Kerry speak because it was an historic event and because I was very discouraged and dismayed by the direction that George W. Bush was leading us (As a side note, I would have taken them to see the President too, but we couldn't because we aren't Republicans). I canvassed for Kerry, not so much because I thought he was great but because I thought Bush was awful. Last Sunday I took the kids to canvas for Obama because I think he is the president we need for the challenges our country faces.
I started out to write a lot of stuff about Obama and his background, how he is the fulfillment of the American Dream. etc. I wrote a bunch of stuff about how I think he will address the major issues in front of us - global warming, the economic recession, nuclear proliferation, world poverty and, it's related issue, terrorism. And I can send you all that stuff if you are interested with links to supporting articles. But when I worked through what I was thinking, I realized that the reason I voted for Obama with such enthusiasm is because of the kind of man he is.
Barack Obama has excelled at everything he's set himself to do. You may get into Harvard on affirmative action, but you certainly do not become president of the Harvard Law Review on it. Many junior Senators never get through a single piece of legislation. He's pushed through several big ones (keeping nuclear weapons from terrorists, government transparency, etc.) with bipartisan help. He took the gifts he was given and has made the most of them. He obviously works hard at whatever he sets himself to do. Look at how he's run this campaign. I've never seen one like it. Why would he be any different with the presidency?
He is an intellectually curious man and an extremely intelligent one. He thinks things through. I think he's a diagnostician. He looks at the choices and makes the best decision he can. He surrounds himself with smart people and actually listens, but makes his own call.
He is able to talk to people. I think that is one of the things that will make Obama a great president. Don't forget that he was a teacher. He can explain things to people in a way that helps them understand. That he is eloquent and able to move people I see as an asset. We are going to have to make difficult decisions in the coming years and we are going to have to do things that we don't like. We must have a leader that can motivate us and bring us together. And not just us Americans, but the entire world. The problems that we face will not be dealt with on our own and we are going to have to work with the rest of world. We need a leader that is respected world wide and that can speak to the world community. Eloquence and inspiration is going to be required.
I see in Obama the ability to listen, process opposing ideas, make a decision and then pull people together to make it happen. He is calm, reasoned and intelligent, able to synthesize opposing viewpoints and make a logical decision. Read this article in Time about Obama http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025-1,00.html
In short, I believe he is the best man for the job. I think we only see transformational candidates like this once in a great while. Did you see Colin Powell's endorsement? If you didn't you should look for it on the internet.
I by no means consider Obama a "messiah". I don't think he's going to "save" our country. Only hard work from all of us is going to fix our problems. That is one of the things I like the very best about what he says. On every issue, he calls for personal responsibility. He tells us we are going to have to work. When was the last time we were asked to do anything by our government? It's about time.
I do not agree with him on every issue. I never do. It would be impossible for a candidate to share my opinion on every topic. I just think his over-all philosophy works for me. He's been painted by the Republicans as the most liberal Senator. I find that funny because progressive liberals think he's too conservative and don't like his stand on lots of issues. That says to me that he's probably somewhere near the center, left of center, but still center, and that is where we are going to find the common ground to fix things.
That's it, my endorsement for Barack Obama. Think about it.
Monday, November 03, 2008
PLEASE VOTE!
Whatever your political opinion, please vote tomorrow. Many have given much for us to have the privilege of voting.
Whether we vote for the lesser of evils, something fortunately I did not have to do this year, it is important that we vote with an educated mind and a realization that what we have as a nation has been and is dependent on a population who care, who get informed, and who do the work of getting out there and casting a ballot. Take responsibility for this country and where it goes next.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." Sarah Palin fearing that freedom of the press abridges her rights for a politician to say anything without criticism.
As anyone who reads here knows, I write an opinion blog. It is my viewpoint on ideas-- sometimes using my life as an example. In all cases, I write the truth, as best I know, whether it is about my life or views-- but those views are naturally from my perspective. Nobody is without those viewpoints no matter what they say. Some express them more than others
As a media, blogging potentially will have a unique impact on this election. Good or bad? Small blogs like mine, or most I read, have minimal impacts, but some blogs have huge readerships and in some of those people believe things without checking. There is no responsibility to write the truth. No obligation to use facts.
At one time the public had newspapers, then radio and television to inform about what was going on. Those media often were no more regulated for truth, nor are they today, than the new frontier of the blog world.
When it comes time to learn about candidates, Palin's fears aside, It should be in all media buyer beware and that includes YouTube which is a powerful new tool for this election season. With YouTube, you can listen and watch someone like Representative Michelle Bachman as she spoke on the MSNBC's interview show, Hardball.
Bachman said it would be a good idea to investigate Congress to see if the members are pro or anti-American. Very few people saw her say this. When it got negative coverage, she promptly denied she said it-- until there it was. I had watched the original interview and what you see on Youtube is what it was. YouTube doesn't have to be that way. It can also have quotes clipped together out of order to create a totally different message. It's still buyer beware and look carefully for edit marks.
People can do an Internet search and get the transcripts from debates, speeches and compare them to what the candidate now says-- but again, do you trust the source? Someone can go back 5 years to some speech that a leader made and show how what they say now is the exact opposite. Internet is a phenomenal tool.
It also has the most possibilities for misuse. Can you trust blogs? It depends. A blog can be a good place to learn about opinions, to see ideas put together, to get a series of links that relate to a given topic, but a blog is a little propaganda machine that is, at least for now, totally unregulated.
Blogs form communities; and although there is some intermingling, for the most part, we go where we are comfortable and find like minded-folks. I don't think that's bad, but it's not all that is out there for ideas. I admit I don't visit or comment on far right blogs. I don't think they'd pay attention to any comment I made and they seem happily in agreement with each other. I don't see these communities as bad although they can make us think we are hearing the whole truth when we are getting a small fringe of it.
Worse for today are the emails that circulate. For some reason I don't get hate-filled, left wing emails. I am not sure if that's because they don't exist; or if it's that I have had more right wing friends than left wing. I have gotten way too many of the hate-filled right wing propaganda which I check with Google, Snopes or factcheck.org, and generally find they are filled with lies. I do check though and I do write back to whoever sent it to me with my opinion.
Some of these emails are total frauds (yes, not from Andy Rooney) and some lead the reader to think they are from someone who has special knowledge but a quick search online finds their name is like someone who maybe once did. Some take facts and distort them to make a case that they don't prove but it takes some checking to figure that out; and if the prejudice they are spreading is one that suits the reader, they won't go looking for how factual it really is.
I tried for awhile to understand why I was still getting the hate-Jane-Fonda type emails. I mean what does she have to do with today's election? Then I realized those emails are intended to stir up anger and fear. Whenever any email is about that, please consider ending its circuit with you. Nothing on either side is worth growing those negative emotions. No matter who wins this election, nobody really wins through growing hate, anger, and fear.
One of the fear tactics to try and get people to not vote for Obama is he's a socialist, a Marxist, and will take all of your money to give to someone else. (Kind of like Alaska does when it takes our money in paying for gasoline and give it to its citizens as welfare reverse income tax.) You would think Obama had only run for the presidency to turn this country over to Russia. Hey, it's not him who has put the United States into hock to China!
When it comes to taxes, which nobody likes much, Obama's plan is to tax the richest Americans at a higher rate than they are today and to lower the tax rate on the working class (those making under $250 or 200,000 a year net). He's not doing this because he hates the rich. Obama is looking for programs that will work.
Those of you who fear the increased taxes for those making a lot of money, don't forget the other part of this was a tax cut for the middle class. Since taxes seem to be all some care about. Check out this page for how Obama's proposal (Congress does have to agree) would impact you-- What's your Obama tax cut?. Go down the page and click on the button. Yes, when he gets in, things could change as he sees actual figures, finds out what might now be hidden, but this is the plan.
Obama said we have to rebuild our infrastructure as China is doing to make themselves competitive in the 21st century. He said when we look around us, we don't see anything to show for our current deficit. If we are going to borrow, it should be for things we can see, things that help us compete in the world where we either will be competitive, or we will lose even more ground economically. You cannot be competitive with rhetoric. It takes real actions.
Study McCain's promises, and the truth is he will either have to raise taxes, to carry through his promises, or increase our deficit even more. This is why a lot of economists have embraced Obama's plan. Palin is even worse. She doesn't even know what McCain's plan is as she said we can't possibly cut Defense during a war and McCain already said he would cut Defense where it comes to waste.
McCain has several things he proposes which will increase taxes on the small business owner which he is supposedly so concerned about-- like his medical plan that would lead to more taxable income and the small business owner pays payroll taxes, workman's comp, and transit tax on that increase. For small business owners, who have provided health insurance, their taxes will go up more under McCain than under Obama.
There is a reason for increasing the tax rate for the richest. It is a practical one not hatred of the rich (that is so Rush-ian. The irony is for all his talk about class warfare, it's Limbaugh and his ilk who have done the most to try and make that happen during this election even more than usual. Put down scientists, put down educated people, put down artists, put down some parts of the country as un-American if they don't vote Republican. While they are doing that, Obama talks well about all groups with trying to understand them and figure out what will help their problems.
Obama, and anyone who studies economics for awhile, knows that the middle class is the engine driving this economy. When people in the middle cannot afford to buy things, everybody is hurt. Frankly, the richer you are, the less a tax increase impacts what you can afford. You might have a few less luxuries, but Obama is not talking a confiscatory increase. He's talking of going back to what it was in 2000 before Bush began his descent into financial madness.
Can we ignore the deficit? Keep borrowing from China? Obama has said he will go over government programs to try and eliminate those that don't work (McCain says the same), but policies that involve simply cutting programs won't do enough. Many of those programs will involve job cuts if they happen putting more people out of work.
When he was in the Senate, Obama worked with Coburn from Oklahoma to get through put the government budget online for Google searches. This makes what the government spends transparent, which is what Obama says should be true.
All government spending is not bad for the economy. You build a new bridge, you create jobs. What if we improved our railroads like some other countries? Not only would goods move faster across the country but more people might find the train a pleasant way to travel, and it uses a lot less fossil fuel than any alternatives. It will take improved and new rail lines to make that happen. Obama says this is the kind of thing where government can help and private enterprise might not have the clout or money right now.
Have you gotten that email that claims all our deficit problem is due to programs for illegals? The email uses as sources blogs, some conspiracy sites, as it pulls together a lot of figures (some maybe added in three or four times, all speculation to start). If you look at any government figures online for where money goes, you see the email's figures don't hold up, but a lot of people will never look beyond what they want to see-- they want to solve this problem at no cost to themselves. I do not believe that is possible, not after the eight years of neocon rule.
The accusation that spreading the wealth is bad is ridiculous as all taxes spread the wealth. McCain is not talking about ending taxation nor ending progressive tax rates. He has said in the past that the rich should pay more. It is just logical. He doesn't dare say it now nor mention Alaska's ultimate spread the wealth program which basically is socialist as Palin now thinks is so bad but as she increased that dole to increase her popularity in Alaska (then applied for massive US earmarks as getting the revenue from us wasn't enough; she still wanted us to pay for any infrastructure up there).
Taxes pay for programs, roads and military that we as individuals cannot do. Where did some Americans forget this? This election you again heard McCain repeating the old mantra-- you can better manage your money than the federal government can.
If someone doesn't believe in government, you should not elect them to be at the head of it. They will only make sure it fails. Elect someone who believes in government programs, sees the good they can do, and makes sure they do it.
A lot of people who fear taxes so much just don't realize that there are many ways to have less money like inflation, job losses, investments that suddenly lose value, a crumbling economy. Wise taxation, fair use of the funds, being careful what programs are funded, getting rid of those that don't work, those are ways to make this a better nation for all of us. Prosperity that leaves behind most of the country isn't going to make it better for anybody in the long run.
Despite what we hear, the election of 2008 is not a done deal. Pollsters claim one in seven Americans could still change their votes even if they lean one way or the other. There are those who claim they aren't leaning either way. If all the undecideds went for McCain, it'd likely be a tie. If voters planning to vote for Obama changed their minds, Obama could lose.
What boggles my mind is how can there still be undecideds? I think it relates to the tactics of the far right that have worked with too many people. Their methods and claws will be out this week-end howling more loudly than any scary trick-or-treaters could have last night.
Some want to use a connection Obama had to the moderate Palestinian, Khalidi, who teaches at Columbia University. He is the newest boogie man for the Republican fear and smear machine. Never mind that McCain has also supported Khalidi's work to bring peace in the Middle East (with more money than Obama's group gave). Never mind that Khalidi has nothing to do with Obama or McCain for policies other than both wanting peace in the Middle East and to see moderate thinking overcome the more radical. Never mind that Khalidi is a moderate Palestinian, who has never said anything about destroying Israel, who has not done anything but try to bring peace to his people and the Israelis. Never mind because fear is not about truth, and the Republican right wing has become the party of fear. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Where did it go?
Then there's still talk about Reverend Wright-- another boogie man. People who aren't disturbed by a witch doctor protecting Sarah Palin from witchcraft, who aren't bothered that her husband belonged to a militia, secessionist group in Alaska, a group Palin spoke well of, whose leader also said how awful the United States is and it's why they wanted Alaska to leave it, those people are very upset that Reverend Wright preached maybe only a couple of times on the evils the United States has done to peoples like Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and blacks. You'd think the preacher had spent his entire career spewing hate of the United States. A few words out of 20 years is all it takes.
I have said it before. It's not bad that Obama has known people who are different, who maybe haven't done right in their own choices. It has not rubbed off on him. There is no proof that he in any way follows their ethical choices. He is a man with his own code and he makes it clear he's his own man. What amazes me the most is he doesn't even appear to get angry the way I do when I read some of the more ridiculous accusations being thrown at him. He has a lot more balanced nature for his years than most of us.
I have voted; but if you have not, if you are among those undecideds, please consider watching the following links, not about fear and smear but to hear what Obama is really promising.
You have heard how he isn't ready, how he's a socialist, how he's a terrorist secretly, how he will doom this country. Just take the time before you vote, to hear what he says. There are two parts to the Maddow interview-- both worth seeing. Listen with an open mind:
Finally, the Infomercial-- Infomercial Part Iand if you want to watch it all, there are four parts on YouTube.
Obama is not about fear. He is about ideas and the impetus to make this country what it has said it was. He has the intelligence and drive to make it happen. He needs our votes-- not just to win but to give him the mandate that he will need to buck the system and make real change happen.
The Republican party has become the party of fear of the new, fear of different, fear of the 'other'. Americans can rise up on Tuesday and show that this no longer works. Give the Republican party a chance to take back its own party by making these ideas fail.
And if you are Republican, who is not a neocon, who is not a religious zealot, and you have been been disillusioned, vote for Obama as a way to say no to what has happened but don't stop there. Get back in your party, donate to genuinely conservative leaders, make your voice known. Do not let the zealots take over the Grand Old Party. They will if they can.
Because of her enthusiastic crowds and neocon leaders like Bill Kristol, Palin thinks the party will be hers after this election is over-- win or lose. If she and her ilk succeed, it will be because the real conservatives in the Republican party didn't roll up their sleeves and get to work.
The right wing fear and smear machine, the religious bigots, they will get in there and work. Will you? If you don't put your money and heart into getting the Republican party back to true conservatism, you are getting what you deserve-- unfortunately so might we as a nation. We have seen how well that works after eight years of it with George Bush and Republicans who voted as automatically as those robocalls. It's not too late to give our country two viable political viewpoints from which to choose. It is too late this election.
(Finally, I had planned to put a blog, before the election, on abortion, but space is running out; and there are other more immediate issues that I thought needed to be addressed. I posted it instead (along with the other two that relate) onto Rainy Day Extras. So if you want to read my thinking on abortion, it's at: Will Abortion Remain a Choice?
McCain is once again criticizing Barack Obama for not taking taxpayer financed campaigning with its accompanying government limitations. He repeated it again after Obama put out his great half hour infomercial. How unfair that Obama would have money for that, that Obama would spend so much money to win this election or so goes the Republican whine.
Obama is running on the support of people people like my family who have given more money than we ever have to any candidate. We have given money when we could have spent it on pleasures for ourselves. We did it because we thought it was too important to hold back. This is true of many families across this nation. The call has gone out that if we want to make a change, we have to do it.
When we gave that money to the Obama campaign, we wanted it to be for things like the infomercial and as many ads and campaign events as he can afford. When this election is over, we want Obama's campaign to be like this old saying:
"Life is not a journey to the grave with intentions of arriving safely in a pretty well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming ... WOW! What a ride!”
The Republicans have made accusations that the election is being bought. If it is, it's from people all around this country. We gave it for him to use; and if he ended up with a lot left over, we'd be disappointed. Spend it all and if we lose, let it not be because any of us held back. This is a time to put it all out there and hope it's enough.
The Republicans, surprisingly enough, have found fault with Obama for not accepting taxpayer money for this election. But what is he running on if not taxpayer money? Money freely given because of belief in the cause.
The kind of campaign Obama has run, sticking to the issues, pointing out where McCain has been wrong but not going into the mud, that has proven to us that our money has been well spent.
If there is anything frustrating, it is that we are also funding John McCain's even though we don't believe in anything he or Palin stand for. Now that's the real thing to question.
I thought the infomercial was great. I was fortunate enough to watch it with Parapluie. Farm Boss had a business trip planned for California which gave the two of us a chance to get together for an overnighter, time to watch female oriented movies. We had fun and got in watching the infomercial while we did.
Obama's program didn't give new information (other than that he has read to his girls every single Harry Potter book); but it brought up the problems our country is facing. Maybe for someone who is undecided or hasn't been paying attention, it will have reassured them about what Obama is running to do.
Sarah Palin is the most far right, religious candidate, in my lifetime, to have a chance to be president. This impacts many of her viewpoints for instance her desire, as she told James Dobson in a publicized interview, to see a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. None of this letting the states decide.
Why is banning gay marriage so important to christianists? To start, they do not see homosexuality as natural. To them it's a sin. The very idea that people might live normal lives, have marriages, children, be monogamous and also homosexual is an offense. It scares them and they then try to scare everybody else. What is the problem here? Do they think homosexuality is catching? Probably.
Palin and those like her are apparently happier to have gays being promiscuous and having no family life. Actually, that's not true. She thinks they can come to her church, be prayed over and turn heterosexual. It then is their choice if they don't marry someone of the opposite sex and hence not unfair at all.
Unlike abortion which isn't only about religion, the banning of gay marriage is totally about religion. Fear tactics of something happening like Sodom and Gomorrah are used to terrify heterosexual people into making laws to limit the freedoms of those unlike themselves. Do this or god will zap Los Angeles this time-- and what if he misses and gets your city?
In my opinion, in humans we see three reasons people are homosexual or engage in sex with those of their same sex.
The first is from birth. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence in nature in all animals and we are animals. This ruins the theory of those who see homosexuality as about sin. How can an animal sin? Homosexuality can be from birth and totally natural.
Then I think there is no denying that some turn to homosexuality because of early abuse, sexual experiences before they were ready for them. This can lead to a revulsion in the opposite sex and a desire for their own. This probably can be changed through prayer or even counseling if the person so desires; but if they are happy as they are, then why do that. It's all in what works for their lives today.
Then there is the last kind which the Apostle Paul made the most out of when he was writing Romans 1. Out of a decadent lifestyle, out of promiscuity, out of seeing sexuality as all about what feels good (or seems to), some might go in and out of homosexual relationships. There are those who will have sex with anybody and anything. Watch out sheep!
Promiscuity (characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis) is, in my opinion, not good for anybody. What happened in Sodom and Gomorrah was rape and abuse. Homosexuals should no more defend that kind of behavior than heterosexuals. I also believe children should be protected from sex until they reach adulthood. That men boy love society that is in the homosexual political movement, should be tossed into the garbage with all pedophiles.
Back to the issue. Homosexuals, who are happy as they are, who want to be monogamous (at least serially like heterosexuals), who want families, should have the right and be respected in their choice. This is the foundation of stable communities. There is only one reason they are not and it's religion. It's not about safety or order in society. It's religion!
I know it might not seem like it makes sense to some, since I'm not gay and none of my kids are, but the right for gays to have a marriages like heterosexuals is a very big issue for me. I am hoping California votes down Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage. I was very disappointed when Oregonians voted to ban gay marriage. Oregon. What the heck was that all about where we normally respect the rights of the individual?
From the government's position, two people coming together sexually to form a family is a legal, business contract, not a religious one. The government does not require a religious celebration to make a marriage count; so let's recognize fairness for all of our sakes. From the government's perspective, call all future such contracts (hetero or homo)--civil unions.
Churches should not be forced to allow those marriages in their denominations if they believe it's a sin. Let churches decide which are marriages under their concept of god. The government end of it should not be a religious one.
To me, this is for the kids growing up. It upsets me that some who experience true love don't fit someone else's religious norms and thus are denied openly forming families. This is wrong. For government to recognize gay marriage does NOT hurt heterosexual marriages. The fear, that it does, means religion has stepped over its bounds, something it does a lot-- lately and through history.
[After I wrote this, I thought of two more things I should have added but it was already auto posted. One if there are those who read here who are homosexual, feel free to correct anything I got wrong.
The other is something I personally believe, but not sure it would fit above. I think some people are not born homosexual, weren't abused, haven't lived decadently but they meet a soul mate and that person is of their sex. Because of my belief in reincarnation, which I know all don't believe, I think such souls might meet, and sexually come together again because their soul connection matters more than the sex of the other person. That is definitely personal opinion though as I don't know it.]
Today's Republicans run for office on the concept that they are the party of freedom. I heard it Tuesday again from Palin and McCain. Democrats want to take away your freedoms. As a life-long Democrat, I find the accusation amazing, but it's what they say. So I tried to think what freedoms Republicans offer, or would like to offer, that Democrats would take away. I did come up with a few.
The freedom to pay oil companies as much money as they can squeeze out of the customers. No negotiating for lower prices, no discouraging of monopolies because it's freedom to have them charging these prices (insert pharmaceutical where appropriate).
The freedom to have aging parents live with grown children (or in poor houses) as the socialist program Social Security disappears.
The freedom to not go to doctors or buy prescriptions because we can't afford it. Thanks to the Republicans, the share the wealth programs of Medicare and Medicaid would finally be gone.
The freedom to try and find a back alley for abortions.
The freedom to hide gay relationships and not openly live together with the rights of all families.
The freedom to not watch the entertainment of our choice-- sex is bad. Nipple slips are very bad. Violence, especially in war movies, is good. Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver are even better.
The freedom to not pay taxes.
The freedom for those in the middle or lower economic levels to have their grown children not be able to afford more education or find good paying jobs and hence join the military in order to eventually get that education and to move out of the parental home-- this benefit reverses itself when the parents get old.
The freedom to have those same children fight wars overseas to protect corporate interests spread democracy.
The freedom of small government. Well it might be bigger, as it has grown under recent Republican control but it will benefit a different group as in corporations like Halliburton with no-bid contracts. This enables a private army of mercenaries (Blackwater) to rise up on American soil-- which could be handy for Republicans of the future in case the need for spreading democracy comes to the homeland.
The freedom to breathe bad air and drink polluted water because regulations cost too much.
The freedom to ignore science where it comes to anything that costs businesses money. Along with this goes the freedom to build anywhere someone wants, construct roads, dams, drill oil wells, whatever without having to look at possible environmental (a socialist word) damage.
The freedom to pay for private (grades one through twelve) schooling with a stipend given by the government called vouchers (whether we paid taxes or not but it can't be socialism since it's being done by Republicans) and hence the end of quality public education. This is good because public education has been too liberal.
The freedom to not go to college, except for the rich, as colleges lose socialist, government funding and scholarships based on need are definitely socialism. Anyway, colleges are hotbeds for teaching citizens things that confuse their fragile minds.
The freedom to ridicule anyone with an education as an elitist. If you can spell, you are one. You can see where destroying public education helps with this.
hmmmmm what am I missing? Can anyone think of more freedoms Republicans offer that Democrats deny? And any Republicans still reading here, please feel free to come up with a reverse one about the freedoms Democrats would take away-- if you can...
This breaks the plan I had set in my mind to write more about religion right away, but I couldn't believe it today. Joe the Plumber is the next foreign affairs expert to defend and endorse the McCain administration! Are you kidding me?!
From Sarah Palin who is clueless about anything beyond Alaska's borders, and most of what is there, and now we are hearing from Joe the Plumber as the advocate for how wise a McCain administration would be. This cannot be real, can it?
So Joe gets serious news coverage when he declares Obama would lead to destruction of Israel. This is the next Republican star? This is getting weirder and weirder. The Republican party definitely does not believe in experience. I almost feel sad about it. It's like the destruction of a political philosophy that had some merit but has now reduced itself to soundbites and the person who would be fun at the barbecue for the next leader.
When did Republicans decide they want the guy/gal next door to be their president? A desirable attribute in a leader running for president is they know as much as you know? Why not use a lottery instead of an election?
Basically I never like writing about religion and the candidates. Part of it is in knowing religion is something in which many people find comfort. My own beliefs are not mainstream. I have written about them and won't go more into it except as it relates to politics. To be honst, I could more easily vote for an atheist than a religious zealot. That doesn't mean I would not vote for a religious person, but it would be with a caveat.
I think someone's spirituality should show up in their actions. I trust how I see people treat others, how they live their lives more than pious words. When I vote, it's never going to be on how close someone claims they are to god. In fact, that might be a deal breaker. I have known too many people who use religious jargon to gain power.
We are in the war in Iraq at least partly because GW Bush convinced himself and others that he could receive guidance and advice from his father in heaven therefore had no need to discuss diplomatic or war strategies with his father on earth. He has said god told him to run for president. Many people believed him, and it reassured them where it came to voting-- if god wants him, how can I say otherwise. Maybe he even believed himself.
Because of how the religious right is operating today in America, to write about an election, I can't avoid the subject of separation of church and state. Religion is one of those issues that can fall under character, temperament or issues unless it's all fraud when religion becomes a mask, a subterfuge.
I said I wouldn't vote for a zealot, but what about ordinary, everyday religious types? If they don't try to tell me it's why they should be elected, if they don't preach to me in every speech, if they aren't determined to foist their religion onto me, if their religion provides them community, security and stability, then it would not prejudice my vote.
To some voters, their view of religion in candidates would be the exact opposite of mine. They want to know the candidate's beliefs about god. They want that person's religious beliefs to fit comfortably with their own. While I might overlook religion, they would demand it. Some of this is from fear of what god might do to them if they elect the wrong person.
People like James Dobson foster this fear. Here is a letter he sent to his followers: What will happen in four years if Barack Obama is elected president. Naturally, the letter has made the email circuits. My daughter said when she got it, she sent back this question-- what no meteor strikes?
[Dobson makes a good case for a flat tax rate with no deductions for anything or at least making sure that any group like his are considered political action, not religions.]
If any presidential candidate was not openly Judeo-Christian, could they be elected today in the United States? I doubt it. Does this make sense? Not to me.
For the 2008 presidential election, we have four candidates who all claim to be Christians. Other than Joe Biden (practicing Catholic so does he have accountability for the pedophile priests? just kidding... kind of), the other three all have wacky pastors in their backgrounds one way or another.
Although McCain does not (that I know of) attend a fundamentalist church, he did request the endorsement of zealots who believe god brings bad things like terrorist attacks (and this wasn't just Jeremiah Wright but also Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) or hurricanes to punish the wicked (John Hagee). I should add that the bad things strike innocent people not the wicked. Does god have bad aim?
With the current candidates, Sarah Palin is the religious zealot. Worth reading: Is Palin a Christian Nationalist? In reading anything about her religious beliefs, she sounds like someone who believes in a theocracy. She thinks she got the governorship because of a witch doctor's anointing; and if she ends up President Vice President, she will feel it was god's gift to her-- and the country, of course.
From the media coverage, you might get the impression that Christians are united behind one candidate and that's Palin, but the ones who most want Palin are what I call christianists-- a form of the Christian religion with little adherence to what Jesus actually taught. They get their religious ideas at least partly from an early fundamentalist, the Apostle Paul, who wrote most of the Letters of the Apostles to early Christians to explain what Jesus really meant.
[Paul had been a fundamentalist Jew, had a cathartic, religious experience on the road to Damascus that converted him to Christianity. He then set about changing the free form of Jesus's teachings from it's what is in your heart that matters most into something with rules, consequences and basically preparing it for a new church to take over power. I don't put down Paul for what he did. This is how he saw life and what he truly believed as he expounded on many things like women not teaching in the church, females wearing head coverings because Eve got fooled by the serpent and not Adam, and on and on with equal illogic which could lead to a book more than a blog.]
Whether people such as Dobson or Agee are Christians or christianists, I obviously cannot say for sure (but could hazard a guess), there are Christians who do favor Obama. Some of them have formed a group called Matthew 25 which takes marching orders from the Gospels, not the letters of the apostles.
To be honest, given my own views of religion today, you won't see me mentioning one of the pluses for Obama is that he's an ardent Christian, which I do believe he is. I give him credit however, that he seems to know the Bible and understands the heart of Christ's teaching, but I'd rather not hear sermons from politicians.
Repeating where I came in, I don't want any of these candidates to tell me I should vote for them because of the church they attend-- or don't.
The founding fathers, who knew something about religious persecution, had it right-- separation of church and state. That doesn't mean banning religion. It means not letting it be a reason for selecting leaders. It's way too easy to defraud with pious words followed by anything but ethical deeds.
Because it's such an important issue with many ramifications for citizens in our country, because I have a LOT of ideas on it, this is the first of three blogs on the subject of religion in politics. Coming soon will be the political ramifications of religion on two issues-- homosexuality and abortion.
As a break from my writing about politics, I had said I'd like to share now and then views from others. The following is something my daughter wrote in an email and shared with me. I might add I agree with all she says.
***********************************
As a bit of a disclaimer, I'm a life long Democrat, but I consider myself an Oregon Democrat and I think that is a little bit different. Oregon has a long tradition of voting more the person and less the party. We are a relatively liberal state (depending on the issues) that often voted Republican. Our best governor in recent history was a Republican. We've had many good Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle - good people that I respected regardless of their party affiliation. I may not have always agreed with them on every issue, but I knew they voted on their principles and had logical reasons for their positions.
It has been many years, though, since I have felt that I could vote for a Republican candidate. What happened to the true conservatives that took care of the environment, believed in responsible (not necessarily small) government and minding their own business when it came to personal issues?
I am dismayed by the Republican Party's rejection of intellectuals and education. This is not only my view. Read David Brooks and Christopher Buckley (son of William F. Buckley Jr.) just to name a couple. I feel that the Republican party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives who want to use the U.S. military to shape the world to their view and the Religious Right. Using their agenda of fear and "God, guns, and gays" they have grabbed a lot of power and consolidated huge amounts of money in the pockets of a few.
I have watched with dismay as the mantras that all taxes and all government are bad have gutted our school system, our libraries, public safety, and our infrastructure. As our schools have declined, roads and bridges disintegrated, and libraries closed, businesses have left our state or decided not to come. How can they get good employees to move here when we rank 49th in the country for number of school nurses (just to name one recent statistic)? Foreign businesses are moving their factories out and taking good paying jobs with them. How is this good for business or pro-business?
John McCain says that he stands separate from the Republican Party that has gotten us where we are now, maybe that was once even true. But his nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice-President says otherwise now. She stands firmly in both the neo-conservative and Religious Right camps. Just the thought of her as President sends chills down my spine. As a woman, I am insulted by her pick. There were many intelligent women who would have made good Vice-Presidents (Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snow, Christy Todd Whitman, etc.) but they would not have satisfied the Religious Right because they were too moderate and believe in individual choice and minding their own business.
Palin says she stands for cleaning up government, but after only 22 months as governor she is already embroiled in abuse of power investigations and possible wrong doing in per diem billing. They say this is only about politics, but these investigations were started before she was even on the national radar. She completely lacks intellectual curiosity. I am tired of our national leaders sounding like B Western actors. I want someone who can speak intelligently about all the issues, not just the ones on the script. I could go on about this for hours. I feel very strongly that she is a horrible choice for our country. If John McCain really believes in putting country first, why did he put her on the ticket?
John McCain said that he thought this election was going to be about personality and character. I wanted to disagree with him and focus on the issues, but after some thought, I think he's right. Character does matter. I didn't like Bill Clinton when he originally ran (I voted for anyone else in the primary) because I thought he lacked good character and look how that all ended up. And I am not impressed by John McCain's character. I'll just skip, in the interest of good manners, the personal stuff about his marriages, but suffice it to say that he has not been any more of an exemplary family man than was Bill. I will, however, discuss my feelings about other aspects of his character.
John McCain, by his own admission, says he makes snap decisions, gut decisions, and then has to live the consequences of those choices. Well, that might be fine if you are only making decisions for yourself, but when you are President of the United States of America we all have to live with the consequences of your decisions. We've had "shoot from the hip" and "I've looked into his soul and feel I know the man" for the past 8 years and I'd like something different.
John McCain came from a privileged background as the son and grandson of admirals. He was a legacy into the Naval Academy, but instead of making the most of his good fortune, he squandered it. He has bragged, on more than one occasion, that he graduated at the bottom of his class, as if that is something of which to be proud. And that goes back to what I said earlier about the rejection of education and intellect.
Whatever his personal feelings are, he has let his campaign run a very nasty race. You can say that both sides are horrible, but a non partisan analysis of the ad campaigns of both candidates noted that 100% of John McCain ads in the last two months were negative as compared with 30% of Barack Obama's. And when Obama supporters or the media came out with things like Bristol Palin's pregnancy, Obama and Biden leaped all over them and denounced that tack at once.
When John Lewis compared the negative tone of the McCain campaign to the civil rights issues of the 60s, the Obama campaign came out immediately that day renouncing that stand. It took a negative backlash from the public before John McCain began reining in his supporters and he still hasn't done anything about his running mate. (You know, she said recently that from the podium she couldn't hear the comments like "Kill him". I might believe her if I hadn't heard her respond at one rally to similar cries "Wow, you guys really get it." I didn't read this on the internet, I heard it myself on the radio.) Presidential campaigns always get a little nasty, but this one has been pretty bad, and it takes a lot of gall to say your opponent's campaign is running a dirty race while yours is robo-calling and saying he pals around with terrorists. I also can't believe that John McCain would use this kind of tactics when they were used against him in 2000 by the Bush campaign. I think that it says something about his character.
I feel it is one thing to try to make your opponents' platform look bad and your own to look good. That's campaigning, I'm not crazy about it but I understand. But it quite something else to out and out lie about what your opponent plans to do. I feel that one of the things that has really bothered me about the Republican brand in recent years is their tactic of saying the same thing again and again regardless of its truth (like the "Bridge to Nowhere" schtick). It's like they believe that if they say it often enough we will be stupid enough to eventually believe it. I'm seeing a lot of that coming from the McCain campaign and I'm tired of it.
I feel that John McCain lacks the good character that I would like to have in my candidate for President. I'm sure we will never agree on all the issues, but as I said earlier, sometimes the heart of the person matters just as much.
We, who support his candidacy, talk of Barack Obama's focus, his ability to look to the long range goals and find ways to move toward them. This was on the news the other day and it shows this is nothing new for Obama: Obama in 1991.
It is all very well to say something just to get elected. Often it means that person will not fulfill any of the promises; but what about someone who has a clear sense of what it takes to move ahead as a culture and carries it with them for years? How about someone who takes the positions, learns the things, meets the people, that will be required to accomplish those goals?
People say Obama is too young and too inexperienced but history shows it has often been young men who bring about great change whether it's in music, science or politics. Alexander the Great was not much out of his childhood when he conquered the world. In terms of life experience, Obama has many things going for him that will serve him in good stead.
Obama is a man for the times and what he has done and offers is why he might be able to accomplish what someone else could not. People with focus stand apart from the average person who is driven by this or that wind. Age isn't the issue. There are things that matter more and some could be in their oh say 70s and still not have that kind of strength of purpose.
By his campaign, Obama has shown us what kind of administration he will have if he is elected president. He is intelligent, well organized, chooses people who can move toward the goals he has laid out. He is a man capable of inspiring others to do more than they had ever done before.
This election is not just voting against someone who is wrong, someone who will work against our nation and the world's best interest, but it is a chance to vote for someone who has the skills, the temperament and the inner sense of self to do what needs doing without distractions.
Obama's skills include being trained in the Constitution-- something of particular value given how Bush and Cheney have done all they can to undo many constitutional rights.
As a Commander-in-Chief, he brings strength and a good mind-- Obama talking to Patraeus. Obama wisely didn't attempt to put the general down but did have a meaningful discourse as they discussed the problem from both of their perspectives. Obama has worked as a neighborhood organizer and despite Palin not comprehending what that means, it means he has worked with people on the ground level. He understands real problems and how to work with people, not from needing dictatorial powers but from motivating people to do what will in the end work best. His benefits to us as a president will include his stable and supportive home life, something you can't underestimate in the pressure cooker of the White House.
Obama chose a wife who is his equal and that means he values strong women. Men who don't value strong women choose women they can control . Obama chose a woman he could go to for wisdom-- a woman who would tell him when he was wrong. He is a man who is strong enough to listen without being threatened.
Obama's time in state legislature, and then the United States Senate, have taught him about passing laws, about working with the opposing party. He talks about the need to compromise and he knows what that means. A president is not a dictator-- not yet.
There has been much talk about how governors are superior to legislators for getting things done in Washington. That would depend on the governor, but basically a president has to work with the Congress and with other countries. To be someone who has learned how this works is a major plus. When Obama came into his maturity, coming from two ethnic groups, he had to decide for himself what were his core values. He had experienced a lot in his growing up years-- some of it pretty tough with his father deserting the family. I have known personally men like him, who had their own parents not be there for them, but they decided they'd be different and they did so when they became parents. Obama was fortunate to have such loving grandparents who could step in and become surrogates, who brought him up so well. I read how his white grandfather (who incidentally you can see he looks a lot like) took him to spend time with the poet, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a socialist, perhaps even a communist, but he also was a black and Obama's grandfather wanted him to know men of his father's race, to experience other ideas.
We see this trend to explore ideas in all of Obama's life, his curiosity, his willingness to learn, and they all helped to form the man he is today with a core set of principles which will stand him in good stead as he has to face not only the opposition party but his own (although I have read that a lot of the new Democrats coming into the Congress are more blue dog and conservative than the ones in the past. Good because, despite what Republicans are saying now, I agree with them. It's never good for one set of ideas to dominate with no room for thinking where they lead or what is best. We saw how well that didn't work these last 8 years with McCain supporting the president 90% of the time while he now says he disagreed with his ideas. Say what!).
Obama isn't someone who talks in terms of just winning or victory. He understands that you have to know what you are winning and over and over he talks about us being one nation and our need to see each other that way. He has even said he's a citizen of the world which has upset some Republicans who think they only live in the United States, not on the earth.
Obama has shown he respects different kinds of ideas but he has firmly established ones of his own. He is able to talk to others about their ideas. He has something the rest of us have to work hard to attain-- the ability to not take things personally, to explore differences without needing to insult or divide. His campaign has been one of the finest for staying with issues of any I have seen in my many years.
Obama understands the need for physical exercise to work out the emotional stresses. The press gives him a bad time for working out when he will be facing a debate or on his European trip. Someone who understands that even a president has to stay balanced, spiritually, emotionally and physically, that is someone who can go the distance. It's part of what helps him keep his equanimity.
The ideas Obama has committed himself to working toward are also part of why him and why now. We need him today. Some say let him wait. He can grow and get more mature. But our country can't afford to wait. This country needs his kind of leadership now! We can't afford more George Bushes and heaven forbid even worse. We can't afford those who think god will intervene and fix anything or smite a people for what someone else did. We can't afford those who misunderstand what even Christianity is. If you ever heard the speech Obama gave about the Old Testament, which some are saying shows he isn't truly Christian, what it shows instead is that he gets it!
If you haven't already voted, if you are undecided, go to the Obama site and read his positions on various issues. Think long and hard about what you are doing this time. There is no time to vote selfishly. We have to vote for what the country needs. Who knows whether we will get such a chance again!
Here is one more YouTube. An important one given how they have been reinterpreting Obama's discussion with Joe the plumber. Hearing it all, hearing how Obama responded to him, how he explained his ideas even understanding they disagreed, it says a lot about Barack Hussein Obama, more than my words can say: Joe the Plumber and Obama's discussion.
When Joe Biden once again earned his reputation for speaking off the cuff and not thinking how his words might be taken, he said the young Obama presidency would likely face some type of world test, manufactured or real in its first term. John McCain knew just what to do with those words-- morph them into something they were not and use them to his own advantage. Choose me. I know how to handle it all.
Due to being a POW (what does that teach you about fighting a war or tactical strategies?), having walked through a Baghdad bazaar and said how safe it was (ignoring his need to wear a bulletproof vest, ignoring gunship helicopters overhead, ignoring that those in his party bragged how they could buy a rug for $5. You think the merchants liked that price?), and because McCain was so right about Iraq and how easy that war would be, we should pick him as the next war president. Assuming we have forgotten he was actually wrong and assuming we want a next war, what about foreign affairs? You know the kind where you don't bomb bomb bomb Iran.
Foreign affairs isn't just about tactics and strategies for fighting wars (actually those are generally done by generals). It's also about getting along with our neighbors. It's about communication skills. How effective can someone be who sees even their own country as them against us? Can McCain help us deal with other world governments? He has a reputation for getting furious at anyone who doesn't agree with him. How's that going to work with diplomacy? How will other leaders see him? Will they even want to work with him?
We already know how the rest of the world sees Obama. They like the idea of the United States choosing him. Won't that make his ability to work with them easier? And I don't mean terrorists. Terrorists aren't running world governments. Ahmadinejad may sound like one, but he was voted into office and his first term as president expires in 2009 when he will have to run again. Actually the religious leaders determine most of Iran's major policies and currently that would be Khamenei.
The accusation that Obama would sit down with terrorists is more about a political gotcha at home than any possibility of it happening. What Obama said is he would engage in talks with leaders of unfriendly countries. This doesn't mean give away our country to them.
Recently, we haven't had a president capable of doing more than photo-ops after the negotiating was done. With Obama, that could be different. Isn't the ability to focus, as he has shown he can do throughout his lifetime, going to be a help in any negotiating? What about McCain's inability to focus?
Likely we could excuse his not remembering about Czechoslovakia no longer having that name or even mixing up the Sunnis and Shiites. That does tell you, however, that he, like Bush, feels no need to understand the history of any other people-- probably barely knows his own if it isn't the date of a war; but what is this all about? McCain meant his gaffe about not meeting with the Spanish leader. It's a little hard to understand why he would offend an ally of the United States, a country that has every right to expect we would treat them with respect. But McCain's staff says he meant what he said that he would not meet with Spain's leader. '
It boggles the mind. He won't meet with the Spanish leader because why again?
McCain's whole emphasis is not on his ability to work with other countries. He has trashed Europe's system of government, acted as though Arabs are inferior beings and after that, he expects to sit down and talk to any of them? No wonder he said he would not. The average age of European leaders is 55 which might also make communication more difficult for a cold war thinker (and if you don't think McCain has a Cold War mentality, you haven't been paying attention to how he operates) who is not only much older but more set in his ways-- and wants it his way or no way.
None of that matters to McCain because he wants to be a war president. He seems to see solutions in terms of wars. He might have done it with Russia too if he had been president when Georgia was attacked. We are all Georgians? What did that mean? McCain believes in wars but not in paying for them. This is where we came in, isn't it?
Some think logic is why he wouldn't authorize an attack on Iran. We are already militarily stretched too thin. We can't afford another war when we aren't paying for the ones we have. There is no proof that McCain operates from facts or logic. His slapdash way of picking Palin proves that he jumps without thinking.
Where it comes to war, for all we know, with all his talk of we must have victory, he is still fighting the Vietnam War. If the American people don't get this now, they will if he gets in a position of power. His running mate won't see a problem with it either. She operates off her concept of religious dogma.
For those who say he wouldn't start another war. All he has to do is attack and the war will be on if it's Iran. It sounds crazy. It makes no sense. Neither did what he said about Spain.
Egrets, geese and ducks in the photo all have to get along in the same pond. Our world pond is a lot smaller than it once was. McCain says he's the experienced one. What have his experiences taught him and how will they impact his choices if he gets to be president? Can we afford McCain's kind of thinking, his loose cannon temperament; or do we need what Obama offers-- even temperament, good judgment, skilled organizational abilities, respected abroad, and someone able to focus to get along both in our own pond as well as the world's?
After the divisiveness that McCain and Palin have been sowing at home, their ability to work effectively even here will be questionable-- let alone overseas.
This was a particularly beautiful fall in the mid-Willamette Valley of Oregon. The colors were more intense for longer lasting until the beginning of November when the rains finally came to drive leaves from the trees.
