See You Next Year

Merry Christmas

Happy Chanukah

Happy Kwanzaa

Merry Masa'il

Happy Sharaf

Happy Day of Hajj

Merry Eid al-Adha

Happy Maunajiyaras

Merry Tohji-taisai

Happy Yule

and...

Happy Festivus!


Be seeing you next Friday/Month/Year

Choice Of Rick Warren For Inaugural Is Wrong

On Wednesday, December 17, President-elect Obama's transition team, along with the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced the inaugural program. The invocation is to be given by Dr. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California.

The program includes the following profile of Dr. Warren: "Dr. Rick Warren founded Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, in 1980 with one family. Today, it is an evangelical congregation averaging 22,000 weekly attendees, a 120-acre campus, and has more than 300 community ministries to groups such as prisoners, CEOs, addicts, single parents, and those with HIV/AIDS. He also leads the Purpose Driven Network of churches, a global coalition of congregations in 162 countries. TIME magazine named him one of "15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004," and in 2005 one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World."

But there's another side to Dr. Warren. The Christian Post website stated, "Attempting only to make abortions “rare” is not much different than saving some of the Jews during the Holocaust when all could be saved, according to megachurch pastor Rick Warren." Warren himself is quoted as saying, “For these people who believe life begins at birth, all right, at conception, it’s an American holocaust. They believe that there’s 40 million people who should be here." Comparing legal abortions to the Holocaust is absurd and is indicative of someone with a not quite hidden 'Christian' right-wing agenda.

Dr. Warren has compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest. He has claimed that had Proposition 8 in California (which restricted marriage in California to one man and one woman) not passed, pastors who speak their mind on certain issues would have had silenced - their free speech rights severely restricted. Obama should refrain from having Warren, who attempts to prop up this intellectually barren philosophy by guilt by association with pedophilia and incest, be anywhere near the inauguration. click here to listen to Dr. Warren.

He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. Not exactly a bridge-builder, is he? Divisive, hypocritical, and cruel are terms more apt.

This is not a person that President-elect Obama should showcase during his historic inauguration. Why was the decision made to include Warren? Was it political? Thinking about 2012? Would the choice of Warren drain Christian right-wing votes from the Republicans? Unlikely. Those votes will flock to Palin in 2012.

It is not too late. Obama can still change the man or woman who will give the invocation. Or he could be really bold and eliminate it altogether. You know, something about the separation of church and state.

Music Keeps Us Young (part 2 of 2)

I left off last Friday in the mid-1960s. No one who was a teenager in Chicago at that time was unaffected by the plethora of Chicago area rock bands that were played on the two major radio rock stations, WLS (890) and WCFL (1000). Their 50,000 watt stations were heard across many states, and helped these bands achieve success. There was a distinct feature of most of these groups. They virtually all had horn sections. Why was that? The Chicago public high schools encouraged every incoming freshman to take band class. If you agreed, you were usually given a choice of trumpet, trombone, saxophone, or other brass instrument. You could take it home and practice. So horn sections were a natural addition to local Chicago rock bands. The special depth that gave to the music resulted in it being described as the 'Chicago Sound.' My favorite local Chicago bands included:

- The Buckinghams. KIND OF A DRAG, and MERCY MERCY MERCY.

- The New Colony Six. I WILL ALWAYS THINK ABOUT YOU, and what I consider the most beautiful love song ever written, about a girl who breaks up with her guy, and even though he's hurting badly, still loves her with all his heart and wants only the best for her, THINGS I'D LIKE TO SAY.

- The Chicago Transit Authority, later shortened due to a lawsuit threat to Chicago. Here are two seldom heard songs. The first has their greatest horn, bass, and wah-wah pedal guitar work. LISTEN, and the politically charged PROLOGUE, AUGUST 29, 1968 - SOMEDAY.

- The Shadows of Knight's cover of GLORIA, and OH YEAH.

- The American Breed. BEND ME SHAPE ME.

- The Cryan' Shames. IT COULD BE WE'RE IN LOVE, and SUGAR AND SPICE (sorry...no YouTube link to this song worthy of posting).

- The Ides of March. VEHICLE.

- Moving ahead now to my first car - a used, light blue 1964 Buick Skylark convertible, purchased in 1967. Of course I had to have an 8 track tape player installed. The first tape I purchased? The Beatles' MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR. But the band I had the most tapes of was Buffalo Springfield. Their biggest hit was FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. I also fondly recall driving west on 95th street towards Maple Lake with the top down, sun in my face, and wind in my (increasingly long) hair, listening to their MR. SOUL, and the wonderfully melodic ON THE WAY HOME.

- When I entered college in 1968 I supported the war in Vietnam. The Chicago public high school I had attended had done its brainwashing best. But fellow students at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle showed me the other side to U.S. involvement. My musical tastes changed accordingly. I reinterpreted the lyrics to The Jefferson Airplane's SOMEBODY TO LOVE. "When the truth is found to be liew, and all the joy within you dies" was exactly how I felt about my changed viewpoint on Vietnam. Their signature song for me, though, will always be VOLUNTEERS. Playing these songs just now brought back all the emotions of that time. But they pale in comparison to the next entry in my personal 'Hit Parade."

- After Nixon expanded the Vietnam war by invading Cambodia on April 30, 1970, my world changed. Anti-war protests, though peaceful, increased greatly in terms of participants. Then came the shootings of thirteen students at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio by Ohio National Guardsmen. Four students were murdered, and nine more seriously wounded. It is said that when Neil Young (formerly of Buffalo Springfield, and then with Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young) heard the news, he went to the bathroom and wept. Ten minutes later, he had written both the lyrics and the music to OHIO.

This post has gone on longer than I had intended. Tempus fugit. But indulge me a moment longer while I mention other musical artists that have moved me (click their names to hear a song):

- SHIRLEY BASSEY

- TEN WHEEL DRIVE

- CELTIC WOMAN

- FRANK ZAPPA

- NIGHTWISH

- EVANESCENCE

- PINK MARTINI

- GUSTAV HOLST

- VAYA CON DIOS

- WITHIN TEMPTATION

Thanks again to the artists and YouTube. And thanks to you for reading and listening!


Next Friday: Back to politics

Music Keeps Us Young (part 1 of 2)

Music and memory - what's the connection? A scientist might say it has to do with the rostromedial prefontal cortex. That's the section of our brain that not only processes and tracks musical tones, but also is activated when we try to remember something. Did you learn your alphabet, a-b-c-d-e-f-g et cetera, accompanied by the "Alphabet Song"? Fifty-plus years after learning it that way, I still hum the tune when I'm trying to remember what letter comes before 'Z' or 'L'.

The thrust of today's post goes beyond the science of 'why', and into the connection between certain specific songs from my past, and the feeling of well-being that I experience upon hearing those songs today. More often than not, I find that certain music transports me back to when I heard it for the first time. In approximate chronological order, I list the songs that have had the greatest effects on me. But first, a big 'Thank You' to the artists and YouTube.

- EXODUS. My earliest such recollection is of the title track for the movie, released in 1960. I was ten years old, had been taken to the movie, and the music compelled me to use up my number 1 Christmas wish on the soundtrack. I still have that vinyl disc. When I hear this song, I'm back in 1960, when times seemed simpler, and the future was so far away I didn't care.

- GIRL GROUPS. 'Girl Groups' songs left an indelible impression on me. Martha and the Vandellas remains my favorite of this genre. HEATWAVE, DANCIN' IN THE STREETS, and NOWHERE TO RUN, had more soul than the Supremes. But there are two Supremes' songs, released in 1966 and 1968 respectively, that stand out from their entire repertoire: LOVE IS LIKE AN ITCHIN' IN MY HEART, for its percussion, bass, and complex rhythmic structure - thanks to the incredible but unappreciated Motown house band, the Funk Brothers, and LOVE CHILD, for its social commentary. This category would be incomplete without mention of the Ronettes' BE MY BABY, and the Shangri-Las, best known for THE LEADER OF THE PACK, but even more memorable to me was their musically interesting WALKIN' IN THE SAND. Listening to these songs today takes me away from adulthood, and back to what seemed at the time to be a less stressful existence. I wonder if my blood pressure decreases when I listen?

- LOUIE LOUIE, covered by the Kingsmen in 1963, was by far the greatest single influence on my musical tastes. It is the classic 'three chord rock' song that launched thousands of garage bands. In my case, it was a basement band, as the house I grew up in had no garage. It changed my personal musical instrument from an accordion to a beat-up acoustic guitar ($5) in 1964, replaced by a red Vox solid body single pickup electric guitar ($35) in 1965.

Three chord rock means the song's rhythm guitar sound (when all six strings are strummed simultaneously) is composed of only three different chords. Even the beginning guitar player can master three chords. It didn't hurt the song's popularity when, due to the poor sound quality of the cheap recording studio that the struggling band used, many words were muffled, and rumors spread about what the "real, dirty words" were. Then, the Governor of Indiana tried to ban all airplay of the song in Indiana, and last, but not least, it was investigated because of its "obscene" lyrics, by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Your tax dollars at work.

My friends and I played the 45 rpm record at 33 1/3 RPM and even 16 RPM to try to make out the words. Of course our feverish 13 year old male minds concocted our own outlandish lyrics, which we played to our heart's content when we finally put a band together the next year. Oh yeah, the three chords were A, D, and Em. Listening to this song today brings me to the beginning of my adolescence, when making a rudimentary form of music, mixed with hormonal drives, fueled creativity on several levels. The band lasted only two years, but it feels like yesterday.

- THE HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN by the Animals (1964). At a time when the Beatles were appealing to teenage love angst, the Animals were fusing the blues with rock, and singing about how a combination saloon/gambling den/house of ill repute in New Orleans led to a young man's downfall. Eric Burdon's voice was rough, filled with raw emotion, and so unlike Paul, John, Dave Clark, or even Mick Jagger's, that I had no choice but to succumb to Animalism. Coincidentally, it was the album Animalism that introduced me to traditional Chicago Blues (electric guitar driven instead of acoustic, more urban and hard-edged than the Delta blues. Bluesman Muddy Waters moved from Memphis to Chicago in 1954, and quickly discovered that his new audiences were both larger and rowdier. He couldn't be heard. So he traded his acoustic guitar for an electric one, and the Chicago Blues sound was born. He later wrote the song, "The Blues Had a Baby, And They Named It Rock and Roll". The song on Animalism that did it for me was their cover of GOIN' DOWN SLOW. Listening to the Blues does not necessarily take me back to a specific, younger age. It does, however, take me on a trip to the very core of my being, which is perhaps the best "wayback" journey of them all.


Next Friday: Music Keeps Us Young, Part 2 of 2

Thanksgiving Myths Deconstructed

My intent for this weeks post was a kind of warm, fuzzy, gee... isn't it nice that it's Thanksgiving message. My memories of the Thanksgiving tradition, learned in a Chicago public elementary school, had made this my favorite holiday. But first, I wanted to delve more deeply into Thanksgiving, and learn more. I'm almost sorry I did.

Thanksgiving Day commemorates the communal sharing of food and friendship between Pilgrims and Native Americans in the Plymouth Bay Colony in 1621, right? The Pilgrims invited their new friends to a feast of celebration. One wonders how this peaceful relationship between two peoples could have turned so horribly sour in such a short time thereafter.

Let's examine some facts and fallacies:

- When the Mayflower landed in the New World, the passengers were virtually all Pilgrims. Wrong. There were 102 colonists aboard the Mayflower. Only 35 were what we today call Pilgrims.

- The 'Pilgrims' actually referred to themselves as 'Saints' (humble types, eh?), while others referred to them as 'Separatists'. A few of the other Mayflower settlers referred to themselves as 'Puritans', in that they wanted to purify the Church. It wasn't until after the Revolution that the term 'Pilgrims' was applied to the Saints, and they became what the spin doctors of the time painted as the image of the new country's morality and Christian ideals.

- The date and location of the first communal feast was not 1621 and was in the Plymouth Colony. According to the History News Network, "Texans claim the first Thanksgiving in America actually took place in little San Elizario, a community near El Paso, in 1598 -- twenty-three years before the Pilgrims' festival." "Then again, you may want to go to Virginia.. At the Berkeley Plantation on the James River they claim the first Thanksgiving in America was held there on December 4th, 1619....two years before the Pilgrims' festival... " A certain U.S. President from Massachusetts officially recognized Virginia's claim in 1963.

- The weary settlers from the Mayflower were supposed to join up with Virginian tobacco plantations. However, due to either heavy storms, or errors using their charts, they landed in what was to become Massachusetts.

- They did not heroically carve a civilization out of the wilderness. They settled on land that had been occupied by an Indian tribe that had either departed the region, or had died. Our intrepid colonists appropriated the Indian belongings they found there. A Native American survivor, Squanto, showed them the corn fields, and explained how to survive in their new environment.

- The colonists did not originate the idea of a fall festival. Native American tribes had been celebrating harvest time for centuries.

- Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until President Lincoln, looking for a way to fire up patriotic spirit during the dismal days of the War Between the States, made it one. His decree was on the same day that he ordered Union troops to march against the Sioux tribe in what now is Minnesota.

- The Pilgrims' clothing was black and white with buckles on their hats and shoes. Wrong. Buckles did not come to be worn until the late years of the 17th century, and black and white clothing was worn only on Sundays. Their clothes would have been more earth tones like green and brown, with the occasional blue and beige.

The concept of a day set aside for a special meal to share with friends and family is a wonderful thing. But let's delete the phony public relations aspects of what we pretend was the first Thanksgiving. A little honesty would be just the right spice for the fourth Thursday in November.


Next Friday: Music keeps us young.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx on the 2008 Economy

Hello. My name is Adam. No, not that Adam... Adam Smith, the influential economist best known for my book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, considered by many to be the foundation of modern capitalism. In it, I explained how rational self-interest in a free-market economy leads to economic well-being for all. I was born in Scotland in 1723, and just read on the Internet (yes, we have access up there) that I 'died' in 1790. I lived a pleasant life. Never married. Coincidence?

I'm here today, channelled (against my will, I'll have you know) through this annoying blogger (to what a pitiful level the English language has sunk... 'blogger'?), known rather boastfully as 'the thinker' (my belief is that he left a leading 's' off his moniker), to analyze the current financial maladies you bloody colonists are having.

Let me examine today the state of your automotive industry, which employs, either directly or indirectly in support or supply functions, approximately 10% of your work force. For many years it was a profitable sector, for both its managers and workers. Although it would have been even more profitable, had all the employees been compensated on an individual basis - judged on their personal productivity, instead of salaries and raises determined primarily by what job title a person was in. That applied mainly to the production workers. But I am similarly dismayed that managers, and especially those in the upper executive ranks, manipulated their compensation through whom they knew on the board of directors, and how many times they purposely lost to them on the golf course. As a Scotsman, that venue for perverting my theory of "rational self-interest" is particularly vexing.

Many in your news industry bemoan the staggering losses of market share and profits that the North Central American Colonial (I cannot bring myself to utter 'United States of America" or that even cruder and less descriptive word 'American' - as if there are no other countries in North, Central, and South America deserving of inclusion in that title!... but I digress) automotive industry has been absorbing lately. Haven't they read my philosophy that any successful business enterprise must, at the very least, produce something others value?

Lowering my standards to use your local vernacular, the Asian automakers are eating your lunch! So I object, most vociferously, to your government even thinking about a loan to your GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Those companies should redirect their efforts and retool their plants in order to make something of value that people will buy. If they cannot accomplish this basic tenet of business, then let those enterprises fail. It might help if successful automotive companies are examined, and emulated. Efficiencies can also be gleaned from those who know the work the best - the people who are doing it. Seems simple, but it's often overlooked. Ask your employees periodically for ideas on streamlining operations and cutting corners. You may discard ten bad suggestions before finding one good one. But that is definitely a profitable ratio.

I see that my time is just about up, and some unkempt (both physically and intellectually) vagabond is next to be brought forth through the narrow confines of this blogger's alleged mind. Bear this in mind... this 'Karl' person claims to be the voice of the poor, exploited, downtrodden working class. But if you see a picture of him, it is obvious that he never missed a meal in his life. Take that, Karl the Commie!

Good-bye, and good luck.


Hello. My name is Karl Marx, and my economic ideas have fomented revolutions. I was born in Prussia in 1818. But first, I need to air a grievance. A complete overhaul of this 'channeling' business is past due. The stories I could tell about the sad and angry faces on the wealthy, lazy, lay abouts calling for some member of a slapstick comedy family who shares my surname, and finding me in their midst instead, would turn your stomach! Note to self: contact Frederick and Vladimir when I get back. Then you people will see one heck of a union organizing drive. New members must have gone through this channelling humiliation at least twice in order to join. I'll even steal the word "Bitter" from this... well, whatever this is, and use it in the new union's title: Bitter Union of Re-channelled Persons. Our slogan: B.U.R.P. - It'll Make You Feel Better.

Now, I see that a certain evil capitalist named Adam Smith (I'll bet his middle initial is S. Get it? He's a real A.S.S.) has analyzed (with the emphasis on 'anal') America's automotive industry. The astute observer will note that I used 'America' here because I know it's one of Smith's pet peeves. His rude and crude comment about my weight showed his lack of understanding and compassion (typical for those of his ilk). You see, I have a metabolic problem... But that's not important here. Sit down, fellow members of the international working class, and I will raise your (class) consciousness even further, using the automotive industry, and its current travails, as an example.

The economic ups and downs of all facets of the economy, and especially the automotive sector, are due almost exclusively to the fact that there is no long term planning under capitalism. Your auto company executives are not rewarded for any results beyond the current fiscal quarter. Stock prices plunge at the very hint of underperforming Wall Street projections. Therefore, efforts are confined exclusively to meeting those expectations. If there is a likelihood of failure to make the requisite profit margins, then immediate short term steps must be taken, regardless of the long term effects on the company, its employees, or the industry as a whole. And what is the most expensive cog in the company's corporate wheel? Workers. So first, managers issue speed up orders on the production lines, even though the additional units are not yet needed. Why? In order to stockpile cars and parts, in preparation for the layoffs necessary to keep profits in line with projections. The effects on the workers? Who cares? This is unrestrained capitalism.

Even labor unions these days cannot adequately protect their members during times of extreme economic crisis in your economy. Most have become as stilted and bureaucratic as both the corporate fat cats in their corner offices, and the governmental henchmen who fleece the paychecks of the working men and women they are charged with representing.

The solution? Ownership transfer of the major means of production to proletariat owned and run councils. It applies even more in 2008 than during the rise of the Industrial Age circa 1848. This would stabilize production for both short and long term projected needs and use, and eliminate immediate, destabilizing profiteering. Would bureaucrats take over such a system? Not to worry! My philosophy should actually endear me to your 'smaller government' Republican Party. I believe in the eventual withering away of the government. Once a just, balanced, global society has been attained, the need for government oversight will cease. Hasta la vista, politicians.

Will you look at the time? This damned blogger boss made me miss my lunch break. I'm putting in for time-and-a-half AND talking to my union steward! Don't mourn my departure... workers of the world unite!

Good-bye, and good luck.





Next Friday: Subject undetermined at this time.

London Times Column on Obama Bitterly Analyzed

Today's London Times carried a column by Gerald Baker entitled "Only a great president could cope with all this". I took issue with several statements:

- "Much - way too much - has already been written about Senator Obama's capabilities. The one thing we can say with certainty is this: if he can somehow navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years he will really have a claim to greatness."

In reading more than my fair share about the presidential candidates, I cannot recall ever thinking that I had read too much about their capabilities. I had read too much of vague accusations about character flaws, distortions of policy positions, wardrobe costs, flag pins, and that nefarious McCarthyite era bugaboo about whether you had ever dared to exercise your right of freedom of association. I halfway expected to hear, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member, or fellow-traveler, of (fill in your favorite fearsome organization). But too much about "capabilities"? I say, I wanted to read more!

If President Obama is able to only "... navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years... " his claim will be far less than "greatness." A claim to a modicum of success would certainly fit. Maybe even a claim to having been very good at his job in a time of multiple crises. But to achieve greatness, in only a four year span, will require that he persuade the Congress to make substantial specific strides in the areas of economic stabilization and reform, environmental initiatives, and tax reform. Add to that his personal tasks of repairing the USA's image abroad, and re-establishing trust with both our traditional allies, and listening to the views of those not yet our friends, but with whom a dialogue might just ease tensions and increase understanding. A daunting task indeed, but "greatness" is a description not easily achieved, nor should it be.

- "So Washington is agog with anticipation about the arrival of the new president. But Washington being what it is, the immediate focus of frenzied concern doesn't involve tax cuts or bailouts or sit-downs with foreign leaders. It is the critical decision that will bring euphoria to some and break the hearts of others: where the Obama daughters will go to school."

"I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington that rears children solely for the same reason they do everything else: to move upward in society. They would literally kill to get Nelson Jr into a particular school in the hope that it might be an entrée to some important contact. True happiness for many in this city is the possibility that little Meredith will play on the same soccer team as the daughter of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administrative Affairs, or if fortune is really smiling, some glamorous White House correspondent for one of the networks."

Baker begins his first paragraph with the sweeping generalization "So Washington is agog...", thereby insinuating that all its residents are "agog". In so doing, he implies that they are all basically social butterflies, flitting from party to social to debutant ball to enduring the heartbreaking angst over whether their children will get into the 'right' elementary school, oblivious to both the real world and the nation's business upon which they were either elected, or hired, to work.

Then he perhaps reconsidered his statement. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph: "I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington... " I can agree with that statement. Singling out certain members of a group not united by ideology for criticism, as individuals, is ethically and logically preferable to a blanket condemnation of the entire group. You may say that is 'political correctness'. If so, I hereby plead guilty. But back to these two Baker paragraphs, the second undercuts the first. Debate points have been lost for less.

-"The times and circumstances of (Obama's) election call not for a sharp ideological turn but for pragmatism. We trust you to do what works, was the message from the voters."

Wrong. The message from the voters was a strong majority in favor of ideological change, not pragmatism; hope and faith in a leader who will not provide more-of-the-same, but one who will address the mountain of problems left by Bush II from new perspectives, trying new approaches, not merely trusting him "... to do what works."

I must now acknowledge Baker's humor. In his description of the frenzy-to-be surrounding what school Obama's children, Sasha and Malia, will attend, he says that social climbing parents will:

"... flood the lucky academy next year with admission applications. The city's proudest lawyers will plead with administrative assistants for reconsideration. There will be attempts at bribery. There will be blood."

My favorite, though, is his portrayal of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:

"His managerial style is famous. He is to the courtesies of polite society what Sweeney Todd was to the short back and sides. He is known for using a familiar Anglo-Saxon expletive in conversation as a convenient all-purpose verbal utility vehicle: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, participle, gerund, whatever."

Wow, when was the last time you saw the word "gerund" used outside of a textbook? Is it even suitable for polite social intercourse? (oops).




Next Friday: Adam Smith and Karl Marx analyze the 2008 economy

Why Obama Won: Presidential Election Analysis

The numbers are, as of this date, unofficial. Here are the latest figures:

Popular Vote:

Barack Obama-------64,904,451------52.5%

John McCain---------57,063,155------46.2%

Ralph Nader--------------671,182------00.5%

Bob Barr------------------496,153------00.4%

Cynthia McKinney-------145,442------00.1%

Other candidates--not tabulated yet---00.3%


Electoral College Vote:

Barack Obama-------------364---------69%

John McCain---------------162---------31%

Note: With 100% of precincts reported, Missouri's 11 electoral votes have not yet been assigned. McCain has 1,442,673 votes and Obama has 1,436,814 votes. A recount is pending.

What were the main reasons for Obama's victory?

- Iowa. Had Obama not won a surprise victory in the first primary/caucus state, he would have faced a daunting, uphill battle. Had Edwards not come in a surprise second place, knocking front-runner Hillary Clinton into a stunning third place, it is quite likely that she would have quickly and easily regrouped for the rest of the primaries. Her victory in New Hampshire was not as big of a boost as some thought. New Hampshire residents are very displeased with Iowa usurping media attention every Presidential primary season. So even though polls showed Obama ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, it was the chance for some New Hampshire voters to thumb their noses at Iowa's choice that resulted in the margin necessary to put Hillary over the top. Hillary, referred to by most media analysts before the primaries as the presumptive Democratic nominee, and ahead of Obama by as much as 25% before Iowa, never fully recovered.

- Message. Obama's was consistent and clear in all major areas - from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the economy to appealing to the best in Americans and providing a real promise of change for the better. McCain's focus varied from 'I was right about the surge' to 'Obama associates with a terrorist' and from 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong' to 'I'm suspending my campaign and rushing to Washington, D.C. to help fix our faltering economy'.

- V.P. choice. Obama chose country over campaign by choosing Joe Biden, a seasoned veteran, well-known to many Americans, and fit to assume the presidency at any time. McCain chose campaign over country by choosing Sarah Palin, a political unknown outside of Alaska, someone whom he hoped would capture disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters at the same time as she tilted the ticket farther to the political right to appease the party's conservatives and 'Christian' fundamentalists.

Instead, his choice offended many female voters, since it assumed that they would march in lockstep with any female candidate, regardless of her views. It also angered those Republicans who recognized that Palin did not have the requisite political knowledge to perform even the somewhat limited duties of a Vice President. There was also disaffection with the fact that McCain bypassed more qualified female Republican Senators and Governors, both past and present, who had been Republican loyalists for many years, who had paid their dues, and who would have provided a more electable ticket. Finally, as Palin's inadequacies became more and more apparent, independent and undecided voters looked again at not only Obama, but Biden, and the comparisons did not bode well for the Republicans.

- Organization. My first-hand knowledge of Obama's Nevada organization will forever remain as one of my most cherished memories. Initially, I 'signed up' as a supporter on Obama's web site. Within a week, I received a phone call from an enthusiastic and persuasive Las Vegas local field organizer, who shall remain nameless to protect her privacy, but who will recognize herself should she read this. The closest office was 12 miles away. I arrived, and expected to see a few young 'believers' who might not exactly be thrilled at seeing a 57 year old white guy. Was I wrong. There were at least 35 people, young, old, racially and ethnically diverse. I was warmly welcomed by all. My field organizer taught me my responsibilities as a volunteer (and soon thereafter as a precinct captain): to whom I would report, meeting dates and conference call schedules, email and text message updates system.

There was joy in the air, even in those early days when it seemed to me as much a quixotic quest as a campaign with a legitimate chance of success. Making phone calls, writing postcards, pounding the pavement loaded down with flyers and brochures and voter lists on which to make those important notes about voter preferences - all the basics of other campaigns I'd been involved in since 1968... but this time it felt different. And it was. The tone and mood set by those overworked field organizers, who always found the energy to listen to our successes and woes and who provided encouragement at every turn, as well as others even higher up on the organization chart, who never failed to stop and say hello to me if they walked by - was, I am certain, not unique to the campaign in Nevada. They gave us their best, and we returned the favor.

- The economy. It would be dishonest to deny the impact that the 'perfect storm' of bad economic news throughout October had on the average American voter's psyche. A tumbling stock market, shrinking retirement plans, rising unemployment, bank and mortgage fears and failures, all combined to nudge an as yet unknown number of voters from undecided to Democrat. Presidents and their political parties always get too much credit when the economy is strong and too much blame when the economy weakens. But that's just the way it is.


Next Friday: Something less serious (world events permitting)

Obama For President In 2008!

I suspect that you, like me, have had more than enough political information and disinformation thrown at you for the last eighteen months. Over the next few days, even more commercials, automated phone calls, and doorbell ringers will descend upon us with scads of specifics. So, I'm going to give you only gut feelings for my choice. Some are wishful, some are down-to-earth. Should you desire details of Obama's positions from his web site, click here.

On Tuesday, November 4, I will go to a nearby elementary school and proudly cast my ballot for Senator Barrack Obama for President. Why? Since I first compared all the candidates in the Republican, Democratic, Independent, and Libertarian parties, Obama's beliefs were the only ones that stirred my blood, and rekindled the joy I felt when I cast my first vote for President in 1972. Shackles of cynicism fell away.

Obama represents hope and change for a brighter future. He has fleshed out these broad concepts with specific programs and plans in a variety of areas: jobs; health care; environment; pensions; tax policy; education; and foreign policy, such as: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilding America's image, encouraging peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation for goals both domestic and global.

Unlike his opponents in this race, Obama is a contemplative man who will look at problems and issues from a variety of angles. This type of person does not make snap judgments. Our nation does not need a hot-headed individual making ill-considered choices. Obama will have advisors who will not always agree with him. And that is a good thing. Having alternative viewpoints presented marks a clear break from most prior Presidents, both Democratic and Republican.

With apologies to John Lennon...

Imagine our families secure in the knowledge that: health care won't disappear on the whim of an employer's ax; a college education can be obtained without the resultant debilitating drag of debt; hard-earned pensions won't dry up when they're needed the most; and the economic engine on which so much of our lives depend won't lurch recklessly, destroying confidence and security.

Imagine our nation with a new sense of proactive, future-based purpose, instead of reactive, backward-looking responses.

Imagine a world in which alliances for peaceful conflict resolution replace the all too frequent tendency to reach for weapons.

Will we realize these visions during an Obama administration? That's for you to answer for yourselves. But one last gut feeling - Barack Obama is the only candidate who will at least start clearing the clutter and defining the mission's direction. It will be our responsibility to see that we reach these goals, and give a new meaning to the term "Mission Accomplished."


Next Friday: 2008 Election Analysis

Three Reasons To Vote For Barack Obama In 2008

Beginning Friday, October 3, and continuing through Friday, October 24, I intend to be positive, and provide three reasons to vote for each of the four best known candidates for President. Friday the 3rd: Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Friday the 10th: Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Friday the 17th: Republican candidate John McCain. Friday the 24th: Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Barack Obama, Democrat

Barack Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate (1997-2004). He lost a race for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000. As the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, in July 2004 he attracted national attention when he made a dynamic, unifying keynote speech at the Democratic Party National Convention. In November of 2004, he was elected Senator with 70% of the vote. He is the third African-American elected to the U.S. Senate. The first was Republican Edward Brooke from Massachusetts (1966-1978). The second was Carol Moseley Braun from Illinois (1992-1998).

Interesting side note #1: Had Braun been re-elected in 1998, Obama would likely still be serving in the Illinois Senate, as he would not have run against an incumbent Democrat in the 2004 primary. Interesting side note #2: Had Hillary Rodham Clinton not moved to New York to run for Senator in 2000, and had waited to run for the Senate from Illinois in 2004, Obama again would likely still be serving in the Illinois Senate.

Based strictly on data from the Obama for President web site, the following are three reasons to vote for Obama on November 4: click here to read more

#1. Tax relief. Obama's plan provides tax relief for middle class Americans. Specifics include (a) a tax cut for working families and (b) simplified filing procedures: (a) "The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama-Biden plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return." (b) "Obama and Biden will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama and Biden will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama-Biden proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees."

There is also targeted tax relief for small businesses and corporations. Obama's plan would: "Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation."

I like simplification, and paying less taxes. Seniors especially deserve a break. Although Obama's plan does not make Social Security benefits non-taxable, his plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors earning less than $50,000 per year will go a long way towards helping them live the life for which they worked all of their careers.

#2. The Iraq war. In Chicago, I heard Obama speak against the USA invading Iraq. I had never heard of the man. He was an effective speaker whose sincerity was apparent. Frankly, I wasn't completely convinced at the time. I still felt anger after 9/11, and still had faith in my President, and especially General Powell, when he presented the Bush case before the United Nations. Time has proven Obama's judgment to have been correct.

A small quote from his web site says it best: "Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable."

Unlike Bush, Obama has a clearly defined exit strategy:

- "Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."

- "Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

- "Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis—more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

#3. Technology. Obama believes that the USA may be in danger of losing our traditional lead in developing and implementing new technologies. Evidence from his web site includes: (a) "A recent international study found that U.S. students perform lower on scientific assessments than students in 16 other economically developed nations, and lower than 20 economically developed nations in math performance. Only one-third of middle class physical science teachers are qualified to teach in that subject, and only one-half of middle school math sciences have educational background in that subject area." and (b) "As a share of the Gross Domestic Product, American federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970."

Obama's plan includes:

- "Obama and Biden will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels."

- "Obama and Biden will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time."

- "Obama and Biden will reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, and increase resources for community colleges and lifelong learning initiatives to ensure our citizens can continue to gain new skills throughout their lifetimes."

- "Barack Obama knows that we need to rely on technology to help solve the critical energy and environmental problems facing this country. As he announced in his energy policy, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest $150 billion over the next ten years to enable American engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. This investment will transform the economy and create 5 million new jobs."

- "A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Education in technologies for the future will help the USA thrive. And the time to start the foundation by laying the building blocks is actually yesterday. But it's not too late.

Next Friday: My choice for President in 2008.

Three Reasons To Vote For John McCain In 2008

Beginning Friday, October 3, and continuing through Friday, October 24, I intend to be positive, and provide three reasons to vote for each of the four best known candidates for President. Friday the 3rd: Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Friday the 10th: Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Friday the 17th: Republican candidate John McCain. Friday the 24th: Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

John McCain, Republican

John McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 from Arizona. In 1986 he was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has served to this day. In 2004, he was re-elected to the Senate with 77% of the Arizona vote. He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. The McCain-Palin website states that, "His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross." click here to read more

Based strictly on data from that site, the following are three reasons to vote for McCain on November 4:

#1. Iraq War surge strategy. Whether you agree with our involvement in the Iraq War or not, you have to admire McCain for recognizing that the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy was not working, and for pushing for an additional troop deployment (surge). McCain took a lot of political heat from Republicans for his action. But the surge has been a success, vindicating McCain's position.

#2. The environment. I quote two bullet items from his website that I feel are most important, and speak for themselves:
(a) Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
(b) Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.

Considering (a), I like the "scientifically-sound" phrase, but would have appreciated a definition of the term. For (b), it is obvious that the USA is not the only polluter on the globe. A world-wide effort is required.

#3. Renewing America's civic purpose. This initiative's concept is described and specifics defined:

"John McCain will create a Service to America initiative to strengthen the teaching and understanding of American history, culture and core ideas, and to inspire Americans to serve causes greater than their own self interest. Civic participation by citizens over a lifetime, working in neighborhoods and communities, and service of all kinds - military and civilian; full-time or part-time; and national or international - can renew America's civic purpose and heal our fractured patriotism."

"Bolster volunteerism with an energetic and comprehensive national service initiative designed to increase opportunities for people willing to serve their communities and their country."

"Convene "Volunteerism Summits" so people can share with others the best ideas and most effective programs currently underway in their own communities." I found this idea particularly attractive. Sharing what works and what doesn't will add efficiency to programs (ALL federal programs, not just this civic initiative), and in so doing, curtail the 'reinventing the wheel' time and money wasting drag upon projects that exists in both the governmental and private sectors.

"Coordinate a network of private sector "venture capital" funds matched with government grants to support job retraining or vocational training efforts in high schools and targeted communities where job loss persists." This targeted approach to areas of specific needs sounds both promising and cost effective.


Next Friday: Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama.

Three Reasons To Vote For Bob Barr In 2008

Beginning Friday, October 3, and continuing through Friday, October 24, I intend to be positive, and provide three reasons to vote for each of the four best known candidates for President. Friday the 3rd: Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Friday the 10th: Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Friday the 17th: Republican candidate John McCain. Friday the 24th: Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bob Barr, Libertarian

According to the Libertarian Party's official web site, "The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction." The party is described on its site as "The Party of Principle" and touts three primary goals: "Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and More Freedom."

Bob Barr was nominated by the Libertarian Party as its nominee for President in 2008. He is a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, who served in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Based strictly on data from his 'Barr for President' official web site, the following are three reasons to vote for him on November 4:

#1. The Iraq War. Barr considers that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq were "... two separate mistakes, which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars." He supports a rapid exit, without an announced timetable.

His analysis is that "The Iraqi government has come to rely too heavily on American forces to maintain control of its country, and our U.S. taxpayer dollars to artificially support its economy. A continued U.S. presence in Iraq emboldens both insurgents and terrorists, and discourages the Iraqi government from taking control of promoting peace and prosperity in Iraq."

#2. Foreign Intervention & Foreign Bases. I'll let Barr's words speak for themselves: "America should not be the world’s policeman. The American purpose is to provide a strong national defense, not to engage in nation building or to launch foreign crusades, no matter how seemingly well-intentioned."

#3. Property Rights & Eminent Domain. Barr states that "Private property should not be seized absent an overwhelming public interest, including actual use by the public — and even then only with fair compensation that truly reflects the value of the property. Allowing governments, at any level, to confiscate property without a compelling justification represents a serious attack on fundamental liberty."

Barr refers to the U.S. Supreme Court's 'Kelo' decision in 2005 as one of the worst decisions in modern times. On June 24, 2005, CNN reported on the Kelo v. City of New London (Connecticutt) decision:

"In a victory for cities, a divided Supreme Court concluded Thursday that local governments have the authority to seize private land and turn the property over to private developers for economic development.

Government's authority to condemn land for public use traditionally has been used to eliminate slums or build highways, schools and other public works.

But Tuesday's 5-4 ruling found that local officials can use their "eminent domain" power to condemn homes in a working-class neighborhood for private development in hopes of boosting tax revenue and improving the local economy."

One wonders... if the coveted land had been, say, a private golf course owned by members who lit their cigars using $100 bills... would the developer have been as successful in court... or even have tried to take the land in the first place?


Next Friday: Republican Party candidate John McCain

Three Reasons To Vote For Ralph Nader In 2008

For the next four Fridays, I intend to be positive, and provide three reasons to vote for each of the four best known candidates for President. Today, I look at Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Friday the 10th will be Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Friday the 17th will be Republican candidate John McCain. Friday the 24th will be Democratic candidate Barack Obama.


Ralph Nader, Independent

It is safe to assume that most folks have heard of Ralph Nader. He first came to prominence in 1965, when, as a lawyer, consumer advocate, and author of 'Unsafe At Any Speed,' he battled General Motors (GM) over the safety, or lack thereof, of the Chevrolet Corvair. When Nader was through, so were Corvair sales. He has run for President numerous times. See his web site for additional details.

#1. He favors opening up the Presidential debates. The League of Women Voters ran the debates until 1987. A private corporate entity, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), took over the process that year. It was formed by both the Republican and Democratic parties, and has not been kind to third party candidates. In 1992, Ross Perot was included in the debates. He won 19.7 million votes, equating to 18.9% of the vote total. In 1996, Perot ran again. This time, he was excluded by the PDC from the debates, and won only 8.9% of the vote.

#2. He favors a securities speculation tax to reduce the radical fluctuations in the stock market. His web site has this explanation: "Securities speculation -- buying and selling blocks of derivatives to profit from rapid fluctuations in price -- is one cause of the escalation in oil prices at the pump, the mortgage industry meltdown, and the dot.com bust. A securities speculation tax would reduce speculation in the markets and increase stability." I take pride in my knowledge of economics. I faithfully balance my checkbook every month! But my knowledge on the subject pretty much ends there. So I had to look up 'derivatives,' and found that they are futures contracts and options, used primarily by institutional investors. A speculation tax of this nature, with, say, a two year trial life span, with analysis thereafter before extending or ending it, might help reduce the wild swings we've seen in the stock market, and the ripple effects on well-diversified IRAs and 401Ks.

#3. He is squeaky clean. He is so untainted by... well, anything... that during the 1960s Nader-GM war, GM's private investigators were unable to dig up any dirt on the guy. And you know they dug deep.


Next Friday: Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr.

Chubby Checker and Cable TV Weakened Society

Outrageous title? Or bold truth?

Before Chubby Checker's version of The Twist became a phenomenon, reaching #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 on September 19, 1960, dancing involved two people actually holding each other, looking into each other's eyes, and moving together as a team across a dance floor. A necessary skill was the need to avoid bumping into other 'teams,' giving them the requisite space to achieve the broader goal of a successful dance floor. When the occasional bumping between teams occurred, social interaction on another level took place. Apologies and smiles ensued, and people moved on together, embracing one other.

The Twist started a trend that continues today: non-contact dancing. Individual expression without the counterbalance of meeting your partner's needs. Dancing with a partner became dancing with someone who had became of secondary interest and concern. What's the point? Perhaps non-contact dancing was an expression of general alienation that people were beginning to feel. The pace of society was speeding up. The Cold War threatened the destruction not only of countries, but of civilization itself. The perception was that the End Was Near. Were people afraid to connect emotionally, as the world may not exist much longer? Or did people just become more selfish?

Before cable and satellite TV systems became popular, with their dozens, and then hundreds of channels, in the USA you had the choice of ABC, CBS, NBC, maybe a PBS station, and if you were lucky, an independent station. When you went to work, school, or socialized with friends, it was highly likely that you watched at least one program the prior night that other people in your group had also watched. You discussed the pros and cons of plots, acting, and the latest commercials. There was a social bond. If politics and religion were off-limit subjects due to their controversial nature, you could always opine on The Twilight Zone, Gunsmoke, Mission Impossible, MASH, or I Dream of Jeannie. Sharing views like this provided a safe zone, and a socially acceptable way to interact, even with those folks you barely knew.

Cable TV changed all that. I first noticed this trend in the 1980s. A group of coworkers was sitting in our company's break room. Someone walked in and mentioned that he had just gotten cable TV. 35 channels! Better reception! We all oohed and ahed. Then the discussion returned to the latest developments on Dallas, The Cosby Show, or Star Search. Our cable TV guy did not participate. He had watched channels none of us had even heard of. Within a few years, we all had at least basic cable with about 60 channels. The break room discussions were more narrow. Few people watched the same shows. Those that did share that experience tended to cluster near one another for their essentially private talks. The encroaching isolation and lack of common interest was very evident. We had again chosen self over group. I'm just as guilty. I recently subscribed to the HBO package.

Maybe a partial answer lies in another technological revolution. In an odd twist, the Internet has ridden to the rescue. Now fans of TV shows can share their thoughts in a global meeting room, not just a company's break room. But at what cost? Sitting at a keyboard and screen, even with cameras, does not replace person-to-person interaction.

The Internet giveth, and the Internet taketh away. But that's a subject for another week.

McCain's Health Care Plan May Make You Sick

Are you one of the 158 million Americans who are covered by a health care plan by your employer?

Have you heard that John McCain wants to impose a tax on that benefit, based upon what premium your employer pays for you, while simultaneously providing a refundable annual tax credit of $2500 for an individual, or $5000 for a family, that may, or may not, cover the tax increase? But there's more: the real possibility that your employer may terminate your company's health care plan, under the pretense that the workers will be better off choosing a plan on their own, partially paid for by that tax credit.

On July 6, 2008, USATODAY.com carried an Associated Press article entitled, "McCain's health plan: A threat to employer plans?" It describes McCain's plan and its possible side-effects:

"There's a great unknown about Sen. John McCain's health plan: How many employers would drop insurance coverage for their workers because of his tax policies?

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting has proposed that everyone buying health insurance get a refundable tax credit, $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. At the same time, he would treat employer contributions toward health insurance like income, meaning workers would have to pay income, but not payroll, taxes on it.

McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, says the plan would "shred" the employer-based system that provides health insurance to about 158 million workers.

Most health analysts won't go that far, but both liberals and conservatives say McCain's approach would strengthen the individual and small-group insurance market. And by strengthening that market, it will pull in workers now covered through their jobs.

The workers most inclined to make that transition will be younger, healthier ones who most likely will be able to buy a policy on the individual market for less than their tax credit, said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, which studies employee benefits.

To the degree that happens, the employer-based market will become less healthy as sicker, older workers stay with their employer-based coverage while more of the healthier workers move to the individual market.

"What you'll see happening is average cost in the employer-market will go up and average cost in the individual market will go down," Fronstin said. "You'll start to get into a cycle where people at the margin start to leave employer coverage for individual coverage. At some point, employers will start to ask: Why am I doing this if my workers don't value it anymore? If I don't need to do this to be competitive in the labor market, why should I do it?"

Hence, the disincentive for employers to maintain their own health plans. Why put up with the headaches, and expense, of health care when they can let their employees fend for themselves, as individuals, in the health plan market. But these workers will have the buying power of one, instead of the buying power of hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands as exists today in employer-provided plans.

The free-market pundits will tout this as a great leap forward in choice. They will say that the marketplace will work its wonders in a more competitive fashion. Yet that freedom exists today. Any person can apply for health care coverage on their own. The only change, under a President McCain, will be that this person will get a $2500 federal government credit to help pay for that plan. Oh yeah, in this brave new world of individuals seeking their own coverage, you better get educated, really fast, on all the minutiae of every illness you might get, and what level of coverage, deductibles, maximum payouts, et cetera that your new prospective health care plan will provide, negotiate with them over those areas that are especially important to you, and then hope, if they haven't already rejected you outright as a result of pre-existing conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, history of heart problems, or if you are a cancer survivor, that the premium is covered by McCain's $2500. John McCain himself falls into the category of cancer survivors, so he may be excluded, but oh yes, as a Senator, he already has a government health care plan - but I thought that government health care plans are socialistic and therefore especially toxic to Republican Party karma... oh well, do as I say, not as I do, right John?

Health care costs are stifling both our country's economy and our family's budgets. We need reforms, and McCain's health care program has some promising ideas: promoting the availability of smoking cessation programs, lowering drug prices by bringing greater competition to drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs, and making insurance more portable from job to job. But his main proposal, concerning the taxing of individuals for their employer-provided health care plan coverage, is unacceptable.

The Still Living Victims of 9/11

The cowards who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks left behind more than just crumbled buildings and dead bodies. They left behind severely wounded people who relive that terror-filled day every day of their lives. As the numerals we use to apply to our annual remembrance of this tragedy reached 7 in 2008, the still living victims fade just a little bit more in our collective consciousness. I'm ashamed to admit that I myself had not thought about them for several years, until the New York Times printed, on September 9, 2008, an article detailing the lives of three of them.

The article, entitled "Maimed on 9/11, Trying to Be Whole Again," had three immediate effects on me. First, I said a silent prayer that all the victims were rendered unconscious immediately prior to the planes impacting the buildings (even though logic, and video evidence, made it quite clear that many suffered horribly, I hoped that God, somehow, removed their suffering); second, I felt a fresh flush of rage against those who, under the guise of religious fervor, carried out such a cold-blooded attack; and third, I vowed to also remember the living victims, and include them in the few prayers that, as an agnostic, I say.

The opening paragraph in the article summarized Lauren Manning's current handshake. "Lauren Manning’s handshake is strong, almost bionic. You might think it was a byproduct of decades of playing tennis and golf. But her grip has been painfully relearned, and bolstered with more titanium pins than she cares to count." This is but one of the painful injuries inflicted upon her when, "On Sept. 11, 2001, Mrs. Manning — newly married, the mother of a 10-month-old boy, at the top of her profession on Wall Street — was met by a fireball as she strode into the lobby of the World Trade Center." She suffered severe burns on over 80% of her body, and is 'lucky' to have survived.

Elaine Duch was a senior administrative assistant in the real estate department at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. She worked on the 88th floor of the World Trade Center's north tower, and is another severe burn victim. "... in her mind’s eye her professional self still haunts the upper reaches of the north tower, where she was standing in a hallway when the flames came; she managed to get down, only to be given last rites as she emerged from the building." What does the memory of receiving last rites, and then surviving, do to a person? "Ms. Duch, 56, has cut herself off from her old friends, partly because, as she put it, “I’m never going to be the Elaine that I used to be.” "Of her current friends, Ms. Duch said, “Well, see, they did not know me before, they only know me as an injured person.” Readers - stop right now and put yourself in her shoes. Imagine if such an extreme event happened to you, and you felt compelled to end all contact with your current friends because you were no longer you. Close your eyes and feel what that would do to you on a daily basis. I suspect that Elaine considered the option of attempting to retain ties with her old friends, but felt that the fear of rejection, pity, or abandonment due to her 'change' was so palpable that she could not bear the burden. Perhaps she loved her friends so much that she didn't want them to suffer either. Oh yes, "She no longer drives because her hands are too weak and she is easily rattled. She avoids zippers, tiny buttons and opening the wax paper in cereal boxes. She suffers through summers and winters because her burned skin does not tolerate heat and cold very well."

Harry Waizer was given a 5% chance of surviving his burn injuries. His story involves a plummeting elevator. "In testimony before the 9/11 Commission on its first day of hearings in 2003, Mr. Waizer recounted how he had been going up to his office on the 104th floor when he felt an explosion and the elevator began to plummet. Burned as he beat out the flames, Mr. Waizer got out on the 78th floor and took the stairs to the ground, seeing looks of horror and sympathy on the faces of those who let him pass." He too is not the same person he had been. "Perhaps the most distinctive relic of his injuries is his whispery, soothing voice, possibly caused by inhaling jet fuel that left him with “a bit of vocal cord paralysis.” click here to read more

This post focused on three specific individuals. But each has spouses and family that must suffer as well. And for what? A twisted political statement written in the blood of innocents? At times like this, I feel less an agnostic, and more a believer... at least in a heaven and hell. A wrong must be balanced by a right, whether that right is defined by a punishment or a redemption. I remember being taught in church that "Revenge is mine, sayeth the Lord." That sentence tempers my desire for revenge... a bit.

Each victim has learned how to cope with their injured bodies and painful memories. The Times article did not indicate that these people had any residual anger or hatred towards anyone. Could you and I be that forgiving? I don't think that I would have the inner strength to let go of my feelings of hate that would dwell within me following such an outrage against my person. What about you?

Three Problems With Republican VP Candidate Palin

When Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, was first introduced, I liked her. I was intrigued by her background, and thought that she was the first 'normal, everyday citizen' that had been thrust into the national political spotlight since Harry Truman. But Truman had a 22 year political track record of elected positions from district judge to U.S. senator prior to being selected by President Franklin Roosevelt as his vice presidential running mate in 1944.

So Palin was truly a fresh face. Fresher even than Senator Obama. She had fought the political establishment in Alaska. This sounded promising. I began to research her political beliefs, and found that the devil was in the details. The following are three of those devilish details that bother me about Palin's policy positions.


#1 - In June 2008, Palin made a speech to ministry students in Alaska. The venue was the Wasilla Assembly of God church. An Australian newspaper, The Herald Sun, amongst many others, printed the story on September 4 from which the following quote by Palin is taken:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." click here to read more

That's just what our country does not need - a Vice President, and potential President, who sets public policy based upon what is "God's plan."


#2 - On August 29, 2008, Michael Paulson, who covers religion for The Boston Globe, and shared the 2003 Pulitzer Prize in the 'Meritorious Public Service by a Newspaper' category, wrote:

And in October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides." click here to read more

That's another thing this country does not need - a Vice President, and potential President, who proposes the teaching of creationism in public schools. If creationism is permitted, then why not other non-scientific theories?


#3 - Abortion and a woman's right to choose. Palin opposes all abortions except when the mother's health is endangered. During the 2006 governor's race debate, she opined that even if her own daughter had been raped and became pregnant as a result of that rape, (Palin) would choose life over abortion. click here to hear Palin's comment

The official McCain/Palin web site clearly states the Republican Party's position on abortion:

"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

That's yet another thing this country does not need - a return to dangerous, illegal, back alley abortions in those states that, absent the Roe v. Wade decision, would again outlaw abortion.

Michelle Obama's Convention Speech Lives Inside Me

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of professional pundits commenting on professional political candidates. I'm even getting tired of my own bitter analysis of said candidates. So today I'm exploring Michelle Obama's speech, delivered on Monday, August 25 at the Democratic Party's National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

The first thing I noticed was the way Michelle spoke. Her voice did not have the polished, smooth sound that we've come to expect from politicians. While I am sure that she is an accomplished speaker at small meetings where she works, and even before good-sized crowds on the campaign trail, she betrayed just a bit of stage fright when speaking to the very large gathering in Denver. It was enchanting, and lent sincerity and passion to her words. It said, "Yes I am nervous speaking to you, but I want so badly to get my message across, I'll face down my fears." The thought that she might make a mistake (she didn't) also gave the event an aura of excitement. I hung on her every word. When Barack Obama or John McCain speak, I am lulled into complacency by the knowledge that they have done those speeches many dozens of times and could probably perform them while asleep. Michelle's periodic slight hesitations brought back the thrill of what only live television broadcasts can deliver.

Now, let's look at some of her words, and how they affected me.

As someone who, like Michelle, was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago, I felt a thrill each time she mentioned that part of town. The South Side of Chicago is, for the sake of this post, broadly defined as that part of the city south of Madison Street. South-Siders are from an area that, especially when Michelle and I were growing up, was the industrial, blue-collar heart of the city. The Union Stockyards, the steel mills, factories, junk yards, lumber yards, and gangs vying for control of my public high school, all remain vivid in my memory.

This industrial strength, however, resulted in a social price: residents of the more 'gentile' North Side of the city, as well as the outer suburban ring of towns and villages, and the more spacious, sometimes even rural 'collar counties' (geographically forming a 'ring' around metropolitan Chicago) often looked down on South Side residents. White collar versus blue collar. Managers versus union workers. Rich versus middle class, lower middle class, and poor. Also, as most African-Americans were segregated into neighborhoods on the South and West sides, and the aforementioned North Side and suburbs were virtually all White, a strong racial division was also part of the scene. With these separations in place, there was still a sense of pride in living on the South Side. An 'us' versus 'them' grittiness that, at least for a moment or two, transcended race.

So, when Michelle expressed her pride in coming from the South Side, and described her life there, my own memories and emotions rushed forward. Some negative, but mostly positive. I wonder if that's because our brains constantly filter out the painful while retaining, and even enhancing, the joyous? She united me with her and her family. I wanted to visit with them, ask what their daughters wanted to be when they grew up. What high school will they attend? How are their neighbors? Is their garbage being picked up regularly, and if not, have they complained to their Alderman? Yes, all politics are grounded in basic needs.

But, moving on, Michelle also discussed her father:

"My dad was our rock. Although he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in his early thirties, he was our provider, our champion, our hero. As he got sicker, it got harder for him to walk, it took him longer to get dressed in the morning. But if he was in pain, he never let on. He never stopped smiling and laughing — even while struggling to button his shirt, even while using two canes to get himself across the room to give my Mom a kiss. He just woke up a little earlier, and worked a little harder."

Who amongst us cannot imagine a loved one, or perhaps even ourselves, in her father's shoes? Who amongst us would have the courage, every single day, to reach within, swallow those waves of pain, and not give up or even complain?

In music, lyrics are the most important factor in my judgment of a song. Yet there are times when the instrumental accompaniment has such an infectious beat, that you simply cannot resist it regardless of the silliness of the lyrics. It just so happened that, on August 25, 2008, Michelle's lyrics and her vocal instrument were both strong and proud.

Her emotions reached out from the television screen and grabbed my heart. I was moved on a human, not political, level. Michelle crafted a phrase that was particularly poetic and powerful. In describing how we, as a people, have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be, she went on to say, "That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope."

WHERE THE CURRENT OF HISTORY MEETS THIS NEW TIDE OF HOPE.

My apology for the caps, but it was I felt it was worth shouting. Thank you, Michelle.

Iraq's Budget Surplus Raises Questions About Reconstruction Funding

On August 5, the Washington Times ran an article on Iraq's potential total budget surplus at the end of 2008. The article, "GAO: Iraq could have $79 billion budget surplus," went on to report:

"The Iraqi government could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus as ever-increasing oil revenues pile on top of leftover income the Iraqis still haven't spent on their national rebuilding effort, congressional auditors say.

A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made public Tuesday prompted renewed calls from senators that Baghdad pay more of the bill for its own reconstruction, which has been heavily supported with U.S. funds.

The projected Iraq surplus, including unspent money from 2005 through 2008, has been building because of rising world oil prices, increasing Iraqi oil production, the government's inability to execute budgets for spending its money and persistent violence in the country, the GAO said."

The good news is that levels of violence have decreased, and Iraq's oil production is on the rise. So why is the resulting budget surplus not being spent on any number of needed rebuilding projects? Why is the money just sitting there? As the GAO report detailed, this surplus has been building since 2005. The estimated surplus from 2005-2007 was $29 billion. With crude oil prices rising rapidly since 2007, another $50 billion will be added. The GAO report suggested the following reasons for why the money has not been spent:

"First ... (the) relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government's ability to plan and execute its capital spending," the GAO said, adding that a second problem is the government's weak accounting systems. Third ... violence and sectarian strife remain major obstacles to developing Iraqi government capacity."

Iraqi lawmaker Haider al-Abadi stated that Iraq is pulling its weight in funding reconstruction. However, the GAO also reported that from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq spent just $3.9 billion on reconstruction. How does al-Abadi define "...pulling its weight...?"

The governor of Iraq's Central Bank, Sinan al-Shabibi, said he thought the problem with not spending money on reconstruction was due not to the bulk of funds being spent elsewhere, but because of security problems, and especially the lack of experts in Iraq's ministries.

The Washington Times article also reported that, "Since 2005, the United States has funded a number of efforts to teach civilian and security ministries how to effectively execute their budgets. The efforts included programs to advise and help Iraqi government employees develop the skills to plan programs and to effectively deliver government services such as electricity, water and security."

Have the students in these classes been doing their homework? Has their progress been tracked? Have they been assigned experienced mentors to aid their efforts? I thought the post-Rumsfeld era was going to be more efficient, productive, and professional in all aspects of this war. They got the Surge right. What about the rest? Does anybody care ... or will it just be more expedient to dump it all on President Obama or President McCain?

History of South Ossetia

I first heard about the Georgia-Russia conflict when it was reported that Georgia was withdrawing its 1000 troops from Iraq to help quell the uprising in its breakaway province of South Ossetia. First of all, I was surprised at the extent of Georgia's involvement in the Iraq war. Secondly, I asked myself, "Where and what is South Ossetia?"

Then came the news that Russia had invaded Georgia. Great. Just what the world needs. More war. My gut reaction was against Russia. Media reports supported this feeling. But I knew nothing of the region or its history. And how was South Ossetia involved? After some research, I learned the following:

I start with a partial timeline from the Free Republic, followed by a more in-depth review, thanks to Answers.Com/Wikepedia, and the Belfast Herald:

1237-40 - Mongols invade Russia, forcing Ossetians to migrate south over the Caucasus mountains to present-day Georgia.

18th and 19th centuries – The Russian empire extends to the Caucasus, provoking strong resistance from the people of the north Caucasus. The South Ossetians do not join the uprising, some preferring to side with the Russian army.

1801 - South Ossetia and Georgia are annexed by Russia and absorbed into the Russian empire.

1918 – Georgia declares independence following the Russian revolution.

1921 – The Red Army invades. The South Ossetians are accused of siding with the Kremlin.

1922 - Georgia becomes a founder member of the Soviet Union. The South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (district) is created within Georgia in April 1922.

1989 - Demands for more autonomy in the South Ossetia region lead to violent clashes between Georgians and Ossetians.

1990-91 – South Ossetia declares its intentions to secede, leading to more clashes.


"South Ossetia lies on the southern slopes of the Caucasus, a mountain range that is home to some 50 different ethnic groups, many speaking mutually incomprehensible languages and with long histories of violent enmity.

The Caucasus were brought under Russian control in a series of wars in the 19th century, fought against not only the often fiercely-independent local peoples but the Persians and the Ottomans, who coveted the high ground between the Black and Caspian seas.

The people of the Caucasus, many of whom adhered to ancient traditions and were resentful of outsiders' attempts to control them, were perhaps the most troublesome subjects of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union that succeeded it. Stalin – whose father was reputed to be Ossetian – in 1922 divided control over Ossetia between the Georgian and Russian Soviet republics, a move which angered Ossetians and prompted occasional protests over subsequent decades.

When the South Ossetians attempted in 1989 to reunite with ethnic kin in Russian-controlled North Ossetia, the Georgian nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia marched supporters into the region to confront the secessionists.

In 1989-91, as the Kremlin's hold over its empire crumbled, the Caucasus witnessed a surge in nationalism. Regions like Chechnya declared independence from Moscow but in South Ossetia, local leaders proclaimed their region part of the Russian Federation rather than the emergent sovereign state of Georgia.

Sporadic clashes between Georgians and South Ossetians – who had mostly lived together in peace for decades, often inter-marrying – continued until 1991, when Tbilisi sent in troops to crush the separatist movement. More than 2,000 people are believed to have died in the fighting.

After a coup toppled Mr Gamsakhurdia as president, his successor, Eduard Shevardnadze, agreed to a deal with Boris Yeltsin for Russian peacekeepers to monitor a ceasefire. When Mikheil Saakashvili ousted Mr Shevardnadze in the 2003 Rose Revolution, he vowed to bring South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, back under Tbilisi's control.

He accuses Russia of sending cash and weapons to separatists in both regions, to ensure continued Kremlin influence in the oil-rich Caucasus – the BTC pipeline carrying oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey is routed through Georgia – and to undermine Georgia's bid to join Nato [sic].

Russia has given passports to the vast majority of South Ossetians and Abkhazians, and pledges to defend its citizens in those provinces. Many South Ossetians say they expect other Caucasian peoples to support their fight against Georgia, and reports are emerging of volunteers heading for the region from Abkhazia and North Ossetia."

South Ossetia, considering itself to be a de facto autonomous entity within Georgia, held its second referendum on independence in 2006:

"The unrecognized republic of South Ossetia, a breakaway region of Georgia with its capital in Tskhinvali, held a referendum on independence on November 12, 2006. The voters answered a question: "should South Ossetia preserve its present status of a de facto independent state?" 99% of voters supported independence.

The South Ossetian Information and Press Committee announced that the residents of the Georgian villages, that are not controlled by the separatist authorities, will be able to participate. Those choosing to do so were able to use ballots written in Georgian language. Terry Davis, Secretary General of the West's main election monitoring body, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which boycotted the poll, called the referendum counterproductive and said that the ethnic Georgians were not given the right to vote.

According to the de facto authorities, the referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers from Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden and other countries at 78 polling stations.

On November 11, 2006, the South Ossetian State Security Committee exposed an alleged Georgian attempt to assassinate the South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity and organize a coup d'état in the region. Alan Parastayev, the former South Ossetian Interior Minister and Supreme Court chairman, has reportedly turned himself in to the State Security Committee and confessed to being a party to the plot. The South Ossetian authorities named Amiran Meskheli, the deputy head of the Georgian Interior Ministry’s Counterintelligence Department, to be in charge of the operation[8]. The Georgian Interior Ministry denied South Ossetia's assertions."


To those readers still with me, I thank you for your time and patience. Most conflicts, from personal to political, have levels of details and nuances seldom explored in today's world. I hope that this post provided information that will give us all some new information with which to judge this conflict.

Good News From Iraq: Al-Sadr Orders His troops To Lay Down Arms

The August 8 issue of the Chicago Tribune carried an Associated Press report that said, "Anti-U.S. Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered most of his militiamen Friday to lay down their arms, and his spokesman said the young cleric might call off all resistance if the Americans accept a timetable to leave Iraq."

Who is Al-Sadr? Wikipedia describes him as, "Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr or Moktada al Sadr (سيد مقتدى الصدر Muqtadā aṣ-Ṣadr) (born August 12, 1973) is an Iraqi theologian, political leader and militia commander. Along with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Sadr is one of the most influential religious and political figures in the country not holding any official title in the Iraqi government. Muqtada al-Sadr is the fourth son of a famous Iraqi Shi‘a cleric, the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr."

Al-Sadr's followers have been linked in the past with assassinations and terrorist attacks. But I suspect that the Iraqi people, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike, are weary of the violence and dissension. Maybe Al-Sadr recognizes this, or recognizes the futility of continued warfare.

I choose to look on the positive side of this development, and hope that Al-Sadr will remain true to his word. He has urged his militia to become part of a new organization known as the Momahidoun. Posters promoting this new group proclaim, ""It is an ideological, cultural, religious and social army that will be charged with carrying out an intellectual and scientific holy war and to free the minds, hearts and souls from the secularist Western onslaught and is absolutely prohibited from the use of arms," I am not too concerned with the fiery rhetoric of "holy war" and "secular Western onslaught." After all, President Ford, in a speech on his plan to stop inflation, launched a short-lived public relations campaign in which he described the scope of his 'attack on inflation' as "the moral equivalent of war." Overblown rhetoric seems to afflict politicians regardless of national origin.

If Al-Sadr wants to engage in a war of ideologies based upon intellectual debate, then let the best philosophy win. No intimidation. No violence. Let the Iraqi people decide what their post-Saddam country should look like.

It's also time for Senator Obama to admit that the Surge has been a major success. The troop increase has resulted in what was once considered a pipe dream - a more peaceful Iraq. This advancement has been so dramatic, that it has led today to a point where a secure Iraq, complete with withdrawal of our combat troops, is being seriously discussed by all parties in this war.

Wouldn't you get a Surge of patriotism to see the following: a joint appearance by Senators Obama and McCain, in which Obama admits that he had backslid and fallen into the traditional politician's trap of being unwilling to admit an error. But now he wants to thank McCain for his foresight on the Surge, admit to its success, turn to McCain, shake his hand, and both turn to the camera, raising each other's hand and proclaiming loudly, "On this we are united - a free and independent Iraq taking its rightful place in the family of nations!"