September 2, 2008: “Apparently Maria Schulte, you don't know the difference between caring for women and using them. Sarah Palin is a very transparent attempt to pander for female and social conservative votes. When the Democrats didn’t nominate a woman, the GOP backroom boys obviously drooled over each other to nominate just ANY woman so as to appear “progressive.” Shameless pandering is clearly McCain’s strongest political trait! You trust him to be president? Which promises to which group will he honor?”

August 31, 2008: ‘”As you sow so shall you reap.” -- Sound familiar? Recently a James Dobson minion and employee of “Focus on the Family,” Stuart Shepard, asked politically conservative Christians to pray for rain at Invesco Park in time for Barack Obama’s DNC acceptance speech, calling it “boyish humor.” Apparently God didn’t appreciate the humor, as hurricane Gustav approaches Louisiana in time to threaten or alter the Republican National Convention. Prayer isn’t meant for selfish purposes, or as a political weapon!’

After having the first two comments ignored, I did query the Post as to why this was so. I was informed that the paper had decided to print only one comment from regulars per week. This sounded plausible, but I have to wonder why I was unable to get any comments posted for more than two weeks, even when there appeared to be space in the paper. At the same time, I noticed some of the other “regulars” appearing in print, including consecutive “letters to the editor” by right wing extremist Brad Jenks. While I couldn’t get one 49er printed, he had back-to-back “letters" appear in the paper.

The paper seems to believe it is comparable to post a 49er on the online version instead of printing it in the 49er column in the paper. This of course makes little sense. Relatively few read the online version, either because they are not on computers, or subscribe to the paper, and read the hard copy, and obviously have no reason to go online to read it again. I sent an email to the editor stating, “... I write comments for the 49er Speakeasy because I wish the whole readership of the paper to see them, and I assume that is why others participate as well. I thought the deal has always been that one is given a limited space to comment, but in turn, one was pretty much guaranteed a space in the paper. I do not carefully craft my comments only to have them consigned to an online version that few read.”

Is it mere coincidence that my comments were either ignored or exiled to online oblivion (as of this moment, a week later, not one comment was posted on any of the 49er comments for that day), especially considering they were all strong criticisms of present day Republican thinking? It is noteworthy this transpired with the rapid approach of perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes.

To sidetrack for a moment, it’s interesting that whereas it appears I was inhibited from voicing my opinion to the press, the McCain campaign is accomplishing the reverse, successfully avoiding the press altogether. McCain has had no recent press conferences, and there is a concerted effort to disallow the press from having any real access to his running mate, Sarah Palin. There might even be a bogus attempt mounting to cancel the vice presidential debate between Palin and Biden, using the present economic crisis as a pretext.

McCain claims he has to rush to Washington DC to solve an economic crisis that he assured the nation didn’t exist just one week ago; you’ll recall his remark, “the economy is fundamentally sound.” So of course he feels the need to “maybe” delay Friday’s presidential debate, and “maybe” put it in the vice presidential debate slot instead.

How very convenient that would be; killing two birds with one stone. He can avoid having to debate Obama now, and successfully keep Palin from debating at all, and thus avoid exposing her to the press and the American people! It pretty much sounds like an attempt by the Republican Party to censor what the American public might learn about its candidates for president. Why would they want to do that? It appears that many on the right wing in general want communications stifled during this election cycle!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch… Do I suspect the Paradise Post has a right wing bias, based on the incidences I’ve mentioned, and the inclusion of blatant right wing articles appearing on a fairly regular basis in the newspaper, including that nonsensical column by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, and a strongly biased article by Michael Reagan? Hmmm! I had also emailed the editor after the Floyd and Mary Beth Brown column appeared, recommending he print a September 3 column entitled, “Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention.” by Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn, which appeared to rather impartially state just a few facts voters need to know. I mentioned it would present some balance to the Post. I received no reply.

It’s one thing to have regular columnists, representing both sides of the political spectrum, appear weekly to voice their own opinions and biases, and quite another if outside articles appear, with any consistency, that are heavily weighted to one side. Do I suspect there is sometimes a tendency to ignore some articles and pieces coming from the left? I couldn't honestly say. Media bias is not unusual these days, and unfortunately has become all to acceptable. I only know that my three 49er pieces didn't make it to print.

I don't know exactly what happened because I never received an answer to my email. From my perspective, the Post seems to be becoming less balanced, while the demographics of the Ridge are steadily changing. Wouldn't it be beneficial for the local newspaper to consider this, and try to represent the views of a wider audience? Isn't that the purpose of the 49er Speakeasy?

The nation is in deep financial trouble, and lost in the quagmire of two seemingly endless wars. Who has been in power for the past eight years? Who has run the government of the United States? The Republicans.

The Congress has the lowest approval ratings in its history. Who is responsible? Though the Democrats have technically “controlled” Congress for less than two years, the Republicans have obstructed their almost every move.

Barack Obama, contrary to the constant lie disseminated by those same Republicans, is NOT going to raise your taxes. Who will see an increase in taxes? Those earning in excess of $250,000 per year -- that is one quarter of a million dollars annually.

Let’s correct some major misconceptions that are being held by all too many McCain/Palin/Republican supporters, and whoever else. At this time of crisis in American history, the American people need facts, NOT party talking points!

I do my best to share my thoughts about the country and the candidates with people I meet each day, and I talk with people on both sides. I also listen to what they have to say. I’m not surprised at how many people are very upset with the direction the nation is taking, but I am dismayed at how many are less informed and more apt to use inaccurate and biased talking points when considering how to vote. Here are a couple of examples:

ASSERTION:

John McCain doesn’t really represent the Republican Party; and it is the Democratic controlled Congress that is really responsible for the problems besetting the nation.

FACT:

John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time, and, it is the Republican Party that has controlled the government of these United States for the past eight years, along with the Congress for six of those. It is amazing how often Republicans, when told it is their party that has created the mess of the past eight years in this nation, automatically respond with, “the Democrats control the Congress!” It’s as if they are totally unaware of the Republican Executive Branch, the “Right” leaning Supreme Court, and all the very partisan Republicans still in Congress -- to say nothing about the fact that the Democrats have only “controlled” Congress for about twenty months. What about the first six years, when the real damage to the country was set in motion?

The very small Democratic majority in Congress allows them to chair committees, initiate investigations, and gives them the power to subpoena those they want to talk to, (which the Bush Administration has consistently defied by claiming “executive privilege), but it does NOT guarantee that they can get any legislation passed!

The Democratic majority in Congress is very small, especially in the Senate, where the party split is 51-49, and only because Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both Independents, essentially vote with the Democrats most of the time. As a result, the Democrats have not been able to pass most of the legislation they were elected to pass, oftentimes not even pushing it because it would essentially go nowhere, either because the Republicans have lined up in lockstep to obstruct these bills, or the Democrats couldn’t come up with enough votes to override the vetoes promised by the president.

A Republican controlled Congress enabled the Bush Administration for its first six years in office. For all that time the President only vetoed one bill, H.R.810, aimed at the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, basically an attempt to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The Democrats could not override it.

After the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006, Bush suddenly rediscovered his veto power and vetoed another eleven bills. Guess which party was backing those bills? Only four were overridden, basically because not doing so would have made both parties look bad in the eyes of the American people.

If the rating of Congress is the lowest in history, don’t look to blame the Democrats; blame those who have allowed almost no essential legislation (the changes the American people mandated in 2006) from passing.

ASSERTION:

Barack Obama will raise everyone’s taxes, worse case scenario, or best case scenario, those making over $45,000.

FACT:
These are out and out lies! His policy, and the political promises as stated by Barack Obama are, and have been, basically this. If you make less than $250,000 (quarter of a million dollars), you will be getting a tax decrease. Those making more will lose the tax cut given to them by George Bush, and their tax rate will revert back to what they were paying during the Clinton Administration. Most people were quite satisfied with their economic status, and the promise for the future during those years. How many can still say that, and how many people on the Ridge, or in Butte County, or the nation even, are making more than $250,000 per year?

This upcoming election is not a game to be won. It is a very serious matter. Four more years of the same kind of government we have experienced for the past eight just might irrevocably destroy the America we have always loved. This is NOT a time to be diverted by false rhetoric and the usual snake oil salesmen. It is NOT a time for anyone to only listen to their party’s talking points.

It IS time to listen to both sides, and often. It IS time to know what ALL news services (rather than a select few) are saying, here and around the world. It IS time to stop automatically buying into the falsehoods and information that only agree with the facts as we WANT them to be, and blindly believe that everything that doesn’t agree with what we want to be true, is false!

There is presently a very obvious and blatant disconnect in the Republican Party between actions and message. They are admittedly (according to Fox “News”) and desperately doing whatever possible to disassociate themselves from that same government, represented primarily by George Bush and Dick Cheney. Paradoxically, and at the same time, they are all the while clinging to the idea that the Republican Party, and John McCain specifically, are the entities that can and will institute the change everyone is clamoring for.

Sure, the GOP will talk about how “politics as usual” needs to be revamped. They’ll go on about how certain elements of the Clinton years were unacceptable (to them), and they’ll attempt to level the playing field by admitting both parties in some ways have faults necessitating reformation. Yet the major, and quite obvious fly in the Republican ointment remains, the past eight years.

Of course no one is denying the presence of the gorilla in the room; it would be impossible. The national debt and deficit are higher than ever. Americans are losing their homes, jobs and pensions while more jobs are being lost and outsourced than created, and unemployment is topping 6%. Millions are still without health care and countless others are losing it, yet we are still spending $9-12 billion dollars per month in Iraq, not to mention the increased loss of both lives and resources in Afghanistan; and there is no real end in sight in either conflict.

The absence of both Cheney and Bush at the RNC speaks volumes. The excuse? Hurricane Gustav. That excuse morphed from somewhat possibly plausible to absolutely lame, as Gustav fizzled out at the last, and the RNC was business as usual for most of the week. And considering how very important both party conventions were at this particular time and in this particular election, there is no way the inability of the leaders of the party to hand over the torch at the convention would normally have been justified. The truth is, no one in the GOP wanted to remind those at the convention, and more succinctly, those millions watching on TV, why change has become the mantra of both parties -- the past eight years.

John McCain has also been scrambling away from government policies of the past eight years, all the while sticking to them like mud. It’s one thing to repudiate your association with a particular mindset, and another to actually demonstrate it.

The fact is, this once touted “maverick” is no longer a maverick. There is a cost for voting with a failed president 90 % of the time, and there is a price to pay for pandering for votes with groups that align him with the Administration instead of distancing him from it. All the issues McCain has changed his mind about have been thoroughly vetted here and elsewhere, and there is no need to repeat them ad nauseam. I’ll mention only one because I deem it to be the most reprehensible (for him).

In February of this year, an article in the New York Times revealed that, “Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid."

We have heard and viewed countless reports and documentaries enumerating the trials and tribulations of Lieutenant Commander John McCain while he was a POW for five and one half years during the Vietnam War. We have applauded his courage and service, all the while commiserating with him over the years of torture and inhumane treatment he was forced to endure. Most automatically assume that such an individual, by default, would object to torture in any way, shape or form. And at first, John McCain did, before he didn’t.

In an article entitled, “McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark,” by Michael Cooper and Marc Santora, published in the New York Times on October, 26, 2007, it is stated that Rudolph Giuliani’s uncertainty whether waterboarding was torture, “drew a sharp rebuke yesterday from Senator John McCain, who said that his failure to call it torture reflected his inexperience.” He continued, “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” Mr. McCain, who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said in a telephone interview.”

McCain also stated, as reported in the Des Moines Register on October 25, 2007, “Waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said today, taking issue with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s recent remarks.”

John McCain has also stated, “People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”

If McCain, a person continually and cruelly tortured while in captivity is himself capable of such an extreme turn about on the subject of torture, and can suddenly condone it at election time, I’m not sure there is anything the man might say on the campaign trail that I can accept without serious questions and doubts automatically arising in my mind. Perhaps McCain has misconstrued change to mean a constant and consistent changing of one’s mind in order to garner votes? Enough said!

What a major conundrum for the GOP and the Republican right! Forced to adopt a platform of change because even they have no choice but to admit the nation is in dire need of it, and, because the Democrats, especially the Obama and Clinton campaigns, were quick to make change a slogan; they are confronted with a major oxymoron. On the one hand, the Republicans finally admit what almost everyone in the nation already realizes, namely there IS that 800-pound gorilla in the room, and as it turns out, it is THEM!

Footnote: There may indeed be another gorilla in the mix. As the media slowly and meticulously begins to uncover all the recent lies, distortions and distractions surrounding John McCain’s choice for vice president, a new gorilla, perhaps only a 500-pounder, is becoming apparent, namely Sarah Palin.

The one thing the Democrats could have done, should have done, and didn’t, was to start impeachment proceedings against George Bush. The laundry list of crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by Bush and Cheney make the actual impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton pale by comparison. I blame Nancy Pelosi, and some obvious hanky panky (whatever it was) behind closed doors for this. The idea that this would have distracted Congress is specious, and as far as angering the Republicans, so what!?!

Let’s be clear about one thing – the present Congress has garnered a reputation as a do nothing Congress, with a low public rating only because of the constant obstruction by the Republicans in that once august body! The Republican party of course, while claiming to put country before party, won’t admit that, and most of their constituents are either too partisan, too heavily in denial, or too dumb not to accept that obviously false claim. And by the way, one spins everything or consistently attacks their opponent when they really have nothing of value to offer. If most Americans don’t understand that by now, after the unquestionably worse Administration and government in American history, they probably aren’t capable of learning much of anything.

And now we are in the midst of a rather lame Republican National Convention, something even the Republicans would admit, if they were honest, but of course they have spin for that as well. Gustav threatening New Orleans, and the President having to attend to business (mainly because he screwed the pooch so badly during Katrina), for some reason meant that the entire RNC had to be put on semi-hold for a day or two. I’m not quite sure I understand why one man needing to do his job, sidetracked the whole convention. And where is Dick Cheney; what hole has he climbed into? Certainly John McCain, while claiming his campaign was pretty much on hold during this crisis, never really justified that connection. And of course, the RNC is now back on track after Gustav thankfully turned out to be less harmful than feared.

Yet the GOP was able to dodge a serious bullet, namely George Bush and Dick Cheney actually attending the Convention. That is obviously something the Republicans dreaded. It’s bad enough that John McCain does represent a third Bush term, but spin dictates that that fact be played down as much as possible. Having those two very unpopular souls show up at the RNC might have reminded all too many people of the reality of the linkage to McCain. So, all was well in Oz!

Getting back to my principle point, the claim that Republicans put nation before politics, is it just a coincidence that once again all the Republicans are in agreement about the excitation over McCain’s pick for VP, Sarah Palin? As I watched the media walking through the convention and interviewing various attendees I was amazed that they all seemed to have the same talking points about how enthusiastic they all were over her nomination. The thought ran through my mind that a switch was thrown at Republican National Headquarters and everyone was once again programmed with the same talking points. How often have we seen this?

Is it also just coincidence that Republicans en masse are outraged over the fact that the announcement that Sarah Palin’s 17 year old unwed daughter is pregnant has made such a stir on the news front? First of all, the Republicans themselves believed it was important enough to make an announcement. Why was that? Secondly, it happens to be very pertinent to the present campaign.

Governor Palin is the ultimate extremist social conservative, something the party unbelievably thinks will appeal to all those women disenchanted by Hillary not being the Democratic presidential nominee -- talk about a major disconnect! Do they honestly believe liberal minded women and former Clinton supporters will support a candidate that is absolutely against abortion for any reason, including incest and rape? It also amazes me that they believe a nation which is predominately pro-choice would support a candidate that vows to abolish Roe v Wade.

No one likes abortion, but, when the choice sometimes comes down to -- “Do I bring a pregnancy to full term when it is the result of a rapist or my own father, or one that I cannot possibly afford, emotionally or financially, and do I drop out of high school or become a pariah in my small judgmental town,” there just might need to be another choice. Many believe things happen for a reason and according to God’s will, and that just might include the decision not to continue a pregnancy. Certainly if God can ordain wars in which hundreds of thousands or even millions are killed, He just might believe a pregnancy should be discontinued because of the very negative effects it will have on many lives. But that is a question for those able to decipher the “mysterious ways of God.”

The relevant point is that Sarah Palin very strongly believes in “abstinence only” sex education, which of course is her prerogative. However, what does it say about the validity of that policy when her own unwed teenage daughter ends up being pregnant? That is something I would really like all social conservative Republicans to at least think about! It would appear that an awfully lot of people don’t get that quite a few teenagers, driven by raging hormones and explosive egos, aren’t going to listen to anyone for any reason, religion or otherwise, telling them not to have sex. Providing alternatives for preventing pregnancy in the first place could eliminate situations arising that even make abortion an issue. Sorry folks, but no matter how morally “right” you are as parents, lots of teenagers don’t care! Maybe you should consider that sex is a lot less catastrophic than unwanted pregnancies.

As a side note, it’s interesting that a party that would have crucified the Clintons if Chelsea had gotten herself pregnant, is now so deleriously proud that the daughter of their VP candidate is pregnant, using it as an example that they are just like everyone else. This is exactly the reason there need to be other options besides abstinence only.

Yet in spite of reality, the Republicans simply line up to support a cause, in this case a candidate in favor of a very questionable policy, because that is what they do. This is harder for a Democrat like myself to comprehend because I belong to a party that often seems fractious because of disagreement on various issues. I’ve always attributed this to the fact that Democrats do put country before politics and are more interested in stating what they really feel about something, rather than just all following the party line.

Sometimes this gets extremely annoying, especially when an election approaches and the party is divided, resulting in squandered votes or loss of an election. But you know, at least it is honest, and leads to a democratic discussion and consensus on ideas. When a nation elects a president who is a member of a party within which all act and think the same in order to gain more power and wealth, we end up with an Administration that figures it their right to dictate whatever they desire. And, they don’t have to worry about being challenged by a Congress made up largely of their own party. Sound familiar? And how did that work out? Hmmmm!

There is one more thing Republicans seem to love and have as an addiction, being lied to. Among the many, many, many lies being foisted on the American public by Republican leaders, pundits and the right wing media is that Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on those making $45,000. I’ve listened to Obama quite a bit in the past 20 months and haven’t heard him mention that once, but I have heard him say he would be raising taxes on those making over $200,000, and taking away the gratuitous tax cut for those in the top 1% of money makers.

And speaking of another lie, the one that claims Sarah Palin has more executive experience than “all the other candidates -- I would suggest that the brilliant presidential campaign Senator Obama has run for 20 long months (longer than Palin has been governor of a state smaller than most mid size cities, not to mention her time as mayor of a city five times smaller than Paradise, CA), at least equals any executive experience of consequence that she has obtained. This idea that real executive ability pertains only to having run a government of some sort is bogus. Character and ability related to the experiences that a person does have can often trump that, and in this instance just might.

Of course, I heard Orin Hatch (R-UT), tell Andrea Mitchell at the RNC that, “it’s rougher running a small town than running a large town.” Cough! Another lie? He also said that Palin has more energy experience than all the other candidates, and that, “she knows more than all the other candidates put together.” I’d sure love to know what he was smoking!

And (the lies continue), what is with this myth that all Democrats do is raise taxes, implying that Republicans never do? Both Reagan and Bush Sr. (remember the “read my lips” speech?) raised taxes, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is raising the California sales tax. By the way, I thought taxes needed to be raised in all those instances. When the economy is threatened, sometimes the money needed to revive it needs to come from us!

And lest we forget, look how wonderful that Bush/Cheney tax cut for the top 1%, the conspicuous super wealthy, and during a time of war, is working out for the nation. The national debt and deficit are higher than ever in history, people are losing their homes, jobs have been lost, not gained, millions are still without healthcare and countless others are losing it, and we are still spending $9-10 billion dollars per month in Iraq. Geeeez!

I would rather be in a party that puts honesty before faux agreement and lies, simply to win an election, and retain power and wealth. That is how I define putting country before party!

If the continual predilection for the Republican Party to walk in lockstep fashion on most all issues isn’t a demonstration of how they do put party before country, than I don’t know what is. And considering how consistently they have backed the failed policies of the Bush Administration in order to empower the party, it stretches the imagination to believe they were putting the nation first.

As I listen to Mitt Romney in the background as he speaks at the RNC, I’m forced to suppress the gag reflex, and I’m hearing so many lies, coming so rapidly, that the room is spinning (pardon the pun). I do love hearing the Republicans talk about the need for change. Have they already forgotten that in the past eight years they are the ones that created that which so desperately needs to be changed?

As a footnote: Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin spoke very powerfully, though not kindly, at the RNC. They lied a lot, and were extremely condescending, but they delivered the strong speeches that were required by a party that puts country last.

It was despicable enough that a James Dobson minion and employee of “Focus on the Family,” Stuart Shepard, requested that politically conservative Christians join him in praying for rain at Invesco Park in Denver, Colorado in time to mar Barack Obama’s DNC acceptance speech, but the irony of that request was yet to play out and aid the Republicans in a totally different way in their crusade to turn religion into a political weapon, instead of a spiritual acknowledgment of God.

Or did they understand this and apparently have a duel purpose in mind? Are they that clever? Were they able to play God for a sucker, and forward their own self-interests after all?

The Elmer Gantry type rain prayer may have resulted in the answer to another prayer, and manifested as a big advantage for our spiritually challenged friends, all the while being the proverbial cloud with a silver lining. The great discomfort and potential danger to all those living in New Orleans and the surrounding areas may just be a small price (for others) to pay so that these "particularly" pious, pompous and politically self-proclaimed followers of Christ can achieve another goal. Ironically, John McCain and the GOP might get the “out” that they really prayed for – essentially not having to have Bush and Cheney speak at their convention, even though they were obligated to invite them. What a neat trick!

As it turns out, it was announced that the President and Vice President would indeed not be attending the RNC, but would instead remain on duty because of the threat of Gustave to hurricane challenged New Orleans. After all, it wouldn’t do to have them completely fail in their responsibilities to defend New Orleans a second time. And the cookie in the jar turns out to be not embarrassing the GOP candidate himself by having these two appear at his nominating convention! Who says prayer doesn’t work in mysterious ways?

Of course there just might ultimately be a greater price to pay down the road when attempting to trick God. We are now painfully learning it was not wise to fool (mess with) Mother Nature, and will no doubt eventually realize it is equally unwise to mock God.

And though I don’t really credit Stuart Shepard or James Dobson and their followers with the power or intelligence to actually pull off such a scam, I do often marvel how, throughout history, all too many professed followers of Christ have interfered in the political arena in attempts to sway governments and people (often with catastrophic results), even though Jesus was purported to have said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

HUH!?!?!?! What am I missing? Oh right, the myth that Republicans will keep us safer (COUGH)…

It was also the Bush Administration (Republicans all) that botched the invasion of Afghanistan, and let Bin Laden escape by beginning a war in Iraq, a nation having nothing to do with 9/11. And, it was the failed policies of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (a Republican) that led to chaos in Iraq, and eventually the insurgence, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including over 4,000 American soldiers, with more than 30,000 wounded, 8,000-plus seriously. And lives have not been the only cost. The war that was sold to us by this Republican Administration, and was going to cost little or nothing because of Iraqi oil revenues, might end up with a price tag approaching $5 trillion when all cost factors are taken into consideration. Yikes, no wonder the American economy is presently booming. For any diehard Republicans and lingering Bush supporters, that last comment was meant to be facetious (look it up)!

All these abominations occurred during a Republican Administration and a Republican led Congress (up until the mid-term elections in 2006). These same Republicans, along with John McCain, the current Republican presidential nominee, are continually claiming the surge in Iraq is a success. This is highly questionable, considering how completely dysfunctional the Iraqi infrastructure is, and just how much hatred has been generated there against America. If you honestly believe that we are close to some kind of victory in Iraq, please watch the documentary “No End In Sight.” You will become educated on all the reasons why the Iraqi people have legitimate cause to hate our nation. It might also become apparent why there will be no peace between Iraq and the United States for a very long time to come! A temporary lull in violence does not a victory make.

Denial is not going to make this mess go away, nor is it going to rationalize away all the pain caused by the present American Economy created by this Republican Administration, not only waging an unnecessary war, but an extremely incompetent and costly one.

I’ve never understood this BS argument that Republicans are the party which serve us best during times of war. The two largest and most noteworthy wars of the 20th Century, WWI and WWII, were successfully fought and won during Democratic administrations. No doubt the Republicans like to talk a good war, but I see absolutely no evidence they know how to successfully fight and win one.

John McCain continues with his hawkish blather, and the erroneous argument that he is somehow qualified as a military genius and Commander in Chief who “knows” how to fight and win a war because he spent five years as a POW in Vietnam and comes from a military family. Just recently he stated, “I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars.” In reality, I don’t really recall just when he has been right about any of his Iraq assessments, or ever played a role in winning a war.

Ironically, Barack Obama (the Democrat) has been correct regarding two issues concerning this present “War on Terrorism.” And of course, he was unmercifully bashed and criticized for his efforts by the Republicans and the right wing when it was convenient to do so.

Obama was in favor of the notion of a timetable for removal of our troops in Iraq, something that is, guess what, now being demanded by the Iraqi government, and considered by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon. Also, Obama said he would be willing to strike Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Well guess what again? According to the International Herald Tribune on June 11, “American air and artillery strikes killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers during a clash with insurgents on the Afghan border on Tuesday night, a development that raised concerns about the already strained American relationship with Pakistan.” Well….DOOOOH!?!?!

And if you believe you have heard it all, John McCain’s proposed model for policy in an ever-problematic Afghanistan is the same awesome plan that has been so successful in Iraq. My God!!! This is the same guy whose Iran policy sounded like “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” and who thought it was okay to spend another 100 years in Iraq, even if there were no Americans getting killed, and regardless of whether or not the Iraqis want us there.

McCain is even suggesting we create a “separate Czar” for Afghanistan. He believes one war czar (what happened to the military leadership and the Commander in Chief?) is not enough for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is really hilarious. When is the last time there was even any reference to the present War Czar appointed by Bush; and now we need two? Perhaps there would be no need to send any more brigades to Afghanistan if Iraq had not become involved in this whole mix in the first place? Yeah right, the Republicans know what they are doing concerning their war on terrorism.

The only possible reason I can think of as to why the Republicans have this reputation for being tough or efficient in war must be that they always talk loud and long about national security and defense, and love to spend more money on the military than all the other nations in the world combined. But incessant talking and spending lots of money obviously do not automatically translate into knowing how to execute a war. Beating up a second-rate military power during the initial phases of war in Kuwait and Iraq is not enough. War necessitates being able to finish what is started, and amazingly, even having plans to do so.

So please, enough of this asinine myth that Republicans know how to wage war and will keep us safer, and Democrats do not, and will not. It’s not only a bunch of crap, but painfully embarrassing as well, not to mention, extremely counterproductive.

Has this nation gone completely mad!?! Have political correctness and hypocrisy reached such lofty levels of dissociation with reality?

Thankfully, General Clark refused to apologize for his statement on MSNBC’s "Verdict." But I was rather disheartened that the Obama campaign believed there was something to apologize for.

”GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air…in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly'

Bob Schieffer: Well

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So…

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.”

My first exposure to this so-called controversy was Monday evening while watching Dan Abrams questioning General Clark. Abrams asked, “I think that the part that has really gotten people, which I don't think you have said before was the part about ‘riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down' effectively is not a qualification for president. That's the line that has been the most controversial. Are you sorry you said it?”

In my own mind I immediately answered this question for the General, “Please explain to me Dan, just how being a fighter pilot who is shot down (automatically) qualifies one to be President, exactly?” I would have asked that question and then waited for the answer. I was disappointed that wasn’t the response. People too often go into lengthy explanations on why they said something instead of asking a simple question to make the questioner responsible for explaining the question.

General Clark’s response was more lengthy than my own mental image, but articulate and to the point. The following is just one comment:

“Well, I honor John McCain's character, and as I've said on the show, he's been one of my heroes for a long time. I like John McCain. He's been over to my house and everything. This is about qualifications to be President. That's what this is about. And, by the way, it's also a little bit about the nature of American politics today that a comment like this could be taken out of context the way it was and create such a hullabaloo. I think we ought to get back to the campaign.”

Abrams kept after Clark like a pit bull latched onto its prey:

”Dan Abrams: So I've got to ask you though, this follow-up question – do you stand by your comment that you "don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification for president." Do you stand by that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I stand by the comment that when you talk about someone's wartime experience, you have to put that in the context of the level of their service, what that service consisted of and how it matches up to the requirements of the job of the presidency of the United States.

Dan Abrams: So does that mean…again, that you "don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification for president?"

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's an incredible testimony to John McCain's courage that he endured the privations and hardship he did and I think that the American people have always been impressed by that – as I have been impressed by that. But I'm supporting Barack Obama. I think he has judgment. I think he has character and I do think that he has courage. I think he'll be a great Commander in Chief despite the fact that he didn't serve. I think he is a patriot in the truest sense of the word.”

I personally find this whole controversy to be quite ludicrous, unnecessary and like so much of the present political landscape, a complete waste of time and energy. The statement by General Clark was obviously, at least to anyone who is honest as well as intelligent and objective, in no way meant as either a smear or to denigrate John McCain and his military career. It was, in fact, only meant to create a debate on what actually constitute the real qualifications for President of the United States. There is no doubt that military service can enhance a person’s experience, and give them added qualifications for the job, as long as there are many other attributes as well; but by itself, it is just one small part of a very large equation. Being president requires a lot more than simply being Commander in Chief, only one aspect of the job. And, military service alone does not automatically qualify one to be a good Commander in Chief. Our current president is a case in point.

There is no question that the McCain campaign has repeatedly and relentlessly been pounding us with the notion that one very important reason why John McCain should be president is because he is a hero, an ex-Navy fighter pilot and POW in Vietnam for five years. There are all kinds of heroes and examples of heroism in the world, including those equated with militarism. And though Senator McCain’s experiences do exemplify heroism by most standards, and demand our respect, they surely do not automatically qualify him as either a military genius or an administrator qualified to lead us as President. All that remains to be seen, and will depend on a lot more than his military experience and service alone. The fact that he seems so confused on so many issues, and has made the former case against John Kerry, as a flip flopper, pale in comparison to his own almost weekly (sometimes daily) reversals of thought, are evidence that his military service by itself says little about his real qualifications to lead us.

Perhaps there was a time when knowing someone had been a fighter pilot would have dazzled many of us and caused us to believe it alone went a long way to qualify someone for the highest office in the land. Of course, that was before President George W. Bush, also a fighter pilot!

In his defense, General Wesley Clark is a “highly” decorated retired General of the Army (four stars) with a long and distinguished military career, who served in Vietnam, and later as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) during the Clinton Administration, an assignment which placed him in a position as overall command of NATO military forces in Europe. I can’t honestly accept that anyone in their right mind would genuinely believe he would dis anyone, including John McCain, for having served in the military, and especially for having been shot down and forced to be a POW. It was so obvious this was not the point of his statement(s).

It’s time to move on to real issues, debate and dialogue, and stop getting bogged down in a morass of irrelevance and idiocy at every turn of the political road. It is this kind of chronic absurdity that has led to the current polarization of our nation, as well as the present government, one that very few would honestly argue has served us well.

Here’s just one example: According to a friend in a recent email, “I was in the car most of the day and listened to Kim Komando and some NPR, but Prairie Home Companion is still a bit too corny for me so I went to right wing radio to see how they are attacking. They are still in lock step that we must drill for oil everywhere and the democrat caribou huggers and Florida beach selfish idiots are responsible for the high gas prices which [sic] are wrecking our economy. That implies that the crisis is of supply and demand yet I see no gas lines anywhere which tells me that the problem is deregulation of the futures markets and speculators. Still this is the right wing mantra since they just have no spaghetti that sticks against Obama.”

During a different committee meeting I watched just today, another fact came to light, namely that refining capacity has not been an issue, even though the ole spin machine constantly tells us that gasoline prices continue to rise because evil environmentalists won’t allow any new refineries to be built. The truth is, gasoline reserves in this nation are so large that the oil companies won't build a new refinery because there is not enough demand for the gasoline. You don't hear them talk much about how many billions of barrels of oil reserves we have in this nation, and just how many wells have been capped, and for how many years. Also, we get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada, and not the Middle East. The bottom line is that we are not really dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and OPEC should not be the greatest factor in raising the price of crude. In addition, there are very few people that don’t believe we would been off fossil fuel dependency perhaps decades ago, if the oil companies, facilitated by our government looking the other way, hadn’t used their money and might to ensure that no alternative energy sources were allowed to succeed.

It is the drop in the dollar and the good ole boys speculating in commodities that are driving up the price of gasoline so rapidly. (And do you ever wonder why the prices at your gas station rise so quickly with each rise in the price of crude, even though the gasoline in that station was refined quite some time ago?) Two of the experts I heard testify today surmised that the "real" price of oil, as dictated by supply and demand, should be about $65 per barrel. We know that it is selling for more than twice that. You gotta love the speculators, the same type of pukes that were driving up the price of energy in California for Enron, and laughing at the little old ladies that couldn't afford to heat their homes. I know some don't believe crude prices aren't being driven by speculation, but I don't buy that

You also gotta love right wing (and all too many on the left) politicians, bought and paid for, and without conscience, ethics, and probably mothers. And there are all those wonderful people who continue to support them based on ideologies that have been extinct in practical terms for decades, even though most of them are also getting screwed over just like everyone else who isn't independently wealthy. Ignorance may not be bliss, but it’s sure expensive, and certainly plentiful!

Before I became involved with politics and the political blogosphere, I spent a lot of time studying metaphysics and various religious belief systems in an attempt to learn more about who we are and the nature of our true potential. In the process I reaffirmed for myself what metaphysics has long known, that everything is energy, essentially slowed down to create matter and the physical reality we identify with and take for granted. Thoughts are energy, and the circumstances we create in our lives reflect those thoughts most often dwelled upon.

This being said, why do we so often feel powerless to have any real affect in the larger world, and continually sense that we don’t really count or make a difference? This feeling is especially acute in the arena of politics and government. During an election, and especially after one, our ability to influence change appears to rapidly diminish. Having minds that are often noisy and scattered, we habitually remain blithely unaware of just how very potent our thoughts really are, and unmindful of our power to influence events.

If these assumptions are true, Barack Obama will unquestionably gain the ire and enmity of many people who represent those special interests and basically, the establishment. Many in these groups are people just like you and me who simply believe they are doing their jobs, and supporting themselves and their families. They are not trying to hurt others. There are, however, within this group, all too many who seem to care very little about the welfare of anyone but themselves. These are the same people who make a game out of making money. They see it as a competition of status among the very wealthy.

It’s not enough for them to have more money than they and their families could possibly spend in ten lifetimes. They have come to believe that money is who they are. They identify with their money, become more secure the more they have, and unfortunately feel justified in screwing anyone and everyone so that they can have more. You all know who and what I’m referring to.

Unfortunately, we also have the bigots, those people who desperately need to justify being better than someone else, in order to feel secure and unthreatened. They come in all shapes and sizes, and will join any organization recognizing them as special because someone else is not. They are easily motivated to hatred because their fears and frustrations are easily translated into anger, and the need to find someone else to blame. The fact that Barack Obama is Black, or has a name they have been taught to fear, will be enough to make him an enemy, just as those who fear their wealth is threatened because he desires to see everyone financially secure.

These people will see Barack Obama as a threat, and they would be delighted if he would just go away. They will be fearful that somehow their lives will be diminished because he might honestly represent the kind of president the Founding Fathers had in mind, long before the nation transformed idealism into another form of “me first” tyranny. They won’t understand that everyone in this nation will be better off when all are comfortable, secure and happy. They are in convenient denial of the truth that no one is completely secure and happy until all are. They prefer a world of duality and separatism to one of oneness and unity. They are glad to be poorer in spirit, while rationalizing that being “right,” or very wealthy are the only things that truly matter. They have long forgotten that “Man does not live by bread alone.”

If we accept that we just might now have a true candidate of change (all kinds), and realize how that person will antagonize and seriously threaten many who do not believe they can stand that change, let’s help to protect that person. It’s not a coincidence that people like John F Kennedy, Robert F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and more recently, Benizar Bhutto, were targeted by those afraid of what they represented, basically, positive change for “everyone.” We’ve had too many great people taken away from us prematurely by those who were remarkably (un)great (the trigger men and those they represent). The world has been set back too many times, and the time is nigh for us all to echo the words of the rascally Howard Beale , “I’m as mad as hell and not going to take this anymore!”

I want to suggest that everyone supporting Barack Obama become aware of his need for protection, and remember when seeing or hearing him to “consciously” send some protective energy his way. Any method one wants to employ is fine. Some might utilize prayer, while others may imagine him surrounded in “white Light” or any kind of protective “shield” that works for them. What matters, is to remember often that there is a need, and to follow that remembrance with action, as thought and imagination.

If you are so motivated, send Barack Obama, his family, friends, and even Secret Service guardians, your positive thoughts and energy of protection whenever you think of it. Help create a wall around him that will not only protect him from negative thoughts aimed his way, but protect him physically as well. One’s imagination can be their guide. Our thoughts and focus have real power, and thoughts of love and caring have more power than those of fear, anger and hatred. Imagine the power of millions of people all focused on keeping a few people protected. Imagine a shift away from the wrong people controlling our destinies because of their own pathological insecurities that have them convinced they need more wealth and power at the expense of others.

We can fight back. We can overcome those feelings of impotence that make us, as individuals, believe we have no effect in the world. We can help to be that needed change. We need only believe in who we are, and help facilitate those along the way who are honestly working for our betterment.

If Barack Obama is indeed a real candidate of positive change, we will not only be protecting him and his, but also ourselves, our families and friends, as well as our best hopes for a better future!

We have for too long allowed people to lead us who lack the compassion, the vision, and the courage to make the world a better place because they are incapable of changing, and unable to comprehend that things can, and do, change all the time. Things have always been what we make them, in spite of seeming to be beyond our control. A person truly believing the world or mankind will never change, or that things are what they are because they have always been that way, are cheating themselves out of the legacy of human potential.

We are capable of much more, and limited only by a mind that creates limits because of limited imagination, percipience, and faith in ourselves. John 14:12 states, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes in me the works I do shall he do also, and greater than these shall he do…” Many religions debate the actual meaning of these words because they will not concede that you or I have any such potential. From a metaphysical perspective, the meaning is quite clear. When connected to our “right” (Higher) mind, and not entrapped by the petty fears of ego (lower) mind, and guided by innate compassion, love, tolerance and understanding, we are quite capable of much more than we presently realize.

It’s amusing to listen to all the White House and right wing pundits in all their present perplexity. Why didn’t former Presidential Press Secretary McClellan speak out before? How dare he say anything while the President is still in office? Why is he speaking out now at this critical time before the 2008 national elections? This isn’t the Scott McClellan I knew. It’s all so puzzling. Yada yada yada. And, I find it quite intriguing that the whole right wing seems to be equally and collectively puzzled at the same time. Is this just a major coincidence?

Perhaps all these pundits weren’t aware of the Scott McClellan that grew a pair, the man who decided that truth and integrity trump loyalty to people who don’t deserve it. And maybe he believes the American people should be informed about the observations and perceptions of a Bush insider before the 2008 election while it might do some good, especially since John McCain is running as a Bush clone. Will McCain be hurt by all this? I certainly hope so! Also, it takes time to write a book; it is not something that is accomplished overnight.

Some claim McClellan didn’t know enough. Well, he sure was closer to this presidency and the goings on in the White House than Bob Woodward, whose unflattering take on the Bush Administration in “State of Denial: Bush at War Part III,” has been taken quite seriously. I’ve also heard other pundits exclaim that there is nothing new in McClellan’s revelations. What McClellan has accomplished, and which is extremely important, is to affirm all the other works that have exposed the corruption in this White House. His position as a White House insider and close Bush loyalist gives great import to what he has to say.

Though I didn’t care much for Scott McClellan while he was the Press Secretary, the reason was because he represented nothing more than a Bush mouthpiece. And though I didn’t believe he came off as particularly accomplished while holding that position, compared to Dana Perino he appears in retrospect quite brilliant. In her, we have a Press Secretary who didn’t even know about the Cuban Missile Crisis; this gives her a political IQ of about room temperature. One has to wonder how often she is being lied to by her bosses? Perhaps, to McClellan’s credit, he often appeared as less than certain because he was indeed conflicted. He was very loyal to a man he still says he admires, but at the same time he was beginning to smell the rot of fish emanating from the oval office. And this had to be greatly exacerbated by being the person called upon to sell that same rotten fish to the American public. Not an easy or comfortable sell, at least not for a man of conscience.

Perhaps McClellan is now exonerating himself. It takes great courage and integrity at this juncture to do what he has done. At the moment, he is a man without many friends. Those blind Bush Loyalists and serial liars still defending this miserable Administration certainly have no love for McClellan today, and there are still many who look upon him with distaste, remembering his performance as the Administrations lap dog/liaison person. I for one, am extremely grateful that he has come out and affirmed what so many of us have known for quite a few years now, and that which so many others continue to expose, namely that Bush et al lied about reasons for invading Iraq, and blithely disseminated misinformation and chronic misdirection to justify same.

In their defense, the White House gives us the latest rationale for invading a sovereign nation without real cause – the policy of “Imperialistic Democracy,” which McClellan labels, “a philosophy of coercive democracy.” There have been so many justifications/rationalizations for this war. First there was the Hussein has WMDs mantra. (Well of course he had chemical and biological agents, the ones we supplied him with in the 1980s.The nuclear threat along with the “mushroom cloud” turned out to be totally bogus.) Then we had the “Saddam Hussein is an evil man and has evil sons” argument.This was followed by Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush actually had the temerity to publicly and embarrassingly state that it is “better to fight our enemies in Iraq than here.” I wonder just how many Iraqis appreciated that we were fighting in their nation, and allowing their nation to be destroyed, their citizens to be killed and maimed, so that we didn’t have to fight “our war” in our own country, all the while doing it in the name of “Iraqi freedom?” How’s that for farcical and outrageous?

It’s high time that people in this nation “get” that you can’t force democracy on any nation. Democracy only occurs when the people themselves are ready for it, and they themselves are the motivating force to make it happen.

Personally, I want to say thank you Mr. McClellan. I’m still angry that you allowed yourself to look the other way when you were Press Secretary, and that you waited so long to reveal the truth, or that it took you so long to perceive it. But, I’m so very grateful that you not only finally had your necessary epiphany in time to inform the people of this nation before the next national election, but that you have the extreme courage to go public with it. It’s never too late to find out “What Happened!”

Though Mr. McClellan will lose some friends, he has gained my admiration, as well as all others who are desperate for the truth at a time when that has become a dirty word. George Orwell so accurately stated, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Thank you Mr. McClellan for setting the proper example!

I can only hope that Colin Powell and several others who have participated firsthand in the worst presidency in our history will also grow a pair and follow Scott McClellan’s example, and while it can still make a difference! A citizen’s loyalty should be to the United States of America, not to the temporary occupants of government agencies… PERIOD!

Talk vb 1 : to deliver or express in speech : UTTER 2 : to make the subject of conversation or discourse : DISCUSS (~business) 3 : to influence, affect, or cause by talking (~ into agreeing) 4 : to use (a language) for conversing or communicating : SPEAK ~ vi 1 a : to express or exchange ideas by means of spoken words b : to convey information or communicate in any way (as with signs or sounds) 2 : to use speech : SPEAK…

Do talk and appeasement mean the same thing? Obviously not! In actuality, they are not even close in meaning, yet the political dialogue of the last few days has been saturated with some people attempting to equate them for us dummies. Gratefully, these few have been called on it, and with great umbrage!

It’s hard enough to discern truth when we have artificially labeled values such as liberalism and conservatism to deal with. The fact is, most of us lie somewhere between the extremes, leaving the true radicals and even nutcases to occupy those niches. I would imagine that most of us are not interested in allowing the extremists of either nature to actually run the nation in our name. Most of us still have more common sense than that.

President Bush last Thursday, while speaking before the Israeli Knesset, decided to drop an inappropriate political bomb by mentioning that there are “some” desirous of talking to terrorists in a fashion similar to the way Nazi appeasers dealt with Hitler before World War II:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

The White House was later quick to deny that Bush was in any way referring to Barack Obama in his remarks, but one really needs an IQ short of triple digits to believe that.

Senator John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, was quick on the uptake (some speculate that it was suspiciously “too quick”). In a remark to reporters he stated, “Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain.'’

When McCain was asked if he believed Senator Obama was an appeaser, he stated, “I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

The remarks by The President and Senator McCain were in themselves bad enough, mixing (purposely in my opinion) the meanings of, or implying a similarity between, the words talk and appease, but the icing on the cake was to come later on Chris Matthew’s TV program “Hardball” on May 15, 2008 during an interview with right wing talk radio host Kevin James. This exchange perfectly exemplifies the dangers of how political misinformation is so easily disseminated when such implicitly agreed upon misuse of words and concepts are allowed. It became quickly apparent that James neither knew the meaning of appeasement, nor had any clue exactly why Neville Chamberlain was guilty of it. And yet, this in no way deterred James from repeatedly and erroneously painting Barack Obama with the label of appeaser.

What is the real danger here? Just as we have experienced in recent elections, there are all too many voters in the United States willing and able to pick up on sound bytes to use as political campaign mantras, even when they are clueless as to the factual content of that information. I praise Chris Matthews for becoming exasperated enough to repeatedly nail Kevin James to the wall for his misstatements and accusations towards Senator Obama. It’s about time that more in the media started taking their job seriously, and not allowing faux pundits to simply blather on with impunity. As Matthews stated, referring to James’ remarks:

“You don’t know what you’re talking about…And the problem is that you don’t understand that there is a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in `38. That’s what he did wrong, not talking to someone… Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy… This is pathetic. He doesn’t even know what Chamberlain did at Munich. He’s as bad as the White House Press Secretary that doesn’t even know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. We are talking about people with blank slates in terms of history.”

In the meantime, let’s demand that words be used as they are defined, and in the proper context. America faces the consequences of beginning the 21st Century on the wrong foot, compliments of the Bush Mob, and can ill afford any continuance of the same nonsense. Ultimately, you and I will determine America’s ability to cope with the challenges of this century; we are after all, the electorate…still…I think?!?

Finally the time rapidly approaches to address the real question, namely, is America ready, willing, and able to vote for a Black male as President of the United States? An election process beginning as the search to pick the most qualified candidate for president must inevitably end by testing the climate of racism in America. Ironically, the Democratic theme during the primaries as well as the upcoming national elections will be the necessity of change, an obvious approach after seven long and seriously flawed years of the Bush Administration and an enabling Congress. Any Democratic candidate would be running on a platform of change. Ironically, Barack Obama represents a whole lot more than mere political change. He is a Black man in a nation that historically and presently continues to be a hot bed of racism and discrimination. America, ready or not, has reached a critical nexus point in its history, and racism can no longer remain on the back burner.

The political approach and ideals of Barack Obama do appear to represent the needed change, but does he perhaps epitomize a lot more change than many Americans are ready for? He himself IS change, the first Black person to come within reach of being president, a reality that directly touches the heart of prejudice and discrimination in America. Though many are desperately desirous of political change, are they also willing to transcend deeply ingrained prejudices and attitudes in order to put an African-American in the White House in order to accomplish that change?

With the end of the Democratic primary now in sight, and the steady approach of the national election, the issue of electability of an African-American candidate must now be addressed. Unquestionably, many Hillary Clinton supporters are longtime loyal Clinton fans, along with many women anxious to see the first woman elected president. No doubt many of these people are also convinced that she would make a good president, yet how many are voting for her because they will not vote for an African-American? In a national election, how many will vote for John McCain because they are incapable of voting for a Black man?

These questions can no longer be ignored. A lot of Americans are ready to fire the Republicans, and others are tired of the old political ploys of the Clintons, and many are willing and able to vote for Barack Obama. How many, however, will be motivated more by issues of race than politics? The real question as we steadily approach the national election is how many will not vote for a Black man, period? We may not want to look at this aspect of the present election cycle, and may inwardly cringe at doing so, but there is ultimately no way to avoid it.

Many desperately believing the Democrats must take the White House in 2008, are asking themselves if Barack Obama can be elected in white America. Many who dislike the present day Republican party and John McCain may be considering voting Republican, simply because their racism trumps their political wisdom. Will Barack Obama be able to convince those still challenged by racial issues that his qualifications, and the present needs of the nation trump their prejudice?

Will the nation finally move on and become a place where, who a person is, determined by their thoughts and actions, is more important than something as arbitrary as the color of their skin, or any other characteristic that is beyond their control?

For everything about America that is great, as we enter the 21st century it is a nation still divided by prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and discrimination, all triggered by a mindset which allows people to deny their own insecurities and fear in order to justify a need to find someone to feel better than.

Though greed and the thirst for power (so often driven by that same insecurity) have always been part of the equation, it’s disturbing that a philosophy such as, “it’s okay to screw others as long as there is a good chance you can get away with it,” basically an acceptance of corruption, has become so prevalent in present day society. The corporate mentality of bottom line profit economics and people be damned has certainly played a huge role in encouraging such thinking. Greatness must be earned on a continual basis; it's not just a label to stick on a lapel, like a flag pin.

America was birthed in greatness: the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, that wonderful document known as The Constitution, and the revolution that created a nation and which finally freed people from the tyrannical restraints of a monarchial world. Even so, I’ve always cringed at the thought of those same Founding Fathers stating that “all men are created equal” while at the same time many of them were slave owners. I’ve heard justifications of this, such as “it was the tradition of the time,” and “it was an agrarian economy that required it,” and so on and so forth. Sorry, Nothing Ever Anywhere justifies slavery! It ranks right at the very top of the list of despicable actions perpetrated by mankind.

I love America, and am grateful I was born and raised here. Fortunately, my parents were educated, liberal minded people, the benefits of which were passed on to me. I grew up viewing the world through the filter of believing others should be treated with respect based on how they themselves thought and acted, and not to prejudge them based on something as arbitrary as the color of their skin, or any other characteristics that were beyond their control.

All that being said, Americans are now faced with another challenge to all their lowest common denominator instincts. Racism, a long time issue that has simmered even after the abolishment of slavery, has suddenly come to the forefront in a whole new way. With the advent of a very viable presidential candidate who happens to be partially Black, the nation is facing a whole new political paradigm. It is one that requires a new open-mindedness which can accept not only the idea of an African-American president, but also demands the understanding that this individual might just carry some racial baggage, and more importantly, so what? There is no way such a person will have been unaffected by growing up in a nation where it was once believed that if a person’s heritage included even a tiny fraction of Black ancestry, they were considered Black and treated as if they were in some way inferior.

Most of us had to think twice after Reverend Wright’s controversial remarks became public; some didn’t even have to expend that much energy. That Barack Obama belonged to a church in which the African-American pastor had some anti-American sentiments based on the historical and present day treatment of African-Americans, and had the audacity to bring it up before a mostly African-American congregation sharing the same experience, shouldn’t be nearly so surprising. Certainly, on an initial gut instinct level some white people are going to experience a tinge of anxiety and doubt as questions flood their minds: Does Obama share all the same feelings as his pastor, his alleged mentor? Will this translate into some kind of legalized reverse discrimination if he becomes our new president? Does he hate us (as some of us have hated them)?

If one takes the time to step back and think rationally for a moment, all this becomes less shocking or threatening. What if Senator Obama does have some feelings of resentment about the treatment of Black people in America? He’d have to be living in a vacuum if he didn’t, and I for one certainly don’t want another clueless and incurious president.

I’m white, and I hold some resentment against white America. As I stated previously, I abhor the very idea of slavery, and I totally resent the countless decades of anti-Black sentiment and discrimination that have so warped, separated, and demeaned everyone in this nation. This is a double whammy for African-Americans; not only have they had to deal with a heritage of slavery, and years of prejudice and demeaning discrimination in all aspects of their lives, after being legally emancipated, they also are expected to take much of the blame for the whole situation by an America that just can’t let it go (perhaps guilt turning on itself).

Why are so many outraged by the resentment of discrimination? How many people of any race or ethnic group in any nation would not feel some anger at being considered secondhand citizens in their own country? Can anyone honestly say they would not? We all carry some sort of baggage from our past, just as do all the current candidates for president. And I want to be clear that these are my own projections; I cannot know what is on anyone else’s mind including Barack Obama’s. I’m just coming to grips with my own acceptance of the process.

The present political climate is as full of unknowns as it is in many ways uncomfortable. I'm beginning to realize that it couldn't be otherwise. The possibility that Barack Obama might carry some racial baggage is natural. That John McCain might hold some bitterness or resentment as a result of being a POW for six years of his youth may very possibly have created some anger deep inside, which at times can rise to the surface. It actually concerns me that McCain, who appears so hawkish, might at times let his emotions trump reason when dealing with “perceived” enemies. Hillary Clinton possibly carries a whole different sort of gender and marital baggage compelling the need for her to prove herself; she might be less than reasonable if anyone gets between her and a perceived goal.

Ultimately, everyone is flawed in some way; it’s the nature of being human. All of us have been affected in one way or another by racism in America, and we all hold baggage as a result. Blaming and fearing Barack Obama for having feelings influenced by racism is as ludicrous as blaming ourselves for also being affected. The real question might be: when will everyone decide enough is enough, and it’s time to move on?

America can be great, a place where people are nurtured by common respect for each other and an innate sense of fairness. Why should anyone or anything be allowed to instigate division of purpose based on fear based insecurities and desire for compensatory power? If people truly wish to be part of a nation with, as Lincoln stated, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” they need to accept nothing less. Those very few among us who don’t believe “The People” should have entitlements, while also believing they themselves are naturally entitled to whatever they want by some arbitrary standard of wealth, power and arrogance, should be shown the exit. They, not the vast majority who just want to live and let live regardless of any differences among us, are the real enemies of this nation.

America has long been divided in all manner of ways by those who have always profited by convincing everyone else they should be divided. The Declaration of Independence states that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” When these words transition from text on a document to a motivating force in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people, this will indeed become a great nation in which pride is justified beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notably, there was no mention of the white communities’ resistance to such change in many places. Professor Ghica states, “We all remember the “School busing;” What a failure that was with the black community adamant against its implementation.” What’s missing is the fact that in many cities across the nation, it was quite often the white community that protested school busing.

Professor Ghica mentions “affirmative action” and college and university minority quotas, but doesn’t tell us that even with a small percentage of people of color benefiting from same, it hardly ended discrimination in the work place, where higher wages and managerial positions still highly favor white males. An online article entitled, “Myths and Facts About Affirmative Action” states, “a Washington Post study shows that 95% of top corporate executives are white males.”

The professor states, “in a reverse discriminatory way” and because of such policies, “the world of sports and entertainment is dominated by blacks.” If this means there are more college level, and ultimately professional level black athletes because many gained access to higher education because of affirmative action, I’d reply “so what?” Considering how sports have helped break down many of the racial barriers that plague our nation, I would consider this a good thing. And, if blacks are indeed dominating in this area, that is a matter of talent. Coaches pick their best players to compete.

As for believing Senator Barack Obama has displayed “hypocrisy and lack of judgment by being a member of a church that promotes hate towards America,” how does this compare with Senator John McCain originally accepting endorsements from both Reverends John Hagee and Rod Parsley, amidst their shameless and opinionated bigotry against other lifestyles and religions? (For more details read, “Wow!!! There’s Racism in America!?!” at http://viewsontheridge.com/dragonflight/)

It’s not surprising that some of the rhetoric in many churches, white or black, is as outrageous as it is not uncommon. We are all exposed to the over zealous opinions of friends, and there are few organizations with opinions as extreme and biased as those based in religion. When a person or organization believes in “Absolutes,” it is quite easy for them to have some angst towards those not interpreting “the word of God” as they do.

I can understand a black preacher who grew up during “the segregation and hatred against his race era” feeling resentful that discrimination, prejudice and bigotry are still alive and well in this nation, despite inadequate attempts to create an even playing field. I’m sure many parishioners listen to such rhetoric because they also hurt inside. But I don’t agree that everyone attending such a church, where Christianity and the love of Jesus were also taught and were most likely the main focus, are going to be hateful people, or that they hate this nation. Many of us have reasons to hate something our government has done at one time or other, or that others have done to us. We can be aware of such emotions without giving in to them. I believe Barack Obama is such an individual.

When I look at the damage done to this nation in the last seven years by an Administration and Congress governing with disdain, incompetence and self-interest, I witness the real hatred we should be focused on. These people who would interpret the Constitution to suit themselves, and consider the needs of society and the citizenry as secondary, are the people who really hate America, though they continue to expound that the opposite is true at every opportunity.

It’s mainly been the right wing media attempting to turn his statements into something else – ranting in anger before a congregation, or crossing to the other side of a street out of fear, are only different faces of the same coin. Perhaps the Post agrees with remarks by conservative pundit, Pat Buchanan who referred to Obama’s statement while on MSNBC on March 21, by saying, “it ghettoizes him, takes him back to his base.” For all the Post’s admirable attempts to print opinions from all sides of the political spectrum, it still remains far to the right itself, often employing right wing spin to make its case, one often molded to fit its own bias.

Did we honestly expect to get through an election cycle that has an African-American male running for President without the issue of race surfacing sooner or later? And is it not better to have it come out now, while we are still eight months out from the national election? That many are shocked, or say they are, both by some of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s statements, and Obama’s post-Wright speech are either not really paying attention to life on the planet and in their nation, or they are simply disingenuous.

I find racism disturbing period, but, it is part of our culture. Any kind of prejudice demonstrates limited thinking, and yet our society is a repository for all kinds of prejudice-based bigotry. Our nation is replete with people who have in some way been directly or indirectly discriminated against. Do I have to mention every ethnic, religious and “fill in the blank__________” group of people, including “women,” that fall into this category? Do I have to remind every individual who for whatever reasons has felt himself/herself discriminated against in any fashion, if not only economically or socially? I think not. Most of us have been on the short end of the stick for some reason or other in our lifetimes. It’s a good lesson in empathy and compassion, albeit one not always learned.

I’m not sure which is more surprising, that Reverend Wright said the things he did, or that so many Americans are so bent out of shape because they finally found out. How many “white churches” have preachers who in their own rhetorical styles incite some racial or bigoted responses of their own? Overall styles may differ between most white and black churches, but this is a natural result of varying cultures. So what?

Reverend John Hagee recently endorsed Senator McCain’s campaign, which McCain accepted, and then repudiated after some of Hagee’s remarks were made public. Then Hagee turned around and stated that it was McCain who had sought his endorsement, and not he who volunteered it. The media hasn’t given this news anywhere near the coverage they gave to the Obama/Wright story. Where’s the outrage?

Reverend Hagee is the one who called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore,” and just happened to mention that the Anti-Christ will be Jewish, and that Muslims will be in the Devil’s army at the time of Armageddon. You think he might ever make inflammatory remarks in his church?

John McCain has claimed that Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.” There is an interesting article about Parsley’s endorsement of McCain, as well as some of his rather extreme views regarding those he considers the enemies of Christianity at motherjones.com. Parsley is the leader of a 12,000 member congregation in Columbus Ohio, and quite politically influential in that state. According to Mother Jones:

Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam. In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues: “I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”

I had not been aware that part of the United States’ “divine purpose” was defeating Islam, or that it was even part of an “historical conflict.” I don’t recall the Founding Fathers mentioning it.

I realize many Americans are now convinced, in no small part by the ceaseless rhetoric of the Bush Administration, that America is at war with Islam. We have been repeatedly told they hate everything we stand for. Is it that, or do they resent our many decades of interfering in Middle Eastern governments, based on what we want, not what they need? Whatever the case, Reverend Parsley appears to represent that which he claims to fear, namely religious bigotry and exclusivity. What are the chances that Reverend Parsley makes inflammatory remarks against other races, ethnic groups and those he judges unworthy by disagreement, in his own church?

I don’t necessarily disagree with many of Reverend Wright’s statements. Is there, and has there been, anti-black sentiment in the United States? Have whites and blacks been competing on an equal playing field? Is there cause for resentment on all sides of this? I know slavery was real. How does this compare with Hagee and Parsley’s shameless opinionated bigotry against other lifestyles, and religions? Where’s the outrage against them, and Senator McCain?

The point is not that such rhetoric in churches is outrageous, but that perhaps it is not uncommon. We are all in some way exposed to extreme viewpoints by some of those we associate with. And, I can’t imagine many organizations more susceptible to strong and extreme opinions, than those based in religion. When you believe in absolutes, it’s easy, and almost mandatory, to dismiss others who don’t share those beliefs. In fact, many religions claim it is dangerous to associate with those who disagree. After all, what could be more corrupting, or threatening than to associate with those who don’t adhere to “the word of God” as one sees it?

The time has finally come for an open dialogue on racism in America. We are all affected by it in one way or another, and now is as good a time as any, and better than most. In fact, the present political climate demands it! The United States of America cannot hope any longer to successfully deal with the rest of the world, politically, economically or socially, as long as it continues to be a nation divided by its own denial, fears and prejudices. There should no longer be two Americas based on color, a reality based in ignorance and fear, not the religious morality we hear about constantly, and see demonstrated much less often.