Playing the Fear Card

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country...Herman Goering

The left points to this quote from an infamous nazi, to suggest that this is all we're seeing now.  They have no answer to the fact that McCain is obviously more qualified to be in command in chief.

The left can discount McCain with this quote if they want, but they're running from reality.  Just because you can manipulate people with fear, doesn't mean that there isn't anything out there to be afraid of.  And it's not like the left aren't playing the fear card.  They are telling the elderly that they're going to be thrown out into the street if McCain is elected.  They're telling mothers that McCain is going to send their sons off to war.  They are telling the poor that they will starve to death of McCain is elected.

It seems to me that Goering was right, but I think that the wrong people need to be quoting Goering.  It's the level-headed Americans that need to be reminding people who is playing the fear card.  The terrorists are real.  They want to kill us.  They have killed people in other countries since 9/11/2001.  Those people would be killing Americans on US soil if they could.  Reminding people of this is not playing the fear card any more than what Obama is doing with his issues.

If you honestly do not believe that there are enemies out there, then might I suggest that you have no need of locks on the doors of your house; and that we have no need of a police force to protect our homes.  Do you really believe that?  Would you really want a mayor that told you it was all a myth and that your homes are only in danger because of the previous mayor?  Would you really want a mayor that wanted to cut the police force?  Would you really feel safer?

Impressions of Palin

Sarah Palin was announced as the republican candidate for vice president a few days ago.  I had read about her a few times over the past few months, not knowing that she'd ever be on the radar for consideration as vice president.  When I heard who the pick was, however, I was delighted.  From what I know of her record, she's an excellent choice.  However, I have a few concerns, and so far, only a few have been put at ease.

I listened to the rhetoric from the left, as far as her not being qualified.  And of course, she's more experienced than Barak Obama, but that doesn't enter their logic.  Comparisons have been made with the governor of Virginia who Obama had on the short list for vp.  At the time, Republicans suggested that he wasn't experienced enough, and so they (the left) make this same comparison with Palin.  However, they aren't comparing apples to apples.  The fact is that Palin has accomplished a lot more during her time as governor of Alaska.  In addition, she was governor of an energy producing state, and a state with quite a bit more natural resources to manage.

Palin took on the big money interests and beat them, even with them vastly out spending her.  She took on corruption in her own party, even with a sitting governor of her own party.  She stood up to big oil a number of times as governor.

All this said, the governor of Viriginia is hardly as qualified for an executive position as Palin.  The left don't see this because they don't want to see this.  However, if she were a democrat, it would be different.

I liked her speech on Wednesday night of the RNC.  It had a bit of "red meat" in it, but so did Joe Biden's when he gave his a week earlier.  And to be fair, that is what these speeches are supposed to be.  The VP is supposed to go on the offensive against the opposition.   This allows a more diplomatic, more inclusive speech from the nominee for president the following night.  I haven't heard McCain's speech yet, obviously, and so I can't comment on that.

One thing that I'll say is that I am impressed that Palin can think on her feet, rather than relying on a teleprompter to do her thinking for her.  In fact, during her speech, the teleprompted had a malfunction and so she did the bulk of her speech without its aid.  That speech was given from the heart.

I feel that Palin did a reasonably good job of introducing herself to the public, especially those that haven't read as much about her as my wife and I have over the past few months.  However, one thing that I didn't get out of the speech, was a clear view of how well she would stand up to a sinister leader such as Vladimir Putin.  This man is a former KGB leader, and for all practical purposes, has kept that organization alive, although in a different name now.

If John McCain is elected, and he were to keel over during his presidency, then Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.  Our enemies will test her, as they will test McCain or anyone else who becomes President.  They will test to see what they can get away with.  The terrorists will do it.  Putin will do it.  Chavez will do it.  The list goes on.

Judging from her history with dealing with the big money interests (with billions at stake), I have a feeling that Palin would do fine standing up against our enemies.  However, nothing in her speech said that to me.  I will be watching the upcoming debates to see how well she goes up against a "bitter old man".

Many people describe Joe Biden as a bitter old man, and in some respects, he is.  He certainly can be.  He can be very diplomatic and presidential in discussions, but I have noticed over the years that he becomes easily frustrated if the facts catch him in an inconsistency or a lie.  At this point, he can become agitated and nasty.  He tends to start making things up, or making personal attacks in order to "change the subject".  I had a lot or respect for Biden a decade ago, but less in more recent years.  I do respect him as far as being a tough opponent in a debate,  and in my opinion, he is probably the toughest person in debate that I have seen of the four current players.

So these debates are going to be very crucial for me level of comfort regarding whether or not Sarah Palin could step in as President if something were to happen to John McCain.

The Media Are Campaigning For Obama

I've said for a long time that the media have become active participants in the Obama campaign.  Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann definitely have a man-crush on Obama.  Even Hillary Clinton, who had always gotten a pass from the media before, was suddenly upset because now they were backing Obama, and she wasn't able to combat it.  They were against her, rather than just reporting the news.

In the past, John McCain has had friendly press.  This is mainly because he wasn't the typical Republican.  While others would surround the wagons and tow the party line, McCain would break with party and try to get things done.  He would join forces across the aisle and passed much legislation in favor of the American people, but not always with the approval of the party.

During this presidential campaign, there was a shift as soon as McCain got the nomination.  Suddenly, they turned on McCain.  They published unfounded rumors with no journalistic integrity, whereas they refused to publish unfounded rumors of any kind regarding Obama.

Even early in the primaries, the media refused to publish any unfounded rumors regarding marital infidelity on the part of John Edwards; and that turned out to be true.  There were facts.  It's not like it was unsubstantiated.  It's pretty bad when the National Inquirer can beat the New York Times to a substantiated story.

On the other hand, unsubstantiated stories were released regarding the Republicans.  First, there were accusations of infidelity on the part of John McCain, which turned out to be nothing.  They have remained unsubstantiated.  How does a legitimate news organization publish stories they can't substantiate?  Unless of course, they're a part of the political process on one side or the other?

And as soon as it was announced that Sarah Palin would  be the vice presidential candidate for the  Republicans, there were vicious unsubstantiated stories published about her.  They suggested that she wasn't the mother of her youngest baby, and that it was really her teenage daughter that was the mother.  How could a story like this be published with nothing more than suggestion?  No journalistic standards were observed in reporting this.

And when it turned out to be bogus, due to the fact that the teenage daughter was pregnant, the news media, instead of just shutting up about it, published this story.  They brought the family into the public even though the Obama camp had supposedly said that "family is off limits and not a part of the political process".

Essentially, Obama can afford to take the high road, because he knows the media are going to take the low road.  He even met with elements of the leftist fringe media when warned not to.  They have started a lot of these rumors against Palin, and yet Obama hasn't distanced himself from these groups.  He just plays like he's not a part of it and remains to take the high road.  This is much the same as how George W. Bush allowed Karl Rove to do his dirty work, and claimed no knowledge of it.

Is this Obama's meaning for "change" and a "new kind of politician"?

It aint new.

If Sarah Palin's daughter had an abortion, I'm assuming that the media would've not published her name or the story, because they have a sympathetic view of abortion rights and the right to privacy.  However, evidently, this right to privacy isn't afforded to a young teenage woman if she chooses to let the child live.  When have we seen the news media publish stories about teenage daughters of candidates, or about any teenage girls having children out of wedlock?

Again, Obama took the high road (after the fact), but he could afford to do this.  The story had already been made public; and of course, the news media is doing his dirty work for him.

And during the Democratic National Convention, we saw all kinds of divisive speeches.  Biden's was one of the worst.  That's a part of the process and to be expected.  However, during the Republican National Convention, the news commentators have gone on and on about how divisive the speeches have been during the convention; but they made no mention of this when it was the Democrats.  And they have even gone so far as to interview Joe Biden and allow him to rebutt some of the speeches.  And he actually had the gall to suggest that the speeches were "divisive".

Let's tell the truth here.  John McCain is one of the least divisive people in either house of Congress.  He is the one that has consistently reached across the aisle on behalf of the American people.  Obama never has.  Biden rarely, if ever, has.

And now the Republicans have a vice presidential candidate that is much like McCain.  She has reached across the aisle on behalf of the citizens.  She fought corruption in her own party.  She fought big oil.  She did it all when under funded in relation to her opposition.

On the other hand, Biden and Obama both have been a part of the political machine in Washington, that protects their own; rather than working on behalf of the American people.

Do I think that Sarah Palin walks on water?  No.  Of course not.  It's too early to tell much about her, although I've read a reasonable amount about her over this past year or so.  I do like the idea of someone that comes from an energy state, and knows energy and environmental issues.  These are things that Biden and Obama only know how to talk about from the party line; not from real experience.

I'm hoping that Palin turns out to be genuine.  What I've seen during the convention is consistent with what I've read about her for several months.  I think that McCain did a good job in picking her.  It was quite a surprise; especially for the media, who are definitely working on behalf of the Obama campaign to neutralize her affect to the McCain campaign.

I noticed that before Guiliani spoke at the convention, a CNN reporter asked him about negative statements he'd made about McCain during the primary race.  I have noticed that Biden, nor any of the other speakers during the DNC were ever asked the same thing.  And the fact is that Biden made some very harsh remarks about Obama during the primary race.

This is nothing really new.  I remember that when Bush (sr) was running against Bill Clinton, Dan Rather ran a story on "economy in jeopardy" at the end of every broadcast.  As soon as the election was over, he never ran it again.  You can't tell me this wasn't an attempt to influence the election results.

The news media are working hard to affect the election.  I've seen so many cases of this.  It is certainly different from how these same people covered the DNC.

Politics: So Tired of the B.S.

I'm tired of the bs. The rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum, has gotten so thick that I need boots to wade through it. And I'm learning towards getting some taller boots with a boat attached.

This week, the democrats had their national convention, to officially declare their candidate for President of the United States. The Republicans will do the same for their candidate next week. The reality is that both parties could do us all a favor and condense this all down to one day.
They wont do this though. This is their time to give some of the privileged few their chance to voice their feelings and/or to vent and/or to make themselves heard and seen in hopes of getting enough attention for future political ambitions. No serious discussion of the issues is done here. It's all cheerleading. It's all rhetoric. It's all lies, distortions, half-truths.

This week, Hillary Clinton spoke about her pet issues. She mentioned jobs being sent overseas, making it sound like it was Bush's fault. After all, everything is Bush's fault. The crowd lapped up her every word. The truth is, she was lying. It was her husband that signed into law the tax credits for companies like IBM to off-shore jobs. It wasn't George W. Bush. It was Bill Clinton.

Joe Biden, the running mate for Barak Obama, chose his own rants against McCain as well as the Bush Administration. It's not like some of the rants aren't deserved, but what Biden was doing was putting it on extra thick, with no serious imparting of the facts. It was all rhetoric again.
Biden had suggested that McCain was wrong because he was for keeping troops in Iraq, and now the Bush Administration as well as the Iraqi government as discussing a time table for troop redeployment. Biden suggests that he was right and that Obama was right, and that McCain was wrong. On the surface, that seems like a good argument. But wait a minute. According to this argument, Bush was right as well. However, lets go further into the issue. The whole reason there is any discussion by the Bush Administration or by the Iraqi government about troop redeployment, is because of the troop surge. McCain was for it. Biden was against it. Obama was against it. So in that line of thinking, Obama was wrong. Biden was wrong. Bush was right. McCain was right.
It all depends on how you look at it.

The bottom line is that we all wish that we hadn't gotten into the war to begin with. Everyone agrees with that. However, unlike Obama, Biden voted for the war. So how much credibility does he have in bringing up the issue?

And then there's Bill Clinton. Slick Willie was at his best again, doling out the soundbites. Anyone on the left lapped them up unquestioning. Everyone else were hoping for an enema.

Clinton suggests that just as it is suggested that Obama was too young and inexperienced to be president, that they had said the same thing about him; how much of an argument is that really? For one thing, Clinton had been a two-term governor. Obama hasn't. And, to tell the truth, Clinton did nothing to curb al Qaeda, and the result was no response regarding repeated attacks on Americans, including an attack on a US battle cruiser, the Cole.

Clinton points to his own foreign policy in dealing with tyrants, and the fact that he made peace agreements with countries like North Korea. However, he fails to point out that after the agreement, North Korea violated the deal in secret and were developing nuclear capability. So how affective was his policy? He calls the Bush policy a failed policy, but his certainly was no better.

And while we're talking about foreign policy, it was during the Clinton Administration that over 750,000 innocent civilians were murdered in Rwanda while the Clinton Administration sat by waiting for the UN to do something. The UN did nothing. In fact, the UN did have a few soldiers in Rwanda, but when the massacres went on, the UN (Belgian soldiers) ran away. The civilians were slaughtered. Do we really consider this to be a successful policy?

And Clinton points to the deficit. Yes, this is something I agree on. Bush spent worse than any Democrat (to date) had. However, if Obama gets all the things he says he wants, the spending will be even worse. So how could Clinton even suggest that this policy would be any different?
Clinton went on to talk about the tax cuts for the rich. What he was mostly talking about is the capital gains taxes. What he fails to mention is that the reduction in capital gains taxes is what boosted investment and helped the economy after it was slumping during the end of the Clinton years and into the Bush years. That slump was due to the failed dotcom era and little investor confidence in the tech sector. The cuts in capital gains provided additional revenue into our economy, as well as additional jobs that had been on the decline.

Hint.  This economy grows because of investment.  Investment brings capital into the economy.  Without it, there is recession.  The economy grows with capital, not with taxes.

Clinton went on to talk about the economy, which I agree could be better if not for Bush's spending out of control, but again, the democrats want to spend more. They want to take away the incentive to invest. They want to take away the incentive to create real jobs (not government jobs). And in addition, during the Bush years, the growth rate has still been a higher percentage above the overall economic output of the nation, in comparison to that of the Clinton years. So as bad as the Bush economic policy has been, Clinton's was worse and he knows it.

Clinton mentioned education as well as did Biden. Ted Kennedy mentioned it briefly as well. The thing is, none of them pointed out that Bush spent more on education than any president previously (including Clinton). In addition, Bush not only gave Sen. Kennedy the education bill that he wanted, but even gave him additional funding for it. And to hear them talk, it's not enough. If true, then they're failures too and certainly a part of the problem.

Several of the speakers mentioned the torturing of prisoners, eluding to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. These are men that would kill Americans if given the chance. Some have already killed Americans. These politicians seem very concerned about the rights of these men, but show no concern for the rights and well-being of unborn babies in this country. They're not even on the radar because it's not politically correct.And to be truthful, was McCain not one of the Senators opposed to torture? So how serious is this discussion really?

The purpose of these speeches, for the most part, was to fire up the audience and to get them excited about being at the convention. However, the real purpose of the convention was to tally the delegate votes to determine who the candidate would be, and we knew before the convention who that would be. Did we not?

AT&T gave millions of dollars to the democrats (to the republicans too). In return, (including a vote by Barak Obama who at first was opposed), they voted to keep telecom companies from being sued if they had co-operated with government investigations regarding wire taps. Is this the kind of change this candidate speaks of? It seems that he has become what he has been preaching against. He has catered to the privileged few who have the money to buy from government what they want.

The truth is that neither party leaders really understand the average person on the street and what we want in a government. They are both selling us out as far as our economic and territorial sovereignty. Neither show any concern for the average working man in this country. They just talk about it.

When Obama was running for the Senate, he got organized labor's support because he said that he'd renegociate NAFTA. After he got into office, the subject has never been mentioned again. Is this the sign of a man that represents change? If its a change in what he'll do versus what he'll promise in order to get a vote, then yes, it's change. Is it good for the country? No.
The truth is that in every election, these guys just want to get elected. They talk about a few key issues that they feel people are interested in. These include the military (if we're at war), education, the economy, civil rights, the environment, etc. And to tell the truth, the environment is only an issue on election years. The rest of the time, it's business as usual. If you don't believe me, start watching your typical liberal and what cars they drive, how they drive, and what they're really concerned about as far as air pollution, global climate change, natural resources, etc. You'll see that it's just an issue to "talk" about but in reality, only a few people really care enough to live what they say.

There are probably people in both parties that actually care about one or more of these subjects, but they typically have a different approach to solving these problems, or they have a different priorities on which problems should be solved first (and how much money should be spent). For the most part, this is little difference between the leaders of both parties, as these are politicians first, party second and American's third. (I could say elite American third, and American citizen fourth). That's their priorities.

The Republicans will have their convention next week. I have no reason to believe that the rhetoric will be any different. I have lost hope that it will.

Where are the statesmen (and women)?

Soundbites Rule / Solutions Fall On Deaf Ears

Soundbites rule nowadays. Politicians only care about getting elected or re-elected. No real solutions are pursued.

Goals without plans are just wishes.

Obama used a soundbite from T.Boone Pickens recently, in discussion the energy problem and oil. He quoted Pickens as saying "Drilling isn't the answer" and then proceeded to demonize anyone that suggests that we should have more domestic drilling. This is the perfect example of the soundbite, because the audience nodded their heads in agreement, even though the fact is that he intentionally misquoted Pickens.

What Pickens actually said is "Drilling alone, isn't the answer". In an interview after the Obama speech, Pickens made a point to re-iterate his original statements, and to clarify that he feels that every reasonable avenue of energy exploration should be pursued, but that any one solution is not a solution at all. That's what he said, but that's not a soundbite. Soundbites get easy votes. Explanations fall on deaf ears.

Soundbites make people smile. The win elections. They don't solve problems.

Wouldn't it be nice to get a politician that didn't care about being re-elected? Of course, these aren't politicians. They're called statesmen. It's really hard for a statesman to be elected, because people want soundbites. They want some simple little blurb that makes them feel better, and that makes them feel smarter and/or more virtuous than people they disagree with. Feelings don't provide solutions. They never have. They never will.

Ungrateful (So-Called Adult) Children

I thought my wife and I were alone, but we're not. The more we compare notes and read what other parents' experiences are, we realize that we're not the only ones with an ungrateful adult child. Isn't that an oxymoron? Adult child? Of course it is, but it is an accurate description, nonetheless.

Today we were given yet another account of a young woman who's parents are in an almost constant state of woe for the past couple of years. It seems to get worse for them, not better.

First, this young woman is living with this guy that wont work, and has told her from the very beginning that he will "never" marry her. He says that he "doesn't believe in it". Evidently, he doesn't believe in supporting his family either, because he'll barely keep a job.
Recently, he had minor surgery while by all accounts, he should be back to work within a week. Instead, he is riding this gravy train for all it's worth and is staying off work for three weeks. And this is three weeks that he will not be bringing in a paycheck for this young woman, and their infant child. He doesn't care. If he can't pay the rent or feed the family, the grand parents will have to chip in like they've been chipping in for the last couple of years.
Last month, their phone bill was over $200 and was in arears, so the phone service was cut off. To get it back on, the grand parents paid, and this month, there's another $200 bill.

In addition, this young couple has had transportation issues, and so the parents lent them a car, and even filled the tank with gasoline for them (you do know what gasoline prices are right now?).
Well when told this over the phone, this young woman said to her mom, "On your way over here, could you stop and get us a large pizza with everything on it?"

When is enough enough?
These people are not wealthy people. They are strapped for cash but are helping their daughter, who has an infant child and is living with this deadbeat that wont support them. They're providing them a car and even filled the gas tank and was bringing the car over to them; and yet it wasn't enough. I couldn't believe she had the gall to ask for a large pizza to be brought over.

When you're poor and living on a budget, you buy groceries and cook and eat at home as much as possible. This is crazy.

Well, upon getting home, I began to reflect on these ungrateful kids. I did a google search, just out of curiousity, and I was amazed at the number of parents that are having to put up with ungrateful adult kids. There's even a whole discussion group for it (at http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/849237-one-out-of-the-bunch).

I'm not going to say that we feel lucky after hearing about what these other people are going through. It tends to make me angry that we're having to put up with (in our own home) the abuse that we do from our own grown child. However, being a parent, you have to ignore the anger adn the disgust, and figure out a way to be a parent; not to coddle, but to motivate. We have made our son's life too comfortable and he is abusing us. We're cutting that off, and I urge every parent of an ungrateful adult child to do the same.

Next Generation: Why So Spoiled?

I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with the next generation? Is this a right of passage when you hit the age of 50? It seems that my parents must've had this same question. What is wrong with our kids?
The reason I'm having this question, is that my wife and I work very hard and sacrifice in order to have what we have. We believe we have provided a good example for our son, but it wouldn't appear so by his behavior. He seems lazy with no interest in working to better himself or to provide for a family in the future. He has none of the values and virtues that my wife and I have tried to provide by example. What have we done wrong?
Our son has told us, more than once, that he does not intend to work as hard as we do. I could buy this if he were born and raised as a rich kid. He was not. So how does he think he's going to get by in the world, if not by his own labor? Does he think the grand universe out there is just going to bring him frankincense and myrrh?
And it's not just our son. We have seen many kids his age saying the same things about their parents. They are not interested in working and sacrificing the way that their parents did. They like the comforts and privilege that those labors provide, but they don't seem to be motivated to actually do the work, and they have no concept of sacrifice. How did so many parents go wrong? How did we go wrong?
I look at how our country got where it is today. Despite a low approval around the world, there are still more people trying very hard to move here from other places in the world, so we must be doing something right here. We must still be a good place to live. So how did this country get this way? It seems to me that the answer is the hard work and sacrifice of those that went before us.
I know that our forefathers weren't perfect, and that not all were truly virtuous, but still, the general concept of being an American, working hard and providing a better life for yourself and your family, is still the American Dream. It is still an admirable goal, and the goal is still within reach of those willing to put out the effort and sacrifice, even for those of the lower incomes of our society. If you want it bad enough, you can have it.
My wife and I do work hard. We haven't treated ourselves to a vacation or anything like that in several years. It's time overdue, but we've been working towards the goal of getting our dream home built. If we were rich, we'd just hire it done and pay for it all. If we were the type to want immediate gratification and unwilling to work hard and sacrifice and be patient, we'd just get a loan for house we couldn't afford (like many people, and figure we'd get bailed out when our day of reconning came). We didn't do that. We chose to build as much as possible on our own, and pay as we go. We're not rich and so our house is not quite even halfway built. It's probably a 3-year project. When it's done, my wife and I will take a vacation.
We are focused.
Our son isn't interested in working. He wants the vacations. He wants the comforts. He wants the luxuries, but isn't willing to put out the effort for even a small portion of his standard of living. You'd honestly believe that he must've been the son of a multi-millionaire, because he seems to have no concept of work and sacrifice.
So what did we do wrong? I'm not comletely sure because I've seen other people who work hard and their kids are much worse than our's. Compared to them, our son is a real do-it-yourselfer.
As I right this, the small dog yard that we have, which is smaller than the standard yard at a home in the city, is a foot high in grass and weeds. One of the few chores we have for our son, he has repeatedly put off and not done. He seems to feel that his primary daily chore is to feed himself. He wont even get up until 1 or 2 in the afternoon, and we keep wondering how you can seriously be looking for a job when you refuse to change this schedule.
My wife and I have decided to give him the boot at the end of the month, with no choice. Maybe if life is uncomfortable enough, he'll finally get his nose to the grindstone, at least enough to pay rent and pay for groceries. The car he's driving is one that we're going to have to give him, because he never would budget and save for one, and to move away from us and get to work, he'll need some kind of transportation. So we'll sign it over to him, because we can't trust that he'll actually insure it. If left in our names, we'd be sued if he had an accident. So he's being rewarded for being lazy, but at the same time, kicking him out is a significant financial savings for us each month. I'm sorry it came to this. Why couldn't he have worked? Why couldn't he have done even one thing that would've shown an attempt at changing his ways? Why wouldn't he work to at least pay car insurance?
It's not like he's 14 years old and we're asking too much. He's 29 years old. Why is 29 too young to be expected to be an adult? How old do you have to be before growing up? I don't get it.
One thing is clear to me. If the next generation is this spoiled and unmotivated, the nation is in trouble. The pioneer spirit of our forefathers, that got us this far, isn't in the next generation. The American pop culture has been "pussified" (if that's not a word, it is now).