The Inspired, The Confused, The Angry

Senator Barack Obama continues his quest for the Democratic nomination for president with an eloquence that inspires some, confuses others, and angers and scares far too many.

I understand the ones that are inspired. Obama from the first has had the gift of connecting to his audience. You really don't know how powerful a speaker he is until you hear and see him in person. Being skeptical by nature, Obama's charisma has made him suspect in my book. I don't look at any candidate through rose colored glasses, no matter how eloquent they may talk. And the few rabid Obamaites that have put him on a pedestal are setting themselves up to be disappointed. He is human after all. But I do believe, among the candidates still in the running, he is hands down the best one for the job. At least I am willing to give him the chance to try and walk the walk that he's talking.

I understand the ones that are confused. Obama's message is inclusive to a degree that has not been heard in recent memory. The past 12 years has been the ultimate in partisan politics. I'll not lay blame on one party over the other. While it is true that Republicans controlled congress and the White house for 6 years, the Democrats have done little to change things since their winning a majority in both houses, in my opinion. Those that have grown accustomed to one-party control no doubt can't fathom how anything would get done without partisan politics. Obama's message is one of working together, across party lines, a time when the majority party has a loyal opposition party to help keep them honest. Obama's talk of inclusiveness has lead to much criticism from both sides of the aisle. Conservatives don't want to compromise their values to a liberal, and vice versa. Whenever both sides of the aisle do not like or do not agree with what someone is saying, it should give pause for reflection on the likelihood that the opinion in question may be the correct course of action.

Lastly, the ones that are full of anger and fear. Running the gamut from racism to contempt of anything less than a conservative political philosophy. Might as well throw hatred into the mix along with anger and fear, for all three emotions are connected and feed off each other. What Obama has done with his speech about race is to try and open the door to a dialogue about race relations in this nation. A dialogue that has been needed for a long time. But as long as fear, hatred and anger rule the hearts of some, all of the hope Obama represents will not bear fruit. That some fan the flames of hatred is obvious to me. To get power, to keep power, for money, whatever the rationalization. That certain members of society, the media, and political leaders benefit (or think they benefit) from fanning these flames is despicable. In these times of the monied and powerful (same thing) elite in this country, that is not to be condoned but expected. But for those that fall outside of the monied elite and powerful that harbor so much hatred and fear, it is an example of the degree of ignorance that some folks are infected with.

Obama is but the catalyst. It is up to us to spread the word, reframe the discussion, peacefully engage people in discussion, be willing and able to maintain our composure when we are inevitably confronted with naked prejudice and hatred. From all races, from all sides. This is the hope that Obama represents to me. Not pie-in-the-sky daydreams, but the beginnings of making the right steps towards bettering race relations in this country. To my mind, Senator Obama has shown much courage in speaking out the way he has. Regrettably, race relations are in such a state that he has left himself wide open to political and physical danger. Sometimes ya gotta go with the best that you've got. Obama's courage has shown me that he is the best that we've got. To hell with my skepticism. Now it is up to me to give support. Not just with donations, but by engaging in the type of dialogue he is advocating. By doing such, I am supporting much more than a politician running for the presidency. I am supporting the possibility that things just may be going to get better. With eyes wide open, it is the least I can do.

Presidential Experience?

The debate about which Democratic Presidential candidate has the experience to be president rages on. Clinton insists that eight years of being First lady adds to her resume of qualifications and presidential experience. The fact of the matter is, as far as national political experience gained by being elected to a position in either house of congress, Clinton has two years experience on Obama in the Senate. That's it. As far as total elected office experience, Obama was in the Illinois State legislature from 1997 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Of all things to make a campaign issue, this is one of the most ridiculous. The argument as to most experience for either candidate is basically the same. Neither of them has been president before, combine all of the years of experience in elected office of both of them in Washington and it comes to about 10 years. Being a community organizer and member of the Illinois legislature for 8 years does not make Obama experienced, and being First Lady of Arkansas and The United States doesn't either. Period.

The Internet Can Be A Spooky Place

This post is not about any current event. It is about a strange occurrence happening right here, right on this blog, right at the top of the page above the title.

Take a look. Notice the 'Ads By Google' box? Funny, I never put it there. I used to have google ads on this blog, but I inserted that code myself. This 'other' google ad box just appeared one day. I removed the google ad code I had inserted, just to see if somehow the two were connected. No dice. The box at the top remains. Where did this nefarious Google Ad Box From Hell come from?

Why is it nefarious? Read on:

• It is obvious to anyone that's read my blog very much that I am mostly politically liberal.
• It is also obvious to anyone that has read my blog that I am pro labor union.
• To those who do not know about Google Adsense, the entire premise is to get website and blog owners to install the code on their sites to help promote the advertisers that pay for google advertising. When someone clicks on the ad and visits the promoted site, a small sum is paid to the owner of the blog or site that hosted the Google Ad. Google has set this up so that most ads that show up on your site will be relevant to the content of your site.

Now that I've explained (or confused you), my question is: Why do the ads that appear in this Google Ad Box From Hell advertise Mike Huckabee's website, and an anti-labor union website? Not always. Sometimes there is an ad for Genuine Maytag Parts, which could be because of a few posts concerning the shutting down of the Maytag plant in Newton Iowa. But most of the time adds appear that are promoting things I am not in favor of. In fact, they are 180 degrees from what I agree with.

Relevancy as concerning the internet can be very broad. But I fail to understand how a an anti-union website is relevant to my blog, or how Mike Huckabee's website is relevant. And why is this Google Ad box even on this blog, when I never put it where it's at, or installed the code? I have no idea where the code is. I'm not very good at the code stuff, so it could be right in front of me and I don't know it. But I've looked.

So I can't remove the Google Ad Box From Hell. I've attempted to find out some info on Google's help page. No luck. Logged in to my Google Adsense account. More options for questions and help that boggle the mind, but I could not find out any information about which websites I've got Adsense on, just a total I've earned so far (65 cents). Looked and looked for someone to contact about my question. Forget it. The only option is the Google Adsense Forum. Uh, no thanks. I've already spent enough time on this.

Perhaps it's just me, but Google seems to not be very 'user friendly' about this specific problem. As this blog costs me nothing, I probably should not complain. I've thought about just closing down this blog altogether, or moving to another blog provider. But I nixed that whole idea. Ego aside, there's no great shakes about just leaving the damn blog up and running, no matter the ads at the top of it. But The Google Ad Box From Hell is still quite annoying. If anyone out there in the vast expanse of cyberspace has a clue about all this, let me know. I'd appreciate it.

Random Thoughts On The Iowa Caucuses

After spending the previous evening watching the beginning of Campaign '08, I'm going to be a real wet blanket and ask "What the hell's the big whoopin' deal?"

First, the Iowa Caucus system itself. Perhaps we need a politician to be resurrected from the 19th century to explain it, because that's the kind of system it appears to be. Just a few tidbits about this caucus-come-fiasco:

* How in hell does an Iowan become a caucus participant? Register? Beg? Steal? Visit The Great Ear Of Corn in the Holy of Holies Corn Field to be anointed? All I've heard is that to become a caucus participant (caucuser?) ain't easy. 'Natch.

* People have to travel to the their caucus location.

* There are actually two caucuses (is the plural for caucus like the plural for cactus? Cacti, Cauci?) one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Each one is run differently than the other, just for the fun of it.

* A candidate needs 15% of the total votes for their votes to 'count'.

* If the candidate does not get 15%, they can 'give' their votes to someone else. Wait a minute, if that's the case, their votes do count. Just not for them. Sorry for the confusion.

* There are people standing in the corner of the room, trying to 'lure' people to their choice of candidate. What do they use for bait? Booze? Drugs? Money? A night on the town? A lollipop?

* Delegates that are elected (I think (?) there are delegates elected) are not obligated or bound to their candidate.

* There are Super Delegates. What makes them Super? Damned if I know.

* The population of the state of Iowa is right around 3 million people, with about 2.1 million registered to vote. There was an incredible amount of hooplah about how many caucus participants there were. About 210,000, last I heard. So all of the fireworks from politicians and the media because 10% of the citizens of Iowa participated? In a system that is not easy to participate in. In an antiquated system that gets a lot of publicity for being the 'first' caucus or primary, but in reality is mostly a revenue producer for the state of Iowa.

Iowa, like most of the rest of the states in this country is in pretty bad economic shape. If politicians want to go there and blow millions on a campaign, I'll not begrudge Iowa reaping a little monetary gain. But give me a break. You'd think the results were astounding, revelatory, incredible, or whatever other inane superlative the media mouth-jockeys said last night.

To be sure, the results are interesting, and I'm still thinking about all of them. But an earth-shaking thunder clap calling for change? Hardly. More like a fart from a tired old mouse in the corner. Nothing personal, my friends in Iowa, but I think your caucus system needs overhauled.

Random Thoughts On Presidential Candidate Debates

There's nearly a year left until the actual presidential election in 2008. How many debates have there already been, Republican and Democrat? Damned if I know, I've lost count.

This is such a long, drawn out process. I can't see how there is anyone not tired of it by now, outside of hopeless political junkies or paid pundit/analysts. Perhaps that's the real reason behind all the debates and long campaign season. There's a lot of folks making a ton of money off of it. Books, articles, television shows (and they are for the most part just that, shows with little substance. The Simpson's has more meat on its bones.) And that is to be expected in an age where the most successful political campaign all too often is the one that rakes in the most contribution dollars.

But of what real value are they? Do the debates afford the voter an opportunity to discover the positions of the candidates, or is it like a three ring circus, more entertainment value than anything else? I've already seen more waffling than at a Jaycee's Breakfast, more crawdadding than at a Cajun Crawfish festival, more mud-slinging than at a Mud Wrestling Championship. So what does it all prove? Who can change their mind, cover their ass, and point the finger at the other candidate the best?

Here is what the debates sound like to me. Pick a party, pick an issue. Doesn't matter. One candidate speaks, another answers:

Yes you did, no I didn't. Yes you are, no I'm not. I actually did before I didn't, no you didn't before you did. I'm strong on defense, no you're not. I'll protect America from terrorists, the terrorists contribute to your campaign fund. I'm against gay marriage, you've got a 'wide' stance. I'm against illegal immigration, your gardener's name is Julio, all ten of his kids are on welfare, his wife is pregnant and he doesn't speak English.

On and on, ad nauseum. If they were my kids, I'd make them stand in the corner for such behavior. I' m seriously wondering that if anyone that wants to be president so bad that they would stoop to such money-sucking, lying and backstabbing tactics is really fit for the job.

Am I confused, disgruntled, and weary of it all? I admit to all three maladies, but it's my own fault. I was under the impression debates were an opportunity for a candidate to express their positions on the issues. I was looking forward to some substance instead of show-boating. But show-boating is what I got, along with the ubiquitous political analyst Pat Buchanan. I confess, I expected more. I should know better by now.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. No I'm not, yes you are...

A Letter To The Editor, And My Reply

The letter published in our local newspaper:

Editor:
Cal Thomas, in the Sauk Vally Sunday paper on Sept. 16^th quotes bin Laden thus : “Conversion to Islam, he says, would mean no taxes, just a low single-digit ‘alms’ requirement.”

This is only a small part of what life under Muslim rule would mean. Under Islamic Sharia law, non-Muslims must pay a (ransom) tax to avoid being killed (K9:29). Under Sharia law, there is no personal freedom, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of religion, no individual rights, no right to property, no capitalism, no equality under the law.

Non-Muslims are second-class citizens (dhimmis) under Sharia law. Women are third-class citizens, slaves of their husbands and male relatives. Anyone who criticizes Islam or ‘offends’ Muslims is marked for death (K9:73-74). A Muslim who renounces Islam faces the death penalty (K4:89).

Philosophy is prohibited. Causality is denied.

Sharia law was developed a thousand years ago and ‘cannot’ be changed. I t is based on the supposed word of ‘Allah’ (K5:49) as revealed to the ‘prophet’ (war lord) Mohammed, interpreted by clergyman. As Cal Thomas put it, Islamic rule guarantees that we will live in “dirt and serfdom.” That is, if the don’t kill us as directed in the Koran (K2:193, 8:40).

If you don’t believe this, take a look in the authoritative Muslim-approved guide to Sharia law ‘Reliance of the Traveller’, by Al-Misri, who died in 1368 (Amazon .com, about $20). It is the classic manual of Islamic ‘sacred’ law.

According to ‘Reliance’, non-believers other than Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are to be killed (ROTT 09.9, 11.2)

Christians and Jews who pay the ransom taxes must live by Islamic law 9ROTT 0 11.3a) and by special laws for dhimmis. For instance, no churches may be built (ROTT 0 11.5, 7) or repaired. Nothing ‘impermissible’ may be said about ‘Allah’, the ‘prophet’, Mohammed, or Islam. The penalty for breaking Islamic law is death or slavery, at the pleasure of the Caliph (ROTT 0 11.9).

Muslim rule would not be a no-tax paradise, as bin Laden claims. It would be a brutal tyranny, in which the theocratic ‘government’ claimed the ‘divine’ right to kill or enslave you at its whim.

If you value your life and freedom, you should recognize that Islam is the enemy.

Paul Stout

My reply:

Editor:
This is in response to the letter ‘Islamic rule is a threat to freedom’ by Paul Stout

The last sentence in Mr. Stout’s letter says, “If you value your life and freedom, you should recognize that Islam is the enemy.” He then offers up quotations out of the Koran as proof.

Lifting out specific verses from any holy scripture, whether it is Christian, Muslim, Judaic, is in a great sense taking the verse out of context. A Muslim could open the Bible or the Torah and do the same towards Christians and Jews. There is much in the Bible that is violent. There is much in the Koran, and the Torah that is violent. Does that make every person that is an adherent to the faith of each scripture violent? Or are these violent stories more an example of the spiritual history of a faith?

To be sure, there are people of the Islamic faith that mean to do people of other faiths harm. Why that is so is as much cultural and political as religious. Judaism and Christianity have these types of people in their religions also. So is it reasonable to believe that all the millions of Muslims in the world intend to do us harm? That they want to overrun us, force us to convert to Islam, take away our freedoms? Does the statement ‘Islam is the enemy’ make every local Muslim an enemy too?

In a world that has so many new ways to keep people connected, we seem to be growing farther apart. We are in danger of increasing the fear of things we do not know, or things we think we know but really don’t. Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, can result in much good, and exclusivity of truth in any of the three can cause much pain and death. It is in how we perceive each other. If we do not take the time to know one another instead of using words and scriptural quotations to justify our fears, the world will remain in the situation that it is.

I cannot agree with the statement ‘Islam is the enemy’. It is the doctrine of fear and hate, no matter where it comes from, that is the enemy.

Alan Beggerow

Why Hard Work Doesn't Pay

The average worker gets a raise every year but has less money to spend. Why? Inflation and health insurance costs gobble up the raise -- and more.

By Scott Burns

I'd like to say a few words about the futility of work.

I'm serious.

Take a look around. Today, we're all 24/7, strutting with BlackBerrys and Bluetooths, miles from the long-lost desk and office, not to mention home. At the risk of being rude, I'm wondering if all this frenzied effort pays off.

We know it does for some.

If it didn't, Starbucks and Whole Foods would not exist. There wouldn't be enough people who can afford $3 for a cup of coffee or $2.69 a pound for free-range organic chicken.

But the operative word here is "some." It's time for Joseph Vineyard, the trendy guy who eats free-range chicken, to meet Joe Six-Pack.

If you look at the averages, the statistics give a simple message: Hard work does not equate to economic progress. It hasn't for decades. We may need hard work to keep body and soul together -- not to mention pay the Visa bill -- but average-worker paychecks clearly show that inflation continues to trump wage gains for most American workers.

Losing ground to retirees

This is not a recent problem. Twenty years ago I wrote a column titled "The coming war between generations." It showed that the average worker had lost ground to inflation from 1970 to 1987. The same worker was also losing ground to retirees because the average retiree Social Security benefit was also rising faster than workers' wages.

Since workers pay the bills for Social Security recipients, that's not a healthy situation.

The situation got worse over the next nine years. Workers' wages grew slower than inflation in all but one of the nine years from 1988 through 1996, sometimes by a lot. In 1990, for instance, workers' wages rose 3.3%, but the rate of inflation was 5.4%.

And, again, the average retiree's Social Security check grew faster than the average worker's paycheck in seven of the same nine years. (Workers did better than retirees in two years, 1994 and 1996.)

Surely the past 10 years have been better, right?

Yes, but only slightly. The percentage of increase in the average worker's wages has been larger than the percentage of increase in the average retiree's benefit check in all but two of the past 10 years, 2004 and 2005.

When it comes to the battle against inflation, the score isn't quite so good. Inflation has trumped wage gains in four of the last 10 years -- 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Unfortunately, that isn't the end of the story.

Health-care crunch

Both workers and retirees have the cost of health insurance deducted from their paychecks. Medicare premiums are subtracted from the paychecks of retirees. Medicare part B premiums rose more than 100% from 1997 to 2006, soaring from $43.80 a month to $88.50. (Today, they range from $93.50 to $162.10, depending on household income.)

Workers had a similar experience with private insurance. In 1997 the average worker earned $431.86 a week. By June 2007 the average worker's paycheck was $589.52 a week, an increase of 36.5%. Over the same period inflation took 33.7% of all wage gains.

That leaves a real gain of about 1.8%, or $10.61 a week. How much do you want to bet that all of that gain, and then some, has gone to higher health-insurance premiums and higher co-pays? I'm confident that the after-health-insurance income of workers and retirees has declined over the last 10 years. Indeed, it probably hasn't improved in a generation.

That's a long time to push a rock up a hill, only to have it roll back down.

That's why Joseph Vineyard needs to start thinking about Joe Six-Pack. So far, Joe has coped quite well. If old enough, he has retired and enjoyed a tax-free check that rises faster than his old paycheck most of the time. That's a lot better than working, and it tells us a lot about why people retire at 62.

If younger, he has refinanced his house to provide the spending power he couldn't find in his paycheck, no matter how hard he worked.

But the easy borrowed money just ended for everyone.

What does it all mean?

Simple. We face two fundamental issues: health-care costs and average paychecks. Until one goes down and the other goes up, we've got a problem.