A Dream

What is the American Dream?

I know we toss the term around quite a bit, as if we all know what each other is talking about, but what is it?  Can you verbalize what it really means?

I used to think it had something to do with home-ownership, a somewhat common, albeit narrow, view of our common Dream.  Various researchers over the years have surveyed Americans in an attempt to provide a common definition of the American Dream, and have come up with various concepts, ranging from dreams of abundance to the dream of home-ownership (that I once shared).  Incidentally, this latter dream is come by honestly; in 1774, the Royal Governor of Virginia, Britain's representative in the colony at the time, wrote somewhat sarcastically that Americans were uniquely infatuated with the idea of land-ownership, and even went so far as to say that even if an American had attained Paradise, he would move on if he heard of a better place farther West.

But I've come to realize that land ownership is merely one manifestation of the achievement of our Dream.  It's not the Dream itself; it's a representation of, in one small way, having achieved the Dream.  The Dream is really something more fundamental than merely a quest to own land (a noble quest, incidentally, and rooted in our Constitution; in nations where there exists a more rigid and structured social order, it's often nearly impossible--and sometimes even illegal--for "average" citizens to own land; land ownership is reserved for nobility).

The other day, on my way into the office, I stopped at the gas station, and as I waited at the counter to pay for my fuel, I overheard the owner, a kind middle-aged man with a vague accent, talking with his daughter about her college experience.  I asked her where she went to school (Berkeley--she just graduated) and what she studied (Economics) and if she was done (no; she's going back to Berkeley for an MBA).  I was impressed--and told her as much, to the obvious delight of her proud father.

Her father made a comment about his college experience, so I asked him where he'd studied; Berkeley as well.  Somehow, my quick fuel stop turned into a 15 minute chat, and I learned much about this man who, until that morning, was merely the guy who ran my favorite gas station.

He'd emigrated, with his family, to the U.S. as a teenager, and worked hard (at the perpetual urging of his parents) to go to college.  He landed at Berkeley, graduated, married, and some years later owned (among other things, I suspect) a gas station, convenience store, and a small chain-restaurant franchise--and had an obviously intelligent daughter also studying business at Berkeley.

But somewhere in the middle of the conversation, my new friend showed me exactly what the American Dream means to someone born and raised in a place where such a Dream is not allowed.

"So many people I meet," he told me, "are just looking for the government to help them with this or with that--to give them a job or food or money.  That's not why I came to America.  I came here because I wanted a chance to make something of myself and my family."

I realized that most people who immigrated to our great country did not come with the goal of tapping into our great unemployment programs, or our medicare system, or our social security plans.  In fact, my friend, the gas station owner, was very clear: he'd be insulted if you tried to offer to "help" him through one of these government programs.

For him, the American Dream was about him, and what he could achieve.  It was merely him finding a place where, by definition, he started on equal ground with everyone else; he asked for nothing more than that, and wouldn't accept anything more than that if offered.

It's, perhaps, a subtle distinction, but I don't think our friend, the gas station owner, wants a nation that "compensates" for the things he wasn't born with, or the opportunities he "missed' because he wasn't born into the right family.  In fact, for him, it's a matter of personal pride that he has achieved what he has achieved without any programs to compensate for his relative disadvantage.  All he asked for--and what we gave him--was the same opportunity as anyone else.

I almost cried--literally--as, near the end of our conversation he, with a fierce look on his face, told me, "You know what?  This country is the greatest place on Earth.  This is the land of opportunity; it gave me the opportunity to do everything I've ever dreamed of, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.  I love America."

It's been a long time since I've heard anyone so passionately in love with our country.  And you know, as I listened to him talk about his fierce loyalty to America, it occurred to me that I've met numerous people who interpreted the American Dream as meaning they "deserved" certain things--like a certain level of income, or guaranteed income at retirement, or paid-for healthcare, or income regardless whether they were working.  And none of those who I've known who've seen these things, these programs, as central to the American Dream--none of them have ever told me how much they love America; I've never heard a single one of them tell me passionately how great our country is.

There's a frightening trend in Washington today, and it's not just a Republican or just a Democrat thing.  Virtually every politician running for office somehow weaves into their platform a theme that outlines what they are going to do for us.  It's as if, in order for a politician to get elected, they have to demonstrate that they can give us more, get more for us, expand programs to include more people.

And as a supporting theme, our would-be representatives tell us how they are going to eliminate the unfairness that's keeping us from receiving those things that they want to do for us.  They're going to rectify the fact that wealthy people don't "pay their fair share" in taxes.  Or, as President Obama proposed recently, they are going to pass laws allowing job applicants who aren't hired to sue their would-be employers for discrimination if they believe they weren't hired because they've been unemployed for an extended period.

But there's something wrong with this--and it's not simply whether you believe the wealthy should be taxed more or less, or whether job-seekers should be allowed to sue for discrimination if they aren't hired.  It's our increasing tendency, as Americans (or at least, as a group of politicians who purport to represent Americans) to point to others as the reason we, individually or collectively, haven't achieved prosperity.  It's our collective tendency to depend on our representatives in Washington to "do more" for us to enable us to achieve prosperity.

But that's not our Dream.  Our dream is more noble than that; it's about opportunity unencumbered by the weight of social ceilings or by legal barriers constructed for the purpose of excluding some to the benefit of others.

It is, as historian James Truslow Adams wrote:

"a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class."

Why do we, as a nation, insist of cultivating a dependent citizenry?  A nation as great as ours should have, by now, weaned ourselves of our dependency on our government for our income, food, healthcare, transportation and retirement.  Yet it seems as though we've done the opposite; it's as though our representatives in Washington count it a mark of distinction that we have increasingly created a dependent class through our ever-expanding suite of social welfare programs.  A nation as great as ours should birth noble people, driven to achieve personal success despite all obstacles, and as a gift from no one.  Our increasing reliance on our government to provide for us is not a mark of distinction.  It is not great--and gives no one cause to fall in love with our country.

There is little noble in receiving a grant to prosperity; and prosperity granted yields no satisfaction for the recipient.  My Dream, the true American Dream, I think, is of an America that offers me nothing but an opportunity.  I ask for no guarantees and no backup plans.  I simply ask for a right to pursue prosperity, and for the right to call that prosperity mine--and only mine--if I achieve it.

What is your Dream?

Obama's Speech to Your Kids

President Obama has planned a special speech, directed specifically toward students, to be broadcast via the Internet to schools around the country.

As a prestigious blogger, I've been allowed an early preview of the speech, and I have to say, Obama is doing a wonderful job of reaching out to America's students. I saw the California version, which begins:

"Buenos dias, estudientes. Para Ingles, marque numero uno; para Espanol, marque dos."

(the sound of the "1" button).

"Good morning students. Yesterday, as you know, was Labor Day, a special holiday that we Americans celebrate in honor of the various labor unions that have made the American workplace a safe and happy place for some of your parents. The labor unions, as you know, are foundational to America's prosperity for without them, ALL of your parents would be forced to work consistently without any hope of long-term unemployment benefits. Instead, Americans all over this great land have the ability to stay home a good part of the year and live comfortably, thanks to the wonderful benefits that the labor unions have been able to extract from over-wealthy business owners.

"But I wanted to take a few moments to talk to you today about the importance of the public school system. As you know, we in the Democratic Party have made public education a priority. We have invested enormous amounts of money in your education, and we are committed to giving you the best education available in this country. And we listen to you: as you know, I ran for President last year on a platform of Change, and we are working to make the public education system even better.

"First, there are over 40 million children between the ages of 1 and 4 here in America who are not in a school. I firmly believe in education for everyone. That's why I have instructed congress to pass the "Private Helps Public" act of 2009, in which every dollar that a wealthy parent pays for tuition so that their child can attend a high-priced private school, they must donate a dollar to the "Private Helps Public" fund.

"And what will those funds be used for? You noticed that, as part of my "Change You Can Believe In" campaign, I made some promises to better the public education system. True to my word, this year, when you came back to school, things had changed. Now, EVERY student gets a free breakfast at school; EVERY student has access to either reduced price--or even free--lunches. The money we receive from the "Private Helps Public" program will go to support a student free dinner fund, so that every child in America receives three meals a day. That's the kind of change you can believe in: we here in Washington are committed to ensuring we provide you with everything you need.

"This, American students, is my great dream: a nation in which your government ensures you have three meals a day at no cost to you; that you have all the health care you need at no cost to you; that you have an apartment in which to live that costs no more than 1/4 your monthly net income; that you have a fuel efficient, new car.

"This is my dream for you. There are those who don't want you to have that dream, though. Look around you: the parents of some of your fellow students, sitting right there in that room, would like to strip away all of the positive changes we've made, and keep us from doing this great work. But it need not be that way. You have a voice; you have an untapped source of power greater than any America has ever seen (you have, after all, given the guy with the flyless, elastic waisted camoflauge pants a swirly three times already this year).

"Use that power! Be a force for change! Go to my website and give us your email address; we'll forward links to free flyers you can pass out in your neighborhood. And talk to your parents; educate them. And if they refuse to listen, get them hopelessly drunk this November the night before voting.

"Remember children: you are the America of tomorrow. Our hope lies in you--and so you MUST stay in public school and continue to believe in the change that we continue to bring. And soon, we will have the country we have envisioned.

"Thank you, and may America be blessed."

OK. So, I'm not a prestigious blogger, and I certainly haven't been given access to Obama's speech in advance, but I have a somewhat active imagination, and based on all the uproar, this is what I imagine it'll be like.

Maybe not...who knows.

Thing is, a few years ago, I wouldn't have cared, but as I age (and become, I think, a better parent), I realize how raw my children are. They're literally begging for someone to shape their beliefs and values. And, regardless how noble--or ignoble--our President's intentions, if we're not careful, this speech and others like it will do much to shape those raw, searching children, many of whom have no real force in their life to provide the value structure.

And those children, a few short years from now, will project those values by way of a vote in the voting booth.

Hitler had it right when he formed the Hitler Youth: shape them while they're young, and they'll never depart.

The question you have to ask yourself: is this the message that I want to influence my child's value system?

Sounds Familiar

President Obama, in his weekly radio address on Saturday, referenced a new White House study indicating that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies. The disparity, he said, is "unsustainable--it's unacceptable."

First, I would point our esteemed President to any reasonable dictionary, and ask that he look up "economies of scale". Dictionary.com had this to say:

The increase in efficiency of production as the number of goods being produced increases. Typically, a company that achieves economies of scale lowers the average cost per unit through increased production since fixed costs are shared over an increased number of goods.

It stands to reason that a company who is providing health insurance for 5,000 employees would pay less per employee than a company insuring 30 employees; the administrative cost per employee is much less for the larger company, and there's much lower average risk per employee with the larger group than there is with the smaller group.

So, of course the big company get's a better rate.

From Obama's Saturday radio address next week:

"My fellow Americans: I found out today that Wal-Mart and Costco get tires cheaper on a per tire basis than does your local mom-and-pop tire shop. That's unsustainable--and it's unacceptable! I pledge to force Wal-Mart and Costco to pay an extra fee for each and every tire they purchase, in order to subsidize your local mom-and-pop tire shop's purchases just to make it fair."

I'm reading a story about a guy who became famous preaching a similar message to his countrymen. He rose from nothing (like Mr. Obama), and lead something of a grassroots effort (again, like Mr. Obama), crying out loudly and eloquently for "change" (like--you got it--Mr. Obama). And he ultimately won power by demonizing the industrialists in his country, the "big businesses" who had "unfair advantages" over the little guy.

His name was Adolf Hitler.

Palin: The Last Republican Standing?

USA Today reported yesterday that, according to a new nationwide USA Today/Gallup poll, Sarah Palin's approval ratings have improved since her surprise announcement last Friday that she'll step down from the Alaska Governor's office on July 26.

Her move, she said, would allow her home state of Alaska to progress further than it would with her at the helm (in the face of the overwhelming time demands associated with defending herself against a slew of ethics complaints following her much-publicized run at the Vice-Presidency, alongside Republican Presidential candidate John McCain). Leaving would also, she said, free her up to work to "help our nation achieve greatness."

I don't know what that means, and apparently, neither did anyone else in the Republican Party. Political strategist Karl Rove said that he and other party leaders were "perplexed" by Palin's move. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa said that, "It's astounding," and that a run at the Presidency in 2012 would be difficult for Palin in light of her mysterious resignation. Mike Huckabee, another potential Republican Presidential contender in 2012 said that the move was "risky". Senator Lisa Murkowski even went so far as to accuse Palin as having "abandoned the state and her constituents."

Yet, Republicans nationwide indicated that they like her more for it. Maybe it's because the voting public recognizes that it takes a lot to walk away from such an incredible post for the good of your state, knowing it might cost you a lucrative job in the future. There's a ring of honesty that can't be explained away.

Think about it: Sarah Palin walks away from a post that would be a natural feeder to a Presidential run because the drama surrounding her life is taking away from her ability to serve the state of Alaska. No matter how hard you try, there's no way that the press could possibly spin that and make it some strategic move.

And the American public appreciates that.

Because if there's one thing we American's would love more of, it's representatives who are willing to actually sacrifice their own aspirations for the good of those they purport to serve.

The sad thing is that the Republican Party still doesn't get it; to them it's just a "risky" political move. Which is why they're a party headed rapidly toward political oblivion. It just feels right when a politician stands up and says, "me being in this post has cost the state $2 million; it's not fair to you, so I'll stand down and let another fill the spot." How dare Senator Murkowski accuse Palin of "abandoning" her state? She sacrificed on behalf of her state.

And unless the Republican Party can remove their collective heads from their collective backsides, stop pursuing their own political ambitions, and start doing what's right for their constituency--despite the personal political costs, they'll be a party no more.

Mark my words.

And the last one standing will be Sarah Palin. For all her shortfalls (including her incredibly shrill voice, her lack of nationwide political experience and her relative inability to make more than three consecutive public appearances without saying something incredibly foolish), the American people trust her. And believe in her. And will vote for her.

Governor Sanford could take a lesson from her.

A Tale of Utter Ineptitude

My son came home from school and told me that there was a kid on the playground today brandishing a pocket knife, and threatening to "hurt" anyone who refused to give him their lunch.

I was, naturally, alarmed, and rushed back down to the school and requested an audience with the principal. He called me in and asked how he might help.

"Mr. Bateman," I said, "my said came home from school, and told me that another boy was on the playground today brandishing a pocket knife, threatening to hurt anyone who refused to relinquish their lunch."

"Oh my!" the principal exclaimed, jumping from his desk chair. "Which boy was it," he asked my son, as he strode across the room.

"It was Joey," my son said quietly.

The principal picked up a dry erase marker and began to write on a whiteboard hanging on his office wall.

I waited until he moved away, then read:

"The Principal and administration of Horace J. Morgan Elementary School condemn Joey's use of a knife and threats against other students."

"There you go," he said, as he put down the marker. "Don't you feel better?"

_______________

President Obama would like us to believe that convincing the principal, the UN Security Council, to issue a statement condemning the school yard bully, North Korea, for rattling its nuclear saber, is leadership. And he'd have us believe that making a statement condemning the action is sufficient to cause that bully to stand down.

The bully has never cared before; he's not likely to care this time just because his name was written on the board.

Our President has demonstrated Chamberlain-like, bury-your-head-in-the-sand diplomacy on this one. And that should worry you.

Politics Makes You Old

I was scanning the news online today, and came across this picture of Hillary Clinton yesterday in a television interview while visiting Turkey on US diplomatic business.


The picture below is of Hillary prior to announcing her bid for the US Presidency. Is it me, or does it seem like she's aged quite a bit in the last year or two?President Obama commented last week to an offhand comment about his age. He alluded to the seemingly rapid graying of his hair at the temples. He attributed it to the stress of the job and the many sleepless nights (I predicted this, in a sense, in a post some time back). I have political aspirations; I'd like to someday hold an elected office, but I'm starting to rethink that. It seems as though politics makes you old.

Economic Woes

The Federal Reserve Bank today cut it's target interest rate to near zero, a record low for this key indicator. Strategists indicate that it's likely that within the month the Fed will further lower the rates--likely all the way to zero--in order to spur lending in the various frozen credit markets, and might even start buying up long-term treasury securities (a bizarre method of pushing money into a frozen market when the interest rate can't be forced any lower; it's like saying, "we'll loan you money for free; no, wait! We'll PAY you to borrow our money").

In other related news, the stock market, today, showed signs of life again (after eons of bad news--and a net loss of about 1/3 its total value), and actually gained a few percent. Don't hold your breath though.

Home construction starts dropped even lower last quarter--to record lows--and showed no sign of stopping. Unemployment continues to rise; over 2 million jobs have been cut since the beginning of 2008, and there's no sign of a slowdown.

The government continues to pour money into the economy, hoping to inspire lenders to get back into the game (so to speak) after losing their shorts over the past few years.

The federal deficit is at an all time high.

30 year mortgage rates are back into reasonable levels--which is great for all 37 of us Americans who still have a home mortgage; does nothing for the vast numbers of folks who had hopes of buying a home or lost a home in the recent crisis.

In the city I live in, approximately 1 out of 30 homes is in foreclosure.

The State of California is within weeks of insolvency, and borrowing is out of the question; their credit rating has junk status.

And Mervyn's is going out of business.

Which begs the question: how is the government going to survive? Based on the facts above, tax revenues should be down by approximately 387% this year (those are my rough calculations, and are based solely on the quantity of bad economic news being spouted in the media).

Blogojevich has the right idea: boot all the politicians out, and sell their seats to the highest bidder. Pour that cash into the government coffers, and we could probably get rid of the budget deficit and eliminate the national debt in about 2.7 years.

And the folks who buy the seats can't be any less principled than the folks that are there now.

It's a win-win situation, if you ask me.

But nobody ever does.

A Change is Gonna Come

The political news sources (predominantly liberal) are abuzz with stories of President-elect Obama's apparent departure from the left. His cabinet picks are the latest point of ire; he's stacking his cabinet with moderate Democrats and throwbacks to the Bush administration (like Defense Secretary, Robert Gates).

And then there is his change of heart with respect to a number of crucial issues. He pledged during his campaign to increase taxes on American's making over $250,000; now he's decided that he'll merely let the current tax break expire in 2010. He pledged during his campaign to take on the oil companies, to tax their profits heavily; now he's indicated he won't implement that tax. He indicated during his campaign that he would begin, on his first day in office, to end the war in Iraq; he has now indicated that he will begin to work on a plan for a responsible withdrawal. And he's stacking his cabinet with folks who were openly supportive of the war--Democrats and Republicans alike.

It's a little interesting as a conservative libertarian; is Obama really having a change of heart? Is he tempering his extreme ideas under the realization that his actions have far reaching impact; a major change has the potential to cause our often delicate equilibrium to swing wildly out of control. Perhaps he's second guessing his commitments on the campaign trail. If that's the case, then I have to applaud him; he has more character than I'd given him credit for.

It takes some guts to step back and check yourself in the face of such vocal and vehement opposition (the left-wing bloggers are going crazy, chomping at the bit--I'm waiting to hear the calls for impeachment from his own supporters). But my biggest fear is that this pressure will cause Obama to cave (pressure from voices like John Aravosis over at Americablog.com--you'll remember him; he's the guy who was vociferously calling for a boycott of the State of Utah as well as all contributors to the Yes on 8 campaign here in California. He's a true American, as open-minded as they come, that John).

That can't happen. I don't guess that my reach is nearly as far as Mr. Aravosis' reach, but I have to do my part. Speak out, do your part to show your support for Obama's newfound caution, his new willingness to step back from the dogma we were all subject to during the campaign, and to think through the impact of his actions. His seeming determination to step cautiously, and seemingly, more moderately, than any of us could have hoped. Go to his website and voice your support for this new direction. He's got links there to a variety of methods to contact him; use them. Add a voice in the growing chorus of folks who are crying out in opposition to the bloggers like AmericaBlog and OpenLeft.

And send a link to this post to everyone in your address book. Edmund Burke said it best:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Don't be one of the folks who looks back sometime later in life knowing that you were one who did nothing. Speak out; do your part.

Feel-Good Diplomacy

The Associated Press reported this morning that the US and Russia are the only two nations that have refused to sign a 92 nation ban on the use of cluster bombs. They follow-up by pointing out that even Afghanistan has signed.

The between-the-lines story is that it's morally repugnant that the US won't sign, that even Afghanistan will sign. It's a bit of a despicible story, really. I mean, how often have you read about the US using cluster bombs? I don't know that we ever have. So what useful purpose will our signing such a treaty serve?

Frankly, I find such treaties to be a waste of time, and nothing more than "feel-good" diplomacy. If, in fact, cluster bombs are inhumane, then it stands to reason that a reasonable nation, interested only in protecting their country, will refrain from using them regardless whether they've signed this treaty.

On the other hand, a country (or terrorist group) who couldn't care less about humanitarianism is not likely likely to honor such a ban--whether they've signed or not.

So even if the US signs, has this agreement done anything to make the world a better or safer place? Probably not.

Why don't we forget about the feel-good diplomacy and focus on doing things that really matter?

InvisiPundit

I disdain politics (although, I fear I'd make a good politician).

Nonetheless, I gather that you, my faithful diners, are of a more civilized and refined ilk than I, and that you, unlike I, actually care who becomes President. So I posed a few thoughtful election related questions to a friend of mine who has a brilliant political mind; his intuitive understanding of the political landscape, and the issues (and non-issues) that make up any good political race, make for a political analysis that's second to none.

And I present for you, dear partakers of this (usually) sumptuous fare, excerpts of my interview with my friend: InvisiPundit.

MyndFood: What's the net effect of Hillary sticking in the race until the bitter end? Does it hurt or help Republicans?

InvisiPundit: It helps the Republicans (more dirt comes out on Obama) more than it hurts them (McCain’s getting virtually no media attention). I subscribe to the view that she is employing a scorched earth policy, figuring she wins even if she loses because she can damage him to the point that he loses to McCain, and she can run again in 2012.

MyndFood: Does Obama have a real chance of beating McCain? What of McCain "courting working-class democrats", as I read on the news? What does that mean? Is he going to be another "say what you need to say to get elected" guy?

InvisiPundit: Obama can still beat McCain – polls indicate this, and there are enough wacko liberals out there who will vote based on empty, but emotionally compelling messages of “hope”, “change” and “healing”. As one opinion piece put it, voting for Obama is a way for many whites to cleanse their conscience. However, in the end I think common sense, the desire for real experience and patriotism, plus some lingering racism (including some of Hillary’s supporters), will prevail and McCain will win. Unfortunately, he has been acting like a klutz lately, stumbling over his words in virtually every appearance – a far cry from Obama’s polished charisma, but also more authentic. McCain has made the mistake of latching on to the gas tax holiday, which makes him look like a panderer (while Obama has been smart by opposing it). In the end, though, a candidate’s true character manifests itself, and people will embrace McCain’s more than Obama’s. McCain has genetic limits on how much he could pander, even if he tried; Obama does not. The only way the Democrats can win is with a dual-ticket, which isn’t likely. Furthermore, I can’t even see the Clintons campaigning for Obama with any vigor (they’d want him to lose).

Woodlief Again

In my mind, you can only quote or reference the work of some other writer so many times before readers begin either to suspect you're besotted with the oft-quoted mentor, or that you haven't a solitary thought or idea that you can claim wholly as your own.

Or, perhaps it simply means the quoted writer (in this case, the venerable Tony Woodlief, who's popping up here oftener and oftener) has leaped that final hurdle upon which we, the writing masses, all set our sights. That hurdle is a huge one, but one which, when cleared, bridges the vast divide between the world that I (as a writer), along with most other writers out here in the blogosphere, occupy, and that lofty and respected realm of the truly legitimate, and much-read, writers. My world is one in which the time I spend writing a piece, I suspect, generally exceeds the sum-total time spent by all of you, my dear readers, actually reading it (particularly when it's as complex, and mind-numbing as this one). That other world--the one that I've got my sights set on, and which is, I think, now occupied by Mr. Woodlief--is one where we, the multitude of faithful readers, await each new word with bated breath and eager anticipation; and each piece is treasured, almost as a work of art, something to gaze on and ponder as a thing of beauty.

But I digress.

I don't know how I missed it, but a week or so ago Mr. Woodlief posted, over at Sand in the Gears, an utterly fantastic essay that perfectly describes today's political climate-and in doing so, exposes why so many of us can scarcely listen to, or watch, more than five minutes of political diatribe on the news without turning the dial to TBN or public broadcasting's special on "The Role of the Dulcimer in 19th Century Ozark Folk Music."

I was talking to a few teenagers the other day about the upcoming elections. One is not yet old enough to vote, but will be by the November General Election. She was excited about voting, and was asking who I intended on voting for, and what I thought of Hillary and Obama and Giuliani. She said that she thought she was a moderate, based on some survey she'd taken in a class at school (although, I can't see how; she's the most idealistic, "the-world-is-entirely-black-and-white", person I know. In my experience, people like that can't ever seem to find any middle ground). But the thing that amazed me is that she, having never before voted, having had little or no personal experience in politics, or with the repulsive wrangling of politicians, knew how she was supposed to act. She had all the facial expressions and cynical statements down pat. We talked about political stances, and particular platforms of various candidates, and she did plenty of eye-rolling, and made the appropriate sarcastic comments--all intended to convey an overwhelming distrust of, and general dissatisfaction with, politicians and their ilk.

How is it that a seventeen year-old teenager, who's had no political interaction whatsoever, intuitively understands that our political process is a joke, nothing to be proud of, something to be cynical about? That's the sad truth that Woodlief depicts so well in his post.

Go over and read it. It's thought provoking (if nothing else); and if my recent posting is all the mental nourishment you're getting of late, you need a little pick-me-up!

Faces You Can Trust

I heard on the news yesterday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a very "conservative" remark at a campaign rally.

Fresh off his primary win in New Hampshire, he must have been feeling his oats when he said, as a example of "outrageous pork barrel" spending, that:

"A few years ago we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that's a paternity issue or a criminal issue."

I thought it was just cheeky enough to qualify McCain as a legitimate Presidential contender. That is, until I read a blurb at FactCheck.org that indicates that the bill that McCain refers to was a budgetary bill--that he voted FOR!

That settles it; he's DEFINITELY qualified to be President!

Now that's sad, isn't it? That we half-joke that if you're a liar (or at least a partial-truth teller) then you're qualified to be President of the United States? But then, perhaps that's not all that inaccurate. How would you define the word "politics"? I have a colleague who says that politics is (and I paraphrase): saying the things you need to say in order to get what you want. It fits. If McCain hopes to land the Presidential nomination, then he's going to have to mix in just the right amount of "fiscal conservatism"; it helps if it's laced with a little humor.

Speaking of politics, NewsWeek.com reported earlier this week that Hillary Clinton, while at an event in a coffee shop in Portsmouth N.H., was asked by an undecided woman voter, "How do you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?" Hillary chuckled and cracked a few jokes. Then she paused, and in a breaking voice, eyes red, she began. "I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it." She went on, as tears began to well in her eyes, to say that "some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kid's future."

And with that, a new comeback kid was born. Hillary, still recovering from the severe blow dealt her in the Iowa primaries (third; behind Barack Obama and John Edwards), and facing a pre-election day poll that put her seven points behind Obama in the New Hampshire primary, was in desperate need of a boost. The pundits said it was her downfall, that a Presidential candidate was expected to be strong, resilient, able to face the stresses of the campaign trail, ever smiling, never faltering. The pundits were wrong.

Wednesday morning brought a brand-new day for Hillary, a day filled with hope and promise, as the day prior, voters had turned out in droves to support her, keeping her dream alive (at least for one more primary), and giving her the win in New Hampshire.

It gave me hope, for a moment, that voters in America are still compassionate enough to reward a Presidential candidate who isn't afraid to show some emotion, even in the face of stark criticism. In fact, my opinion of Hillary ratcheted up just a bit after hearing that she cried.

Until a day or two later, when I heard a quote by the Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. He said, on MSNBC, that he was suspicious of her tears. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina," he said, "in light of other things Mrs. Clinton did not cry for."

I was floored. And I feel betrayed. Because she DIDN'T cry over Katrina (at least not publicly). I don't know that she cried over 9/11 in public. And she didn't, as I recall, cry in public over her husbands' dalliances while he held office.

But then, as the Rev. Jackson said, those instances didn't pose the enormous opportunity she seized last week at that coffee shop. So perhaps she wasn't being genuine. Or, perhaps the tears were for those dreams that tottered precariously on that edge of shattered.

And so I ask, are these our candidates? Is this the best we have to offer? I don't say that to degrade them--they're likely all very nice people. But you have to be suspicious of someone who wants the job so bad, that they'll calculate and manipulate, stretch and bend the truth, just to squeeze out a few extra, crucial votes.

One of these (or, one of the numerous others in the mix, most just like these), will be your next President, fellow Americans.

I think that, at this point, the best we can hope for is a vote-locked legislature that can't muster up enough votes in any direction to pass any law of any substance--good or bad. Dormancy and inaction are far safer than the damage a self-absorbed politician with no agenda other than to get his name in the history book might do.

As for me? I think that I'm going to write in Shawna for President. She has to deal with Lex and Gentry, and most of all, ME, every single day. She's not afraid of anything.

She'd do fine, too; especially since I think the Oval Office has a multi-line telephone system!

Mr. President: My Sink Leaks

Reuters UK reported today that British supermodel, Kate Moss, recently mistook the British Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, for a plumber.

Cameron, when asked by a friend, while at a social function, if he'd like to meet Moss, enthusiastically said yes. The politician, nerves aflutter, could think of nothing to say, so began to ask about her experience with recent flooding in her hometown. After a few moments of conversation regarding the floods, and damage to Moss' home (and those in her neighborhood), Moss said, "God, you sound like a really useful guy, can I have your phone number?"

"I went back to my table and said 'The good news is, I met Kate Moss and she wanted my telephone number'," Cameron told chat show host Michael Parkinson on ITV television on Friday.

"The bad news is I think she thinks I'm something to do with drainage."

The story implied that perhaps Moss should be embarrassed. I, for one, am proud of her.

Shawna, the other day, was pulled into some conversation about politics. She leaned over to me and asked, "Are we Democrats or Republicans?" I imagine that were Vice President Cheney-or perhaps even President Bush-to walk into a private party we were attending, Shawna would ask to see their invitation; she simply pays no attention to politics, and has no intention of educating herself in matters political.

I only wish there were more like Shawna and Kate Moss.

Let me ask you this: would you be inclined to elect Britney Spears to some high public office? One of the Olsen twins? Or Lindsey Lohan, Michael Jackson, Mel Gibson, Nick Nolte, Michael Richards or Owen Wilson? All have demonstrated recently some troubling behavior. It seems that in showbiz, there's no shortage of folks who are on the fringe, "acting out," living on the edge. Does Hollywood attract these folks? Or does it create them? I'd contend it's the latter. Plenty of good people step into the Hollywood fame-making machine, only to come out the back side unrecognizably bent, a far cry from anything remotely resembling socially acceptable.

And what of politics? Washington is fast becoming to smart people (with Harvard law degrees), what Hollywood (or Nashville) is to beautiful (or talented) people. The quickest way to get rich and famous if you aren't drop-dead gorgeous and you can't sing a lick, is to get yourself elected to some high government office.

Because the deathly draw of fame has invaded politics. As proof, allow me to introduce President Bill Clinton, whose chief concern, as I recall, upon moving out of the White House was his "legacy,"-that is, would he be remembered?

Not convinced? Consider this; Barack Obama, United States Presidential candidate, appeared as a guest on NBC's Saturday Night Live on Saturday, November 4, 2007. But wait! Don't get too excited, you self-righteous Republicans. A few years back, Arizona Republican Senator, John McCain guest-hosted on the same show. In fact, Fred Thompson, another Republican Presidential hopeful, played a regular part on television's Law & Order.

Need more? Consider the current slate of Presidential contenders. Of them, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson (as well as potential contenders Al Gore and Newt Gingrich) have all published at least one book. Often bringing an enormous payday to the politician-writer (like Hillary Clinton's near-record $8 Million advance).

What does all this mean? Merely that politics has turned into another venue for building fame. It's become, especially in the higher eschelons, a means to an end-at least for the politicians. Landing a top spot means recognition, respect, money and long-term security (really not all that different from landing a top role in a Hollywood blockbuster). None of these are, inherently, bad. But I'm convinced that, in the wrong hands, they can prove enormously damaging (consider President Clinton's escapades while in office, Congressman Tom Delay financial improprieties, or Senator Larry Craig's embarrassing dalliances-in an airport restroom, of all places).

It's inexplicable in my mind, but somehow, there seems to be some correlation between a rise in fame and the exhibition of morally repugnant (or at least embarrassing) behavior.

And so, somehow it seems it would almost be better if we could all be like Kate Moss or Shawna. If we didn't recognize a politician when he walked into the room-or at the very least, if we treated him just as we treat everyone else, perhaps they'd be more inclined to focus on their job instead of on advancing their own personal agendas.

On the other hand, I guess if my writing abilities alone aren't enough to see me published, I can always run for high office; I hear the book deals pay well.

Voting for Dummies

A cool site that Joel Maxwell referenced on his blog a few days ago.

It truly is voting for dummies (or, at least for those who have a hard time sorting through the various platforms).

I'm almost embarrassed to tell you who I'm supposed to support...

Peddling Fear

I don't pay much attention to the goings-on in the political arena. Not that I don't care-I do. I'm reasonably well-informed, I vote, and I do my part to "lobby" for those issues I feel warrant my lobby.

But I realized today that, over the past year or so, I've made a subconscious decision to ignore, and otherwise disregard, politicians, their political wranglings, and virtually all of the political pundits (including columnists, writers, talk-show hosts, and-yes, even bloggers) who nip about at the heals of politicians, looking for their scrap of meat to take away from the table, and lord over.

I was on the Internet, and somehow found my way to Arianna Huffington's blog. For those of you who've not read it, I encourage you to continue ignoring it. Not because it's rubbish-some of what she (or the various other writers there) write is actually decent. But it's overwhelmingly depressing. I found myself on the blog, and began to read the top post, and found my spirits plummeting. So I clicked the "back" button on my browser, and tried another; same result. After about four or five tries, I came to a post that perfectly explains how I feel. The post title: "When Did the Future Go From Being a Promise to Being a Threat?" I'll be honest with you: I didn't even get past the title.

Because the title says it all. I had this realization: politicians feel the desperate need to validate themselves (and the work they do). So they peddle the theory that they are there to "hold the line" against the various forces-both natural and man-made-that are working to degrade our environment. They sell the idea that we need them, or else life, as we now know it, will cease to exist. We need them-to ensure our children can grow up, comfortable, educated and well taken care of. We need them-to protect us from enemies-real and imagined, here and abroad. We need them-to make sure we don't get sick or overweight; and if we do, to make us well and help us lose weight. We need them-to take care of our children when we go to work, and our parents when they can't remember what toilet paper is used for. We need them-to take care of us if we lose our job, or simply choose not to work. And we need them-to manipulate those things needing manipulation-so that we don't all lose money in the stock market. We need them, we need them, we need them...

And we're lulled into a state of dependence. But more frightening than that is that politics becomes a sort of drug. Because, at some point, we start believing this rubbish. And we find ourselves afraid of the what the future might hold. And then some politician somewhere says the right things, soothes the right nerves, and we breathe a collective sigh of relief, and subconsciously thank our lucky stars that we no longer have to worry about that; it's under control!

What a pathetic cycle. And I guess that I've, subconsciously, elected to break it's hold on my life.

Perhaps you should try it.

Hugo Chavez-Unlikely Champion

Erick Erickson, city-councilman elect for the city of Macon Georgia (where some of my favorite people live), posted today, on his blog, Confessions of a Political Junkie, a YouTube clip of him being interviewed on the Brit Hume show. I urge each of you to go watch the clip.

It seems that the mayor of his fair city has taken a public stance in support for Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. You'll note that Hugo Chavez is a self-proclaimed "hater" of America, the American President, and all things American. The mayor, C. Jack Ellis, has apparently sent a letter to Mr. Chavez-a letter of solidarity, pledging his backing a support of the dictator. Mr. Ellis praised Chavez for "reaching out" and subsidizing the cost of heating fuel for some low-income American residents, calling Chavez a, "champion for the common man."

This Chavez, who has vocally pledged support to Iran and Cuba (communist regimes, and in some cases, posing a serious threat to America and it's citizens), and who has publicly called President Bush "the devil,"-this Chavez, according to Ellis, is a "champion for the common man."

Where's the public outcry here? I'm appalled, frankly. Politics aside, regardless your political affiliation, if you have any love for America, and what it stands for, this simply has to floor you! It's unspeakable!

Because this "champion for the common man" has not only publicly trashed America, and all we, as Americans stand for, he has maintained a dictatorial regime of corruption that has broken the proverbial backs of the Venezuelan people. Chavez has taken all powers of state into his own hands, eliminated virtually all oversight, and what remains amounts to no more than a farce. Transparency International, an independent group based in Berlin, in their annual Corruption Perceptions Index, ranked Chavez led Venezuela 130th out of 150 countries surveyed, in terms of political corruption. Chavez, in the last few years, has appointed two brothers, a cousin, his father and two other close relatives to lucrative political posts, tightening his grip of power in key political and economic arenas.

And the effects of his blatant disregard for humanity, and corrupt leadership, are evident. Since Chavez took office, murder rates in Venezuela have tripled. Police have been implicated in many of the more gruesome and violent crimes. The United Nations (who have little use, but occasionally publish interesting and accurate statistics) reported that, in 2005, Venezuela had the highest number of deaths by gunfire, per capita, of any nation in the World. The Heritage Foundation ranked Venezuela 152 out of 157 nations ranked on their annual ranking of economic freedom. They are, for all intents and purposes, economically repressed. The Venezuelan National Statistics Institute released data in 2005 showing that, as of that year, poverty had actually increased by 10% since Chavez had taken power-to a whopping 53% of the population!

In short, this man is no champion of the common man. He's a calculating, conniving political vulture, who cares for nothing other than fulfilling his personal ambitions. The most distressing thing, I think, is that the citizens of Macon were so blinded by Ellis' personlity or charisma, that they failed to see whatever skewed political bent existed there that has allowed him to speak out in this way! It's a travesty, and I urge you to visit Erickson's site, comment on his blog expressing your support for him, and for his stance, asking him to express to his mayor-and to the people of Macon, that Mr. Ellis DOES NOT speak for America!