SPRINGTIME IN NORTH FLORIDA
The end of February might seem a little early for Spring to all you Yankee types, but here in Tallahoopie we have been inundated with Camellias and are now looking at Azaleas and Crepe Myrtle buds. The birds certainly think Spring's here - they make quite a racket.
Spring is a time when people seem to begin coming out of their shells and brightening up, at least most of them do. We begin thinking about our yearly trek to the North Woods (even the mosquitoes are better than a Florida Summer). We have neither children or pets so can travel more or less at our leisure. We really have found that watching the local wildlife is worth the time. It is a temptation to interfere with their lives sometimes, but we try to limit interference to occasional feeding. I used to hunt but gave it up years ago and now just use a camera. I did have to shoot a rabid raccoon a few years ago but have patiently endured attempts by a Piliated Woodpecker to eat our house, a skunk living under the front porch, and deer who were convinced our shrubs were planted for their dessert. Here in Florida we live in a brick house and have a six-foot corn snake living under the deck. He keeps the mouse and rat population down so we don't complain. Our resident Possum sometimes gets confused about where he is but possums are like that and he eventually finds his way off the deck or out of the garage. We live a block from the lake here so we don't have to put up with many Canada Geese -surely the dirtiest birds around.

BUSH’S SOCIAL SECURITY GIBBERISH

The other day I ran across a comment from a person who attended President Bush’s “Town Meeting Rally” in Tampa, FL. As with all his speeches, attendance was by invitation only and all questions were screened in advance. How he expects to get any input from “concerned citizens” is beyond me, but I expect he sees these rallies as Sound-bite opportunities and doesn’t really care for any.
He does, however seem to need some input if these quotes from his speech are accurate:
"Because the - all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those - changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be - or closer delivered to what has been promised."

Doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence, does it?

Make no mistake. G.W.Bush is not a stupid or confused man, he just thinks you are.

SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY - PART 2

It seems the Bushies have decided that the info they provided the Washington Post Reporter (See last post), wasn't exactly what they intended.
They have issued a clarification: The "Personal account" will all belong to the poor schmuck who invested in it, BUT: The Social Security Benefit amount he/she receives upon retirement will be reduced by the amount he put in the "personal account" plus interest (to be determined - they now think 3% compounded). The example they use shows a presumed 4.6% yield which would net the recipient about $5000 more a year. Apparently how the "personal account" money can be invested will be controlled by the government.
This idea will do nothing to "save Social Security", but apparently that's not the idea anyhow.

THE NEW SOCIAL SECURITY PROPOSAL - How's that again?

The Plan-Participants Would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 3, 2005; Page A13

Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system.

The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before President Bush's State of the Union address, would hold down the cost of Bush's plan to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system. But it could come as a surprise to lawmakers and voters who have thought of these accounts as akin to an individual retirement account or a 401(k) that they could use fully upon retirement.

"You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children . . . or grandchildren," Bush said last night. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."

The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent.

That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.

In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.

"I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account so you can build a nest egg for your own future," Bush said in his speech.

Orszag retorted: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."

Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.

If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.

With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.

If instead, workers decide to stay in the traditional system, they would receive the benefit that Social Security could pay out of payroll taxes still flowing into the system, the official said. Which option would be best is still unclear because the White House has yet to propose how severely guaranteed benefits would be cut for those with individual accounts.

The administration official explained that the "benefit offset" merely ensures that those who choose personal accounts are not given an unfair advantage over the traditional system.

"In return for the opportunity to get the benefits from the personal account, the person forgoes a certain amount of benefits from the traditional system," the official told reporters. "Basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent real rate of return. To the extent that his personal account gets a higher rate of return, his net benefit would increase."

Robert Pozen, a Massachusetts investment executive who served on the president's Social Security Commission, said the mechanism makes sense. Workers who draw money out of the Social Security system for their accounts should have to pay that money back with interest.

But critics of the Bush plan said the proposed "claw back" renders the whole idea of "personal retirement accounts" virtually meaningless. Indeed, the system would ultimately look something like a proposal made by President Bill Clinton, in which the government would have invested Social Security taxes in the stock market.

That idea was criticized by conservatives because the federal government could end up choosing winners and losers in the financial markets. But under the Bush system, the government is still choosing the stocks and bonds to be bought with Social Security money, said Jason Furman, a former Clinton administration economist. Individuals would get a limited choice, and the government would still keep most of the returns.

"They hope people will think they will take on these accounts and after 40 years, they'll have this huge windfall, but that won't happen," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "I think they're trying to confuse people."

Stephen Moore, a conservative supporter of Bush's Social Security effort, said the mechanism would undermine the president's notion of an "ownership society."

In a nod to lawmakers worried about the budget deficit, the White House will also hold down the initial cost of the Social Security plan by phasing it in over three years, beginning in 2009. The administration official said funding the individual accounts would cost $754 billion through 2015. But because of the phase-in, the personal-accounts system would not be fully effective until 2011.

In its first 10 years, 2009 to 2018, the system would cost more than $1 trillion, Furman said. Between 2019 and 2028, the cost would jump to about $3.5 trillion, he said.

Highlights of the Proposal
• ELIGIBILITY: People born before 1950 would not be affected.
• INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS: People born in 1950 or later could divert up to 4 percent of income subject to Social Security taxes into individual accounts, up to $1,000 a year -- a cap that would be phased out.
• WHEN: The accounts would be phased in between 2009 and 2011.
• OPTIONS: Workers would be able to choose among several stock, bond and mixed-investment funds.
• LIMITATIONS: Participants would have no access to the accounts before retirement and could not borrow against the balance.
• AT RETIREMENT: Participants would be required to buy annuities to ensure steady payments out of the accounts over a lifetime.
• OVERSIGHT: The federal government would administer accounts.

FREE WILL

The concept of Free Will and debates over its validity are ancient ideas but very important in a religious context. Free Will, the concept that humans have the God Given Right to make their own moral decisions seems to conflict with the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing Deity and philosophers have never manage to reconcile the conflict to the general satisfaction.
Our Western Civilization, with its emphasis on the individual and individual rights tends to encourage the concept and extend the idea to individual freedom and liberty in all areas but the question remains, do we truly have free will?
Our ability to actually do anything is obviously restricted by our moral training, physical abilities, and social and economic situation. The one area where our ability is not much restricted is in our perception of and attitude toward a situation which calls for a choice.
A long time ago, Epictetus summed it up pretty well:
1.The proper conduct of life lies in learning to distinguish what does and does not lie within our power.
2.What lies within our power is our will and inner purpose. Nothing external can force us to act against our will. If we submit, we have willed to submit.
3.The rationality of man is the God within him. Following reason, man senses his position as a member of his nation, and of the true city of God(s) and men.He also recognizes the pointlessness of depending upon any external thing.
4.He will simply try to understand the reality in which he finds himself, setting up in his own mind an order of ideas corresponding to the order of nature, for the thought of God directs the universe and it is our part to accept what happens with intelligence.
Epictetus' Stoic philosophy had the concept of the individual's will as the central part of his definition of the proper conduct of your life. Though he is not much thought of today, after eighteen hundred years, his ideas still seem to be applicable.
Acceptance of responsibility after carefully and rationally examining your thoughts and actions is really what Free Will is all about.

THE NEW CONSERVATIVES

My take on the NEOCONS is that they get a lot of support among yuppies and genXers because of the phenomenon sometimes refered to as "Perception of Wealth" by sociologists. The idea seems to be that if you can somehow associate yourself with the economic movers and shakers, you also can become one. A horrible example might be the popularity of the TV show "The Apprentice" though why anyone would want to associate with Trump or thinks he is admirable, is beyond me.
The idea of conservatism has always appealed to Americans (probably has something to do with our puritan heritage). Apparently if you label youself a conservative, that's enough. You can do anything you damn well please in the name of Conservatism, no matter how radical and far fetched.
The California Governor is a good example of this. Fortunately, he seems to be fairly middle of the road as far as actual social change goes and his economic outlook seems to be positivly Keynesian.
Our Governor(FL) has the same generally warped value system as his big (actually a good deal shorter) brother has. A few years ago his wife smuggled in something like $40.000 worth of stuff from France. When she was caught, they brushed it off "she didn't know any better".
He is in the process of outsourcing all of Florida's government that he can. He outsourced the state computer/filing system and it is so screwed up and behind schedule that his solidly Republican legislature is even beginning to look askance. Other Departments up for outsourcing include Child Welfare. Think of that, Children in trouble are to be at the mercy of an outfit that is mostly concerned with the bottom line.

MORAL VALUES

I'm really worried about the direction of our foreign and domestic governmental policies. I grew up in a country where certain basic values included:
Liberty
Equality
Individualism
Freedom
Democracy
Honesty
Valuing Life
These and others were defined in an agreed upon way and there was little debate. Equality was re-defined to include all Americans on a much broader scale than it had been, but Freedom, for example had an agreed upon definition which included not just freedom from restraint and permission to do something, but also a feeling that it was an inalienable right and could not be limited except by law and those laws had to be constitutional. In our foreign affairs we espoused to "Good Neighbor Policy" which essentially meant we would try to be helpful but would not impose our ideas on other countries. We even fought a rather large war to free some other countries from tyranny.
We, or at least most of us, felt that individualism was a good thing. We encouraged our children to be individuals and tried to respect the beliefs of others, even when we did not share them. We expected our public officials to be honest and were pretty hard on them when they proved to be dishonest. Democracy was generally defined as the will of the majority with consideration of the rights of the minority. If we didn't like a political leader, a president for example, we tried to keep our political differences in the political realm and didn't seek specious excuses to impeach him.
Of course those "Good Old Days" were far from perfect but one thing which seems to now be in eclipse was the idea that major government actions should be done only with general consensus and in an open and legal manner. Most politicians even occasionally took some responsibility.
We abided by international laws - we were among the first to propose most of them and demanded that others do the same. We founded the United Nations as a forum to rationally debate and resolve those hassles that led to two World Wars. We sought world opinion and abided by it. This was probably a reaction to our isolationist policies of the '20s and '30s and it more or less worked. While war was not completely eliminated, at least it was limited and almost the whole world enjoyed a fifty-year period of prosperity unequaled in modern history.
I'm not sure what the "New Conservatives" have in mind, but it seems to me that it is NOT a return to a time when differences of opinion were tolerated, when law was respected and limited, when truth was admired, and rationality was considered a good thing.

BACK TO POLITICS

The Prex's drive to partially privatize social security is a good idea, if you happen to be a securities dealer. Isn't his little brother Neil one of those, or did he loose his license?
It seems to me a fairly simple arguement against it should start with the question: How much of these investments is the government going to guarantee?
The arguement that the social security fund will "Go broke" by 2048 is generally based on the problem of the "Baby Boomers" overloading the system. During the 1950s and '60s, the birth rate was 23-24/1000 population. Almost twice what it was in the '30s and '40s and 10/1000 more than it is now
it declined fairly rapidly during the '80s and '90s to currently about 14 live births per thousand population - and rising slightly. That being the case, it looks like the problem is a bubble - lots more retired per worker, but as the baby boomers die off it will settle back into a more stable system. As our social security system is rather modest compared to most other developed countries, we don't really have that much of a problem.
One possible solution would be to tie social security to Universal Medical coverage. Which when asked, most Americans seem to favor. Sure it would mean much higher taxes, but couple that with much lower medical payouts by individuals and companies and maybe we might see higher salaries and less off-shore outsourcing. We now spend more of our national income on health care than any other country and have less to show for it than many others do.

I'M BOTHERED BY THIS

Here's a reprint fro the LA Times. I believe the contents to be essentially true; they certainly haven't been refuted or denied. I think the U.S. is better than this.

•
December 28, 2004
LA Times
Robert Scheer:

A Devil's Island for Our Times
How can we let this evil persist
COMMENTARY
 
It is time to invade Cuba and put an end to what has become another Devil's Island in the annals of government-sanctioned torture. The barbaric treatment of political prisoners on the island is made no more palatable by being conducted in the name of an ideology that claims to be liberating the world from its shackles.

Once again, we are witnesses to the ugly truth bound up in that philosophical contradiction that the ends can justify the means: Desecrations of the human body and spirit can never be righteously justified by high-minded appeals to the needs of the masses. Fortunately, a few brave U.S. intelligence agents have managed to penetrate the security of a morally repugnant Cuban gulag and documented both the barbaric acts occurring on the island and their state-sanctioned rationalizations.

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water," wrote an FBI agent who gained access to the prison compound. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more."

Also reported by U.S. agents: freezing or very hot cells; feverish prisoners left untreated; loud music and strobe lights directed for long periods at prisoners in solitary confinement; growling dogs used to frighten prisoners.

The prisoners themselves have testified to even worse tortures, their stories smuggled out by lawyers after they had been held incommunicado for years. Beatings that ended in injury and even death. Forced sex acts, often videotaped for use as blackmail. Coerced confessions. Injections of unknown drugs. The prisoners' claims were so outrageous that many of their attorneys did not believe the stories until U.S. government documents corroborated key aspects.

"Now there is no question that these guys have been tortured," said Brent Mickum, a Washington attorney for one of the roughly 10% of detainees at the camp who have finally secured legal representation. "Every allegation that I've heard has now come to pass and been confirmed by the government's own papers."

Even more troubling is that the FBI agents make it clear this is not the work of a few poorly supervised sadists. Their reports refer to what they described as a new — and very much secret — executive order on prisoner treatment by the president at the top of the camp's chain of command, which allowed for severe interrogation tactics, including "sleep deprivation and stress positions" combined with "loud music, interrogators yelling at subjects and prisoners with hoods on their heads."

So, shouldn't such leaders who authorize state torture be on trial for war crimes? Ah, but the torturers always tell us, such high-minded thinking does not square with real-world exigencies. The "people" must be protected at all costs! Never mind that the inevitable revelations of such outrages cost immeasurable goodwill around the world in what amounts to a global war for hearts and minds. Short-term pain for long-term gain is always the name of the game. But in this case, there is not even that justification — not a single detainee has been proved in a court of law to be a terrorist.

This Kafkaesque gulag, like others in human history, is an expression of a governing doctrine that defines morality as simply an expression of power: Might makes right. What the system can get away with, it does, unless reined in by the people it claims to represent. The ideology invoked in defense of the indefensible does not matter, for it has by that time been reduced to noble-sounding yet ultimately empty slogans, which clumsily paper over a steady erosion of the sanctity of individual rights.

This is what we can see so clearly at the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, if only we have the stomach to bear witness. Yes, all of the above is a description of "Gitmo," the colonial-style U.S. prison camp run by American soldiers and paid for with American dollars.

The president who apparently authorized a global reign of prisoner torture in the "war on terror" is our own elected leader, not a convenient caricature of a foreign dictator. The military and legal systems that have looked the other way are our own.

Unfortunately, we look more and more like our enemies every day. On an island invaded, sabotaged and barred from U.S. trade and even tourism in the name of spreading our version of democracy, we have erected a massive torture chamber any deranged dictator would envy.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

I hope we have a more secure and catastrophe free year this time around. Please do what you can for those sunami-afflicted people in SE Asia. I recommend OXFAM or the RED CROSS. I guess money would be more helpful than goodies as clothing, shoes, bedding, etc can be purchased in SE Asia much cheaper than it can here (After all, that's where most is made).
Have a Happy New Year.

CHRISTMAS EVE

This year we are determined to get into the mid-winter carnival spirit and really enjoy ourselves.
Today it starts with tracking down a dozen live lobsters (I got'em) a few bottles of cheap Champagne (Probably the best buy/taste combo is Frixnet- a Spanish bubbly) and making a big bowl of potato salad. The lobsters are on ice and still happy; they go in the big pot over the gas ring out on the deck around 5PM. Here in Florida we won't be having a white Christmas (unlike the Midwest) but it promises to be colder than normal and sort of drizzly.
We exchange gifts this evening and we have badly bent our promise of: "If you can't eat it or drink it, don't buy it - we have too much stuff already". We did however, just get stuff we really really need: An ipod, CDs, a digital music production system to go with the computer(s), etc. We'll do better next year.
Anyhow, we hope everyone has a MERRY CHRISTMAS.

NATIONAL VIRTUE

Many years ago, when I was young, the United States was fighting a war against three of the most bloody-minded, evil groups of the past several hundred years. We were attacked by the Japanese, our army in the Philippines was quickly defeated, and the American (and other allied) prisoners were subjected to inhumane, brutal treatment by them. A few days after the Japanese attack, Hitler's Germany declared war on us as did Mussolini's Italy.
Both the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists had long histories of terror and brutality against their own citizens and their defeated neighbors. For the most part though, they abided by the Geneva conventions regarding prisoners of war, as did we. In those cases where they did not, those responsible were tracked down after the war and brought to trial. The last of these trials I remember was just a few years ago and resulted in the guilty ex-death camp guard being deported from the U.S. where he had lived for more than forty years.
Those Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese militarists who commanded others to commit acts of brutality were for the most part hung (Tojo, Eichmann et al.), shot (Mussolini), or committed suicide (Hitler, Goering, Himmler, etc). Many others were imprisoned, some for life.
My reason for bringing up this ancient history is because I am somewhat concerned about the actions of the present U.S. government. In this present so-called War on Terror, we are apparently not abiding by the Geneva conventions regarding prisoners of war (e.g. all that is supposed to be required of them is name, rank, and serial number) and there have been disturbing stories of atrocities committed by American troops on captured insurgents. In the case of Afghanistan, we are apparently treating captured Taliban Afghan soldiers as terrorists even though we invaded their country and they were fighting for what was the established government at the time.
Along the same lines of thought, the War in Iraq has been so poorly managed that much of the welcome we had when we entered and drove out Saddam's government, has now turned to anger and hatred. The Iraqi insurgents seem to be increasing in number. The country with the second largest oil reserves in the world now has to import its fuel. Iraq is physically and economically much worse off than before the war and the U.S. has lost a good deal of the respect of other nations. It hasn't done our economy much good either.
Our President and his advisers seem to be lost in the same dream world of our foes of World War II. Bush speaks of "Democracy is on the March" and "Our 150 year cordial relationship with Japan" and Gives the Medal of Freedom to those who mismanaged the Iraq War. He and his government apparently can't see the reality of the situation. Probably one the most telling remarks was Rumsfeld's "Well, you have to fight a war with the army you've got, not the army you might want" in reply to a question from a soldier about inadequate equipment. Who started that war anyway? And why was that again?

WHY IS CHRISTMAS, CHRISTMAS?

Almost all Northern Hemisphere cultures seem to have (or had) some kind of midwinter religious festival. The shortening of the days, southward drift of the sun, and cold damp weather all were very worrisome to primitive peoples. They needed reassurance and some sort of celebration to lighten the darkest part of he year.
Apparently in the earliest Christian times, there was no particular interest in the date of Jesus' birth nor was it particularly celebrated. The first evidence of celebration was by Pope Hippolytus in the first half of the third century. He chose January 2, and the argument started. December 25 was a fairly early contender, based on the rather esoteric "Plan of the Ages" and on some logical interpolation of the New Testament.
Probably the choice of a date more or less corresponding to the various pagan midwinter festivals was made as part of an attempt to make the new religion palatable to as many as possible. Also by "Taking over" the midwinter celebrations, Christianity did away with some distractions and competition.
Folk beliefs have a way of persisting for very long periods of time however, and Frazer found lots of examples among 19th century peasants. The Christmas tree and mistletoe are a couple of good examples. Both probably began as Druidic symbols as did the yule log, but were absorbed by the celebration much as the goddess Eostre and her egg-laying rabbit were at another Christian celebration.
Santa Claus certainly began as St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra; who according to legend, snuck around and gave gifts anonymously to the needy. His legend picked up the various "rewarders and punishers" of Northern Europe. He entered American folklore rather late as did the Christmas tree. Santa probably came from Dutch settlers and the Christmas tree from Germany and England (were it was introduced by Queen Victoria - a very German lady). Because of our German settlers, we probably had Christmas trees before England; at least there is some evidence of this. Incidentally, early Christmas trees were sort of dangerous: All those lighted candles.
Christmas was neither celebrated nor popular with the Calvinists and Puritans; but then neither was church music or, it seems, much of anything that was joyful and fun. There are many religious movements today demanding the “Return of Christ to Christmas” just as if it ever was anything but an excuse to party at a dim time of the year.
Christmas does have a pervasive religious element: The Nativity Scene and the Mother and Child theme, both focused on some of the strongest ideals of Christianity.

CHRISTMAS REMEMBERED

As a little kid, I had strange Christmases. My dad was very active in design, decorating, and production for one of the US's first Christmas Boat Parades (Miami Beach in the late 30's and early 40's). Mostly it was hectic. Those were BIG yachts and there were no minature lights in those days. Lots of live action and animations.
He used the artists from Fleischer Studios (remember the old Popeye cartoons?) for most of the art work. Work on decorations started in June or July and since this was the end of the depression,he got a lot of talent pretty cheaply.
  I got to ride one of the yachts during a couple of the parades. The parades were held on Christmas Eve and we generally didn't get home until the early morning. As you might expect, Christmas Day was pretty low key. The festivities lasted through the First of the year (The Orange Bowl Regatta - that was in the daytime). WW2 shut that all down. After the war they eventually resumed but not on the scale of pre-war.
  During the fifties my dad (then a Captain in the USCGR) acted as supervising officer for the Regatta and power boat races held in conjunction with the Orange Bowl festivities. By then our Christmases had changed somewhat as my mother then managed a fancy flower shop which was popular with all the gamblers and Mafia types. As the flowers all had to go out Christmas Eve, things were still pretty hectic.

SEASONAL VALUES ($)

Well, we got through Thanksgiving and now Christmas looms. The line outside the BestBuy here started at 10:30 Thursday evening and stretched the length of the shopping center. They called in cops to keep order.
Despite record deficits, a badly shrinking dollar, a fractious congress, and world troubles; Americans seem to be optimistic and in a spending mood. Sort of an "apris moi, la deluge" (Yes, I know, I have trouble with English spelling, let alone French) kind of attitude. The Government has accepted World Trade sanctions and fines imposed because we were clumsy in trying to protect American steel producers. Despite such half-hearted protectionism, we still have a record imbalance of trade. I wonder what would happen if we just pulled out and re-imposed protective tariffs. We are, after all the premier market for much of the world's economy.

STILL MORE ON VALUES

When Moral Values are mentioned, most people tend to apply it personally and generally pick those morals most often mentioned in the media - This most often means something Sexual. Sure, sexual behavior has been somehow or other controlled by every society that's ever existed, but how about application of those other moral values: Trustworthyness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendship, courtesy, kindness, obedience to authority & law, thrift, bravery, cleanliness, reverence, tolerance, etc. (Thank you, Boy Scouts of America).
And more importantly, how are these moral values to be interpreted and applied.
I find it facinating, for example, that Our newly re-elected president is apparently proud of how he is making Iraq "free and democratic".
 By God, those folks in Falluja are going to vote even if we have to kill them all! My point here, I guess, is that you can passionately believe in moral values and yet interpret them in ways so different that your opponent, holding pretty much the same values, appears evil to you.
It's fashionable to blame modern life and society for the supposed collapse of moral values. It's always fashionable to do this, probably because we are unhappy with the changed world we see now that's so much worse than the one we grew up in.
I was a teacher of history and enjoyed challanging my students to give the authors of quotes condemning modern morals. I used paraphrased quotes from ancient Rome, The Bible, Colonial America, etc. They always guessed modern sources. The point is moral values are always changing in a dynamic society. They have to if they are to be applied to modern problems. We get in some trouble when we lose consensus and have differing interpretations.
Right now, we seem to let our values be interpreted and applied by those with no thought of what they are doing (The commercial media) or are cynical in using them for rather underhanded reasons (Political professionals).
 Many of us don't have close family ties or tend to leave moral education to the media or the schools, neither of which knows what the hell they are doing. Individuals in both institutions however, may very well know what they are preaching and it may be a message we don't want our children subjected to. Unfortunately in that case, we tend to "go negative" and end up teaching intolerance and prejudice, which only increases the problem.
Curiously enough, the BASIC Moral Values of a society don't really change much - They are after all, what defines a society. So we still believe:
 "All Men are Created Equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituited among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."
But we break down and define those basic values very differently now than Jefferson did 228 years aqo. Liberty has changed from "freedom from repression" to "freedom to do with little restraint" to a sort of controlled actual ability to do something: "Not only am I free work at the job of my choice, I should have the ability to do so" Kind of reasoning.
Our core values are not very numerous, there are probably less that a dozen, but our whole society is based on them. Here are a few:
Liberty, Equality, Individualism, Freedom, Honesty, Civility, Democracy, Importance of Religion, Valuing Life....  Can you think of others?
You'll notice I include no sexual moral values in this list. In my opinion these are sort of secondary values that can change pretty widely without really changing what our culture is all about.
After looking this post over, I'm afraid I'm going to have to find a shovel with a longer handle.

MORE ON MORAL VALUES

It's fashionable to blame modern life and society for the supposed collapse of moral values. It's always fashionable to do this, probably because we are unhappy with the changed world we see now that's so much worse than the one we grew up in. I was a teacher of history and enjoyed challenging my students to give the authors of quotes condemning modern morals. I used paraphrased quotes from ancient Rome, The Bible, Colonial America, etc. They always guessed modern sources. The point is moral values are always changing in a dynamic society. They have to if they are to be applied to modern problems. We get in some trouble when we lose consensus and have differing interpretations.
Right now, we seem to let our values be interpreted and applied by those with no thought of what they are doing (The commercial media) or are cynical in using them for rather underhanded reasons (Political professionals).
Many of us don't have close family ties or tend to leave moral education to the media or the schools, neither of which knows what the hell they are doing. Individuals in both institutions however, may very well know what they are preaching and it may be a message we don't want our children subjected to. Unfortunately in that case, we tend to "go negative" and end up teaching intolerance and prejudice, which only increases the problem.

VETERAN"S DAY

As a veteran, I feel I am entitled to reflect on the meaning of the term and what being a veteran means in America.
For many of us, military service and fighting in a war is one of if not the most influential times of our life. I have friends and acquaintances who still feel that was the most important thing that ever happened to them - after more than fifty years!
The U.S. has fought many wars during the past 228 years and has faced the problem of how to treat returning veterans after all of them. It seems that the attitude toward returning veterans reflects the country's attitude toward the war; the wars of the past century are good examples.
Spanish-American War: Even though we were the aggressors and it was pretty much a push-over, Americans were proud of their veterans and they led a wave of patriotic nationalism that led to the U.S. assuming a much more internationalist place in the world.
World War I: We entered late but there was a massive wave of patriotic feeling which carried over to the returning veterans. This unfortunately was dampened 15 years later when, during the great depression, Veterans were singled out for shabby treatment (The Washington Bonus Army fiasco). The American Legion and VFW became important political forces and when the U.S. began to prepare for another war the attitude toward veterans was generally favorable.
World War II: Really the biggest war ever fought and the first which really deserved the name. Almost the whole world was involved as were all Americans. Veterans of this war returned to one of the most explosive economic expansions ever seen in the world. They recieved unheard-of benefits (A year's unemployment pay, college education, mortgage loans and guarantees, etc.) all of which were material contributions to our country's economic growth and prosperity.
Cold War/Korean War: Veterans of this time got most of the benefits accorded the WW2 vets but the fact that the war was, except for the Korean phase - which had hard fighting- mostly political posturing and inconclusive led to a change in attitude toward veterans.
Viet Nam: The first American war of modern times where there was wide-spread opposition and a pretty clear military/political defeat. Veterans of this war were shocked at the attitude of contempt and rejection many of them encountered. It was fashionable and acceptable to dodge participation in that war.
The Gulf War: This short-term military action was the first post-Cold War action of the U.S. It was outstandly successful but as it was fought mostly by professional soldiers, had little impact on the American attitude toward returned veterans. The impact it had was favorable.
Afghanistan-Iraq: The current "War on Terrorism" has two aspects: In Afghanistan it has been pretty successful, American participation has been somewhat limited to professional military activity. There are few veterans of this conflict so far.
In Iraq, a different situation has occured. The massive use of reserve and National Guard troops in a sort of "backdoor draft" has brought this war home to America like none since Viet Nam. There are already many veterans of this war trying to cope with returning to "real life". They have been regarded pretty favorably so far and the military still seems to have support from the American people, but comparisons with Viet Nam keep cropping up and if public opinion turns more against this war, veterans of it may find themselves in the Viet Nam boat.

MORAL VALUES 2

You're probably going to see a lot more of this in and on the news, the pundits seemed to have picked it up.
What we probably have here is what sociologists call a "loss of consensus". By that they mean fairly large groups have very different interpretations of what's right and wrong in a situation. The most obvious right now is abortion. The RTL's view it as murder, others don't.
The moral value in question is murder. I read a warblog yesterday where a soldier described a nighttime convoy where an Iraqi girl ran in front of his humvee. He hit her (at 50mph) and she was torn apart and reduced to roadkill by the rest of the convoy. This affected him more strongly than anything previously.
He now questions whether or not we should be there at all. Was what he did murder? It apparently came close enough to bother him.
We make moral choices all the time, mostly automatically and are often confused when we run up against someone making alternative choices. We most often condemn the other's choice and damn him. Ideally, we should all get back on the same moral track, but getting there is hard.

MORAL VALUES

Election exit polls indicated that the most important factor for many voters was "Moral Values" but the pollsters didn't get further definitions.
I think most Americans tend to think of morals as individual behavior rather than collective social behavior, and base their moral criteria on whatever they learned in Sunday School. They (most of them anyway) don't see "war" as immoral; certainly not on a par with homosexuality, for example.
Morals are developed by a society in a very complex fashion, a couple of examples:
Pre-marital sex: Moral or Immoral? Society condemned it very strongly for three quarters of a century after it became the norm (According to Kinsey, Mr Ford's auto was the turning point in 1915). Now unmarried couples living together is not particularly frowned upon and is often noted in the media. Young couples expect to have sex before marriage (it seems even before steady dating nowadays). The attitude change here was the result of overwhelming rejection of the value as a sort of "parental rejection" augmented by the invention of the birth control pill and, as mentioned, the automobile.
Homosexuality: Not yet nearly as widely accepted as pre-marital sex, and facing an uphill battle. The moral attitudinal change necessary here is probably the result of slacking religious controls (All Christian denominations as well as most other religions basically condemn homosexual practice- Episcopalians not withstanding) and the rise of the idea of tolerance as a stronger moral value in America.
The idea that people are born Gay is probably a misreading of genetics. There have been homophobic and homophillic societies throughout history (e.g. the Hebrews and the Greeks in classic times) The Hebrews had almost no homosexual behavior, the Greek culture was partially based on it (e.g. the Olympic Games) Surely there were not that many more "natural Gays" in Greek society.
The inclusion of anti-Gay marriage amendments on the ballots of several states (including Ohio) certainly worked in favor of Bush, even though his attitude toward Gay marriage was substantially the same as Kerry's.
A discussion of moral values generally is "spirited" as definitions are changeing and these values are very much a part of our deepest beliefs.
They mould our personalities and our culture. Which do you think are changing, and why?

FOUR MORE YEARS

I had hoped that the election would help to start clearing up part of the mess Bush&co. have made, but I guess we'll have to wait. I'm sure he will push to make the tax cuts permanent but in doing so he will have to cut the pork and he apparently defines social services and environmental protection as pork. I predict we will have a sicker, hungrier, and uglier nation four years from now.
I don't think pushing people around,either at home or abroad, is America at its best and I don't like the reputation of being the 700 lb gorilla which Bush has managed to acquire for us, but like most Liberals, I'm an optimist about America and I think our finer traits will eventually emerge.
Bush's idea of offering younger workers the chance to invest part of their Social Security withholding is really kind of dumb. I hope someone clues participants in on the fact that annuities don't have built-in raises and cease when your contributions+interest runs out. They should look at the experience of those presently retired on 401(k) plans.
The Associated Press financial story of today points out the probable course of the next four years:
"...Bush's victory is shaping up as a potential bonanza for Wall Street, where firms are salivating about the possibility that he will follow through on his pledge to allow private investment of Social Security funds. A second term also makes it likely drug makers can head off government mandated price controls for now. The defense industry also looks like a winner, more regulatory victories may be in store for the Baby Bells, and look for a new push for oil drilling in the Alaska wilderness......"(AP 11/4/04)
That's our money the're salivating over. If someone can handle social service programs cheaper than the government does and make a profit, either the government methods need adjusting, or the services are not at the same level. There is no way the private sector can compete with the government if both are offering the exact same services and government is run properly. An example is Social Security: I, for example used up my contribution total within two years of beginning my payout, yet my payout now is over twice as high as it first was.

POLITICS AGAIN

It seems to me that this final push in the presidential election campaign has obscured some of what a presidential election is all about.
The man in office, if he is standing for re-election, must be responsible for and defend his decisions and actions for the past four years. His opponents must try to persuade the voters that they can do better.
Bush has not defended his administration's record very well, choosing instead to attack his major opponent. There is a reason for this, most of the past four years has been pretty much a disaster:
1. the economy has taken some major hits which the present administration not only has not addressed, but has been partially responsible for. While a tax cut seems like a nice idea, running a huge deficit means that the government is in direct competition with the private sector for available funds (deficit means the government has to borrow), thus undoing any economic benefit the tax cut might have had.
2.The position of the U.S. as a world leader has been materially weakened by the poorly thought out handling of the Terrorist problem. There are now apparently more active terrorists than there were before 9/11. Except for Afghanistan, the U.S. has been ineffective and has lost the confidence and support of many of our allies.
3.The Iraq War. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, wrong (apparently no realistic) plans for peaceful transition.
4. The quality of life in the U.S. How many of us are better off now than we were four years ago?

It is unlikely that Bush's opponents (any of them) could have done worse.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF BUSH?

Here's an idea that is being kicked around: In ATLANTIC MONTHLY a few months ago, a writer analyzed Bush's change in speaking style over the past several years. Apparently he was a very sharp debater and quite quick to respond intelligently on issues when he started as governor of Texas. the Author compared that with his present demeanor and suggested that he was deliberately "dumbing himself down" to appeal to his constituency. An MD wrote in to ATLANTIC and suggested that Bush's behavior was fairly typical of the onset of Presenile Dementia, a precursor of early onset Alzheimer's. He said Bush should be urged to get a medical evaluation, as there were now drugs that could help delay this condition.
Wonderful! On top of everything else, now we have to wonder if it's safe to leave him in a room with a box of matches. Come the think of it, we already know that answer.

MEDICAL CARE IN AMERICA

The Bush Administration has just announced that it is "working on ways to import flu vaccine from Canada". This is the latest verse in our on-going health care fiasco. Has anybody asked the question: Does Canada have a Health Care crisis? Why not?
There is a sort of myth or at least misunderstanding about American Healthcare. The U.S. doesn't have the world's best system if you measure "best" in terms of how well U.S. Citizens are cared for. The U.S. does seem to have the most advanced medical system in terms of use of medical gadgets and techniques and care available, but only at a cost which means that most Americans can't really afford such care without going deeply into debt or buying insurance at exorbitant cost.
I think many Americans think the U.S. is the world leader in healthcare development but as a matter of fact most really important medical breakthroughs were developed or invented somewhere else: (This is just a very brief partial list) Antibiotics (England), Insulin (Canada), Heart Transplant (South Africa), Modern eye surgery (Russia), DNA discovery (England- though an American was involved), Radiology (France), HIV (France), Vaccination (England), even sterile surgery (Scotland). Our drug companies did develop Prozac, Viagra, and birth control pills though. Asprin was developed in Germany (Bayer).
For some reason, Americans don't seem to favor universal health care overseen by the government, at least not until they reach age sixty-five and really begin to need it, than they are ALL in favor of Medicare. Why is what's good for old folks not appropriate for the rest of our citizens?
What was that about the Canadian health care crisis again??

THE CHICKENHAWKS
As this election winds up, things are getting very nasty. There is one pattern that's pretty clear; the Iraq War seems to have been decided upon by a political group who mostly had no military experience but have, during this campaign, attacked Democrats for not "supporting our troops".
Here's a partial listing of the military service of those envolved:
See a pattern any where, with the chickenhawks?

Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.Lost a leg.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. He lost an arm.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,
Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star,
Vietnam. Lost both legs and an arm.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven
campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze
Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star
and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18
Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul
Wallenberg.

Republicans

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. Seven deferments. Seven.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve. Probably took time out of his homophobia.
* Trent Lott: did not serve. Hey, he needed the time to practice his racism.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve. Probably spent it studying Machiavelli.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked
Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got
assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running
for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam,
disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role
making movies. *And then confused the movies with real life.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve
* Bob Dole: Army, WW2, 2 Purple Hearts and Bronze Star. Lost use of one arm.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart
and Distinguished Flying Cross. POW
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued
in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.

* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve. Needed the time to study harassment of women.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve.

Why is it that old men with little or no military experience are often the most willing to send young men (and women nowadays) into combat situations with no clear plan or reason, and are so often reluctant to back out of intolarable situations?

COLUMBUS DAY IN FLORIDA

The drive down from Maine was spectacular, especially in the White Mountains of NH. The Fall colors were approaching their peak. Right now there is a storm up there, so most of the trees will be bare. The New England Fall is spectacular but brief. When We left Maine, the temp was in the thirties and I had to mess with the waterlines, etc. You could probably hear my teeth for miles.
We skipped the Smoky Mountains on the way down. some of the roads were closed because of washouts, etc. I guess the southern end of the Blue Ridge Parkway won't be open until next summer.
We got to the Florida Panhandle just in time for Tropical Storm Matthew. Just a lot of rain to the west of us. We suffered no damage from any of the storms (so far ).
Columbus never got closer to Florida than the Bahamas but it is still a pretty big deal here. Florida wasn't discovered by the Spanish until about thirty years later and had a bloody history for the next century. Most of the early explorers got into fierce fights with the resident Indians. Unlike the Arawaks of the Caribbean, these were tough-minded and fierce and sometimes didn't let the Spanish get off the beach before slaughtering them.

NEW ENGLAND FALL COLORS

I just drove to Bangor to get the CR-V serviced for the trip back to Florida. I went the "back way" and met about three cars during most of the 25 miles. The Birches, Ashes, Maples, and Oaks are all doing their Fall thing. It was close to freezing a couple of nights ago and that seems to bring Autumn colors out. The Sumacs and blueberry fields have been bright red for a couple of weeks now. This is Northern New England at its most spectacular.
Lots of cruise ships come in to Bar Harbor this time of year. The Queen Mary II was here the first of the week. I don't think they let the passengers out of town until they had bought something from each store in that somewhat tacky town. The QM2 is the largest passenger liner now sailing. It looks sort of like a hotel laid on its side. If you are going to cruise, smaller is better, unless you want feel like you haven't left home and enjoy wallowing in (very expensive) luxury.
We will be driving down next week, through western Maine and down through the New Hampshire mountains. From there we will more-or-less follow our trip up in reverse, staying well west of the N-S I-95 corridor. As some of the Blue Ridge Parkway is washed out (hurricanes in the mountains!), we will probably follow I-81 down to Chattanooga and cross through the Smokies at the National Park. Than down through central Georgia (skirting Atlanta) and so to Tallahassee. It takes about four leisurely days.

STORM DAMAGE

I have lived in FL off and on since 1932 (!) and been through many hurricanes. For the past several years I have been spending hurricane season in Maine. We go back to FL next week to one of the few parts of the state that had minimal impact from the four storms.
Many years ago FL passed building codes requiring all structures to be "hurricane proof". Houses built that way generally are (except for tornados) but are expensive and the designs (No gables - hip roofs, etc.) aren't to everyone's taste.
Builders and land developers and manufactured home builders have, of course, found ways to get around most of the code and some modern building techniques (plywood sheathing, power nailers, etc) make homes more vulnerable. After Andrew (the worst storm to hit Miami since 1926) many very expensive homes lost their roofs, etc. while those modest houses hand-built by Habitat for Humanity suffered no damage.
Another area to consider is shutters. Plywood doesn't work, as many people have discovered. Good shutters do work, but again, they are expensive. I've been through hurricanes with and without, believe me, with is better.
As FL has filled up with people, the cities have moved out onto sand spits, barrier islands and wetlands, all of which are very vulnerable to any kind of rainstorm and especially to Hurricanes, hence the flooding and washouts which TV and the Weather channel get so much joy in showing.
If you moved to CA, you probably wouldn't buy a house on the San Andreas Fault or one that was not pretty solidly built. If you move to Florida, buy a house that's been through a few hurricanes and that doesn't have any high water marks.

I'M FLATTERED

I got a surprise today when I checked this website. In comments I attracted a couple of very nasty flames, the kind that dump a lot of obscene downloads . It was addressed Bush-04 or something like that.I deleted the comments and blocked the user. I apologize to any of my faithful few who tried to check the comments. I don't know if this is a standard Idiots for Bush tactic or was personal.
One thing about using a Mac Powerbook, not only are they dependable but it's a lot easier to dump and get out of download lockups. Also they are pretty much virus-proof. I know of a geek who kept a "tame" virus on his mac just to check the efficacy of virus protection software.
I suppose I'll get more of this flameing; and here I was just about to change my mind about Bush

A POLITICAL SURPRISE

Here's my political rant for this weekend:
A couple of days ago,my wife and I went to a drinks and
buffet supper of the sort that's thrown all summer
long up here on the lake.
At one point in the evening, the conversation veered to a
discussion of investments and taxes and the problems
"we millionaires" faced. The wine, food, and booze
were good.
The point of this was that with only one or two exceptions,
that bunch were RABIDLY anti-Bush.
I was frankly shocked and very surprised, I thought I
would have to spend the night with my mouth shut, but
found myself in the unusual position of being a voice
of moderation.
Each had his own reason for disliking the present
administration, all well founded and most different.
The judge, for example - who had never voted democrat
in his life, was super worried about Ashcroft and the financial
problems of small town America.
It occurs to me that if Bush has managed to alienate
that diverse bunch who might be expected to be among
his staunchest supporters, he has really goofed up. Of
that bunch of twelve-fourteen voters, he will be
lucky to get more than a couple.
Both sides of this campaign say "it's the most
important of our generation". I'm not sure about that
but I think there is a clearer choice than there has
been for some time. If you choose to vote friviously
and that idiot gets re-elected, I'm going to be pissed
and you will deserve what you get: A reckless cowboy
who seems intent on bankrupting America, screwing us
financially, and killing our children.