StandingWater Creations

The other day I was speaking to my mother who had, in turn, spoken to an old family friend. The friend said something to the effect of, "Obama is not patriotic," and then backed that up with he does not salute the flag and he does not pledge allegiance. As a result, a vote for Obama is a vote for someone who is anti-American.

As a quick side note, I think it is interesting that G.W. has influenced the nation so wholly that to do anything in direct opposition to the majority opinion (or perceived majority) is anti-American. Don't support the president's policy, you're anti-American. Don't support tax cuts, you're anti-American. Don't support the wars, you're anti-American. I think we forget that to be American is to have a wide variety of thoughts, ideas, and etc. and as a result anti-American has become a part of the vocal lexicon when we disagree with how an individual chooses to express his or her individual patriotism.

Back to Obama.

Obama is not patriotic because he chooses to express himself... how?

Well, I went online and looked up the whole not saluting the flag (something I am as likely as not to do) and he does not recite the pledge of allegiance (again, something I am as likely as not to do... I mean, walking across campus I don't stop nor do I turn toward the giant flag near the administration building). However, as I looked online I came across: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/obama-says-flag.html.

Essentially, what this does is take the whole flap back to its origins. Obama and (at the time) the other Democratic Party candidates. Obama was filmed not saluting the flag when everyone else was doing so. When asked about this, he said, "That was during the national anthem," he went on to say, "I was taught by my grandfather that you salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance and you sing during the national anthem." Truth told, this is a good rule of thumb. Fortunately, at the link above (copied here) you can watch the video of the event in question and read his comments.

So, once I'd established this information and the origination of the accusation, I called my mother back who'd read a newspaper my dad had handed her. This newspaper is highly conservative and is definitely anti-Democrat. The outcome, after reading it, was that my mom had come to her own decision that the information she'd received from the family friend originated through the newspaper she'd read (a gift from some people that my parents know and not something they want ... even though my dad reads it whenever it shows up). However, knowing where information comes from and with support of the information I found, the determination was that information (outside of being highly inflammatory) was more about the Revered Wright and about anti-Democratic sentiment with mudslinging and yellow journalism.

As a result, I was for the man before, and am still for the man now.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Posted by smokingpen at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first time I voted was in 1992. I was 18. Had the blood boiling. And I wanted to see change. Bill Clinton was running against Senior Bush and Ross Perot decided to fund a 3rd party alternative to the corruption he saw in politics. I voted Perot and the Republican's claimed that Perot's inclusion in the race stole the election for Clinton. Four years later I voted for Dole, Perot ran again... but his staying power and interest had waned which, eventually led to him leaving the party he started. The first G.W. election (against Gore) saw the Democrats cry foul for two reasons: 1) G.W.'s campaign sued to get the recount in Florida stopped and AlGore gave into pressure and bowed out; and 2) the Democrats claimed that the Nader influence on the election was (in part) what caused the election to be stolen in favor of G.W. Four years later, Nader was back, again (like Perot) interest had waned and he was no longer applicable to the national debate (as, during this election, he is even less applicable on the national stage), and the Democrats again claimed that G.W. stole the election.

I guess the Democratic Party, as a whole, has not learned from the past. In this instance, though, I am under the impression that HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) did not learn the lessons of a third candidate on the elections. Instead of a determined central leader for the Democratic Nomination, we have a battle going on. Every time HRC makes some headway, she claims she is hearing the voice of the people chanting for her to move forward. She holds up Florida and Michigan - two early primaries she won because she did not remove her name from the ballot and in Michigan she went against the party wishes and campaigned anyway. In short, she was unopposed in Florida and Michigan.

The voices of the people have spoken out. What they are saying is: We want Obama. Yet, HRC hears a different chant. Her campaign manager hears a different chant. And her avid supporters all hear a different chant.

Tuesday, in Pennsylvania, she beat Obama by about 9 percentage points in the primary. This, according to HRC, is a resounding cry for her to continue forward. What she chooses not to share is that in the month(s) prior to this primary, she squandered a lead over Obama... or more accurately, Obama's national popularity transferred to the Pennsylvania primary and he moved HRC from an insurmountable double digit lead to nine points.

This is not a public that is resoundingly behind HRC. Rather, it is a public that supports her continued bid but not enough to whittle away at Obama's delegate lead. As we move through the rest of the primaries (thankfully only until June) most of the remaining states are Obama leaning and though we had a series of HRC wins, Obama will continue to make inroads and statements to the Super Delegates and the Nation that he, and not HRC, is the Democratic Party candidate.

HRC, though, is choosing her own interests over the interests of the party. This is a party that is convinced they can do better with Iraq, Afghanistan, and world politics (as well as national politics) than G.W. has done. I don't disagree with them... in the right leaders. What HRC is doing, though, is not unifying the base of supporters behind the designated candidate (Obama has it and regardless of HRC's rhetoric, the Super Delegates will back him), but detracting from the race in the vain hopes of become her parties de facto nominee. She wants to be the first woman as president, which makes her the first female senator that becomes president, and the first first lady who became president, and probably a hundred other firsts. This is vanity and not a sincere interest in her party or her country. HRC has an agenda and she will follow that agenda no matter what.

For all intents and purposes HRC lost Pennsylvania Tuesday. Sure, she had most of the vote, but she did not have the state. Had the primary season allowed, Obama could've whittled her base down further. He's learning from past mistakes and be careful about what HRC is allowed to get away with - to include her infamous 3 a.m. red phone ad - an assertion, on her part, that she is not more qualified for than her party opponent... or McCain.

HRC could only win, in Pennsylvania, if she succeeded in gaining more ground and keeping her base of supporters. She didn't. And she lost. She will continue to loose and, I predict, that by Indiana and North Carolina will erode the gains (not significant) HRC got Tuesday. I also predict that the Super Delegates will continue to back Obama and, in the end, Obama will find a moderate running mate, male, white, and probably from the Northeast or Upper Midwest (think Ohio, Indiana, Michigan...) as a running mate. Part of me also wants to predict that HRC, if she does not secure, sufficiently, the Democratic nomination, will launch a 3rd party bid for the presidency.

When Clinton was in office the rumor sites and news services would, occasionally, spread rumors that he was so vain he wanted to find a way to stay in office. I don't know whether any of those rumors were true and I don't care. As a nation we allow a person two terms (or ten years) in office... no more, and the people, regardless of how much a president is liked, will not support a third term (or more than ten years). Speculation doesn't matter... what does matter is that HRC is desperate for this post, she is desperate to win, and as a result of her desperation, she can (and I believe is willing to) divide her party to try and secure the spot.

This speculation is not unheard of. Ex-presidents and parties have done this a lot. Reading about American Government, one of the reasons Lincoln made it into the White House was because the Whig party split between North and South and ran two different candidates. The nation was divided. Our nation is divided and we don't need a precursor or a return to the president that started this division. Sure, we claim that G.W. is the great-divider of the nation, but Clinton was not loved by all and the political right hated him, refused to support him, and did all that they could to oust him. HRC and McCain as members of the political establishment will ultimately do the exact same thing. Nothing changes with the devil's we know. Granted, nothing may change with the devil we don't, but my money (and unless you are my wife I don't lose bets generally) is on Obama as the man who, like JFK, like Reagan, can unite the country behind him. Neither of these leaders were great micro managers, they were, however, great motivators and at this point I believe we need to be motivated to do better.

HRC divides this country.

Not only that, but she is interested in herself and only herself. Sure, she can stand up in front of a crowd and make them feel as though the world is going to hell in a hand basket; she can share harrowing stories of depravity with the health care system; and she wants you to think that she is the only person who is capable of doing the job.

What I will be interested to see, in the long run, is whether or not the $10,000,000 HRC claims has been donated in the 24 hours after Pennsylvania is true where that demographic of people came from. He campaign has been operating in the red for some time and she has had to personally loan money to her campaign (at least five million dollars) which she and Clinton can afford as they made more than one hundred million last year.

If HRC does launch an independent bid for the White House, she will probably be one of the most successful independent's in the history of the country.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Posted by smokingpen at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Congress (House and Senate) approved a tax increase today. You can read about that here. I believe that this is the right direction for this country at this time. We cannot live under a growing national debt/burden that GW and the Republican led Congresses put us through. Sure, I don't like to pay taxes, but the truth of the matter is that the bills will come due and we, as a nation, will have to pay it. Better to help the dollar now, at the expense of some tax money, than to continue to live under the misaprehension that we can lower taxes and pay for a way and not have to worry about the consequences.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Posted by smokingpen at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think it is pretty obvious that I want Barack Obama to win the Democratic Party nomination; that I am opposed to HRC on the ticket or in any way; and the only way that McCain can get my vote is for Obama and HRC to pair up and run on the same ticket.

What has been getting me, of late, is that HRC won a few primaries a week (or so) ago; and has used those wins to suggest that she is gaining momentum in a race where the majority of states and the majority of people are still leaning toward Obama. As a result of some of her wins, she has even gone so far (along with Bill) to suggest that a combined ticket with her at the top would be a good alternative to a divided Democratic Party.

And yet, I find it interesting that HRC would suggest that Obama would accept a second seat to that woman. She is such a powder keg, not only for the election process but also for her party and for America, that (to me) the idea of having Obama give in to her pandering and her form of politics is pretty stupid. He is ahead.

You see, the collection of delegates is the means whereby a candidate collects supporters to help establish a claim on the party nomination. In the Republican Party, this process denotes that whomever reaches X number wins the nomination. McCain got to that point, he gets the nomination; the rest of the primary season will be spent, by him, prepping for a national presidential race.

However, the Democratic Party is still divided. This is not a 50/50 division. Rather it is a 60/40 division with Obama at the lead. And yet, Obama, not wanting to play politics as usual, has allowed HRC to continue to suggest that she is in a position to make a move and actually win enough delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination. What happens, in the silence, is that people actually start to believe HRC and her spin machine and, in some places, may actually lend their support in her direction rather than toward Obama.

(NOTE: the party split is not as wide as 60/40, it is actually closer, but still far enough apart that Obama just has to keep campaigning to win the nomination.)

What is happening is that we get to watch what may turn into a massive train wreck of a nomination process. Instead of the opposition party banding together to work against GW and McCain (and, in my opinion, a vote for McCain is a vote for GW and his policies), they are working as hard as they can to divide their own base of support instead of clearly and decisively choosing a presidential candidate.

The writing on the wall would indicate that whomever we vote for, and whoever gets to be president, is really only going to be a single-term president. That is not set in stone; but consider the Nixon-Ford administration that went to Carter (who served one term and did nothing of any significance while in office, but has been very active out of office), who turned around and lost to Ronald Reagan. The senior George Bush served a single term, more out of GH's making promises and not keeping them; losing to Bill (who did a two term stint), and then GW.

I believe the nation is tired of politics as usual. The problem we have is not that we are tired of it, it is that we (collectively) don't know change when it is presented to us.

You see, HRC is not change. She is a significant part of the political machinery. Her husband, Bill, served eight years as president. She is in her second term as a Senator. She served (Bill's first term) as an unpaid part of his cabinet. She is the current political machinery. She is politics as usual and she is not the best person to have answering the red phone at three a.m. when it rings and crisis is taking place. She is not even a good second seat to Obama.

McCain, though he claims to be a reformist, is the political establishment. That man has played both sides of the isle and there were rumors that he was threatening to leap ship after the last presidential elections, siding with the Democratic Party and not just voting with them. That would've been an interesting turn of events, but we, as a nation, are so fickle, me thinks, that we often forget what a man or woman does when it comes time to trust that same person with the presidency or any office with real authority. Yes, McCain and HRC and Obama and others are all Senators or Congressmen, and have authority, but theirs comes as a result of party affiliation, time served, and requires the votes and support of others; whereas, we vote for a President to represent the people directly to the Congress.

In this case, McCain has shown that he does not support his party or the people he represents though, I would imagine, he keeps his job because he has the seniority to move federal money into Arizona. As a result, and because is constituents are happy, he can pander in Washington D.C., make like he is really about reform, co-sign bills that would radically change the architecture of the election system, and knowingly not make a single change.

As president, he will do exactly what G.W. is doing and he will be a bit more liberal in his execution. HRC is about the same. She can say, "Look at my record," and, "Look what I have tried to do," but neither are an indicator of her ability, her temerity, or what the outcome will end up being (in the long run). And yet, we are supposed to look at this woman who has followed her husband (until he left office) and who is a hair more experienced on the National Level than Obama, and certainly less experienced (as the politician) overall than Obama and believe, for one second, that she can lead this country better.

I don't buy her act. I can't stand McCain's act. And I think we are in such a radical need for change that the man with the least amount of experience (at the national level) is my choice... not just because of his lack of experience; but also because he has a message of peace, working together, and understanding. His campaign has troubles (mostly) when he goes low and though there are some road bump's he's not figured out how to overcome, I think he is a quick learner with the ability to lead this country for the next (at least) four years.

However, I will not broach HRC as president or vice-president and I would rather vote for the current way of doing things (with McCain) than allow her any opportunity or ability for more political power or influence than she already has. Right now, though, I am not sure what will happen; though I am pretty certain that Obama is smart enough not to saddle himself with HRC and, hopefully, will remain on top when it comes time to decide who our next President is.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Posted by smokingpen at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it is Tuesday. You all know that yesterday was President's Day. Go Presidents. Well, some. I am not fond of G.W., am hoping for Obama, disliked Slick-Willie (regardless of the amount of fun he produced as president), didn't mind (so much) the senior Bush, except for the blurb: "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then he hiked taxes. Go figure.

As a child, I was inculcated with Reagan, and have to say I like him... liked his biography... enjoy his economics. Not many presidents actually have an economic plan, they just rehash something else and try to claim it as their own.

Liassez Faire Economics. Yeah. It's all about spin.

My parents disliked Carter, I dislike Carter (now, not then as I was really too young) and wonder how this nation could vote for such a man; but hey, we have a few elections where, apparently, we are willing to vote for anyone. Can anyone say: John Kerry.

Nixon was a joke and Ford was an even bigger joke.

Makes you wonder, really, how people can fall behind a political party where the leaders spew out so many bad choices that you begin to wonder whether there is any real leadership in the world, or not. Seriously.

G.W. will go down in history as one of the worst leaders this country has had. Regardless of who the next president is (and it won't be a Republican, folks) he/she won't be much better than our current misanthrope. Right now I like Obama for his lack of experience over his vast time in the Senate. Wait, two years is nothing. He is still a Freshman. And, I think, that is the point. He doesn't have experience or insight that the other party (either party) candidates have and as a result, he makes me want to fall in line and support him to the top.

Besides, he is the only one who can't screw it all up any worse than everyone else.

The best news I'd heard this year was that Ron Paul (Ron who??? Yeah, man from Texas who is a doctor, delivered thousands of babies, and (before this election) has run as an independent for President) might relaunch his bid to be president through the independent process. Granted, he is no Ross Perot (who I will not vote for again), but he will pull votes from the conservative base as a result, those votes will lead to whomever the Democrat contender is becoming president.

Remember Perot? Yes, I voted for the man way back in '92. I am proud of that. My first, real, political decision. Yeah, anyway, both times he pulled from the conservative base causing (first) senior Bush and then BobDole (a combined name like AlGore... go figure) to lose enough of the vote in every state to give it to Slick-Willie.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike both parties and I believe the worst possible candidate for President is John McCain (followed closely by Hillary Rodham Clinton - still looking for a suitable moniker for her). He is not a conservative. Well, he is a conservative in the sense that a Republican from New York State (or most of the northeast) is a conservative. He is more likely to vote with the Liberal side of an issue, he is anti-establishment (which you would think would be a plus (for me) in his check column), but in such a way that he is actually only anti-establishment so long as it doesn't affect his job (senator) or his paycheck (lots-o-money people).

The fact that Romney (maybe next time Mitt) and the senior Bush and others of the conservative base are getting behind McCain is because he has become the candidate of choice for the people as a result of which the party leaders (ex-presidents, influential congressman and senators, mayors, candidates, governors, and etc.) either fall behind the man or throw their support behind someone else thereby disenfranchising the core conservative population.

Sure, they could do what they did with Senator Lieberman when he didn't get the Democratic nomination nod for his seat in the senate. They stopped backing their own candidate (what was his name again???) and fell in line with Lieberman, supporting him over the Democrat who took Joe's spot. The rhetoric: It is better to have the monster we know, than the monster we don't know. And, "No," Lieberman is not a monster.

Which really lends itself to the Lieberman/McCain combination. They vote a lot alike. Lieberman was the running mate to AlGore. Lieberman is, undoubtedly, a liberal... and yet we allow McCain, because of a party difference/distinction, to be a conservative and to have the support of the conservative base and leadership.

You know, being liberal in Utah is being slightly more conservative than, say, an stereotypical Mormon housewife. It means that you don't vote, without serious contemplation, for the Conservative base, and often you vote Democrat because he/she/it is not Republican.

No, Republican is not the official party of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, according to the church, we hold no official (or unofficial) political position on most things. There was the Equal Rights Amendment, but, you know, creating a new amendment to The Constitution that further declared what was already law and needed better enforcing would've created true inequality in this nation... or I could've succumbed to the propaganda against the ERA, you decide.

Hilary as president means that her attempts at universal and socialized health care will have a better chance of succeeding. Not her first term. She does learn; but that second term in office, when she isn't stumping for reelection, she will push (and how) for that reform. She does have an agenda. Most people do. However, Hilary also has a past that is not very positive and decries her ability to lead the country at any time.

Do we need a female president? Yup. And I think we can have one in the near future. I just pray that it is not Hilary. She is bad news. If she gets the nomination, though, you will get to see how bad the news is when it comes to that woman.

Watched a Saturday Night Live skit the other night where she was congratulating herself on winning the election (for President) and that all of her opponents (not past) never had a chance against her; and that she was going to serve two terms - and that the term limits needed to be erased so she could, effectively, serve as President longer, only to have Bill stick his head in on occasion and comment (very funny - though the actress portraying Hillary didn't look like her and certainly didn't sound like her... so, essentially SNL had to tell me who she was for me to understand); though, rumor and gristmill had many of the same rumors floating around Slick-Willie as his terms as president came to an end.

Who should be president? That's a great question. You know, at present, I don't think we've seen our next great leader. No. I don't think it is Romney. It's not Hilary. It's not McCain (we will be lucky if McCain makes it out of office alive... yes, he is that old). It is (most likely) not Obama. But the untested and untried among us can frequently stand taller when put to the test. Sure, he sounds a lot like a preacher, but maybe, just maybe, we need a president who really does believe in God... and not just the convenient one that allows him to stand on the bullypulpit and spew out rhetoric to cause fear among his constituents (and yes, G.W., I am speaking at you).

What I do know, in all of this, is that we have a very large field of losers and bad choices and I think it is getting time for a significant change in the way politics play out in this country. Different leaders, different ways of finding those leaders. Different approaches.

Oh, and regardless of all else, we will have the third President that was also a Senator elected this year. The last one was John F. Kennedy. I don't remember who the first was.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Posted by smokingpen at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had the misfortune, yesterday, of reading a blog by Ann Coulter. I know there are a lot of people in the United States that think she is a great face for the conservative right, the extremist end of the Republican Party, and I agree, she is an attractive woman that can write, speaks well, and looks good on camera; but I also fall into the category (opinion-wise) where I think if you dress a pig up in silk, it’s still a pig and the silk is going to be ruined.

Why do I think this?

Well, I think it goes along with Rush Limbaugh. As a teenager this man said a lot of things that the people around me were saying. He would decry the president (when I started listening it was Clinton) and would tell everyone everything the President was doing wrong. After a while it got tiring to listen to Rush and, eventually, I just turned off the radio and stopped tuning in when his radio program was on.

He lost weight.

He became addicted to oxycotin.

At some point, I realized he was a blow-hard that really was just talking to be heard and did, or could do, very little to change the course of the American political machine. He is exactly what he presents himself to be, a showman, and very little else. He just happened to become famous for what he had to say.

Rush Limbaugh, for whatever reason, is no longer applicable to our American way of life.

I have also had opportunity to listen to individuals who work in the opposite extreme. I am, very deeply, opposed to the bleeding-heart agenda as well. I think there are middle ground between the two opposite extremes and I think that when someone who makes their money from speaking their political mind makes more money for speaking that mind, they often lose sight of what it was that made them famous – as do their fans.

Ann Coulter is the female equivalent of Rush Limbaugh for a new generation of extremely conservative American’s. Except, she’s attractive and thin.

Ann Coulter also represents what is currently wrong with the present administration.

What is wrong with the current administration?

G.W. is so sure that what he is doing is correct, that the course of action he has promoted is the right one for this country, that he ignores anything that might suggest that he is wrong.

The very reason the conservative portion of this nation disliked Clinton is the reason the liberal portion of the nation dislikes G.W. He has set a course. He is unapologetic about that course. And his critics be damned, he is going to follow his heart and take the rest of the nation with him.

When we voted for G.W., honestly, we were expecting to hire a President who had a Christian ethic and a track record of working across party lines to get things done. For the first bit of the presidency, prior to 9/11, he did that pretty well. And then came the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 over Pennsylvania and suddenly, G.W. had a mandate from the people that gave him the Executive Power to move away from bi-partisan politics and to lead the charge on a very partisan policy.

And with G.W.’s rise to power we also have his cheerleader, Ann Coulter, rising to prominence in the media. Here comes this attractive blonde who tells the conservative United States what it wants to hear. Who does not pause or back down. Who does and says what she wants and expects everyone to take her seriously.

The flaw in this, though, is that Coulter rose to power with G.W. and she will fall with him as well. I might try to get to that later.

Specifically, Coulter’s agenda is anti-liberal. It is anti-ignorance… or more specifically, it is anti-perceived ignorance. She is not anti-ignorance, Coulter is anti-percieved ignorance. She is literally the Tin Man (Woman in this case) where the Wizard grants her a diploma and she suddenly has something to say. In this case, though, it would appear the need to promote G.W.’s agenda (as well as a rather anti-science agenda… go figure) and she now has the authority to speak her mind.

Coulter has a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and a Bachelors in Arts from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences. She is an educated woman.

I can deal with the uber right wing and the uber left wing. I can even deal with the less-than-intelligent who want to be considered intelligent. However, what I cannot deal with is people who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, speak in direct opposition to what is being presented.

The instrument at hand is Coulter’s arguments against Evolution. Simply, she doesn’t believe in it and counters that Darwin’s theories have been proven wrong.

Here’s my problem: Darwin had a theory. A theory is an explanation of viewable events with an explanation of how they happened and what outcomes can be expected. Theory is not fact nor is it a law. When Newton wrote his laws they were theories. Science has sufficiently proven Newton and as a result we speak of his multiple laws.

However, science cannot prove Darwin. It is impossible. To be able to do that we would have to travel back in time and see what the changes that took place for the world over time.

I agree with a lot of skeptics of Darwin insofar as I cannot accept that Darwin’s theories are provable to the extent that his theories become law. However, as for his theories on adaptation by a species to its environment, his theories are as close to law as they can get. We can observe adaptation not only of animals and plants to new environments, but also people within given environments over time. Moreover, science can point out that in colder climates people are often smaller, while during warming spells (we are in one) the population grows in height. We can observe adaptation. Moreover, we can observe co-evolution. And we can encourage adaptation (e.g. evolution) in species of insects that have shorter life cycles.

Moreover, you can see a skeletal lifecycle from pre-homo erectus to current homo sapien. Amazingly enough, none of these skeletons, and none of this information, flies in the face of my religious beliefs or faith. Interestingly enough, we, as children of God, are commanded to learn as much as we can about the world around us. Some are interested in science, others in nature, others in politics, others in writing, others into law, and etc. We get to constantly learn, observe, and make our own judgments.

What I have found interesting, though, is that the evidence that has been presented (to me) by one of these men of science is sufficient to indicate that modern man might be an offshoot of the offspring of homo erectus.

The only thing we do know is that we don’t know how God created the heavens and the earth. To disregard the notion that he didn’t seed the planet and let it move in different directions, influencing animal and plant life and growth over time is to say that we know God intimately as well as his methods, arts, practices, and his mind. We, that means every single person on this planet, do not know how God created the earth and everything on it. Nor do we know how man was created.

The bible is rather Spartan about that description. The King James version calls the creative periods days. Other translations go to creative periods. Over a series of creative periods, the time of each one we don’t know, he created different aspects of the planet.

The evidence does not support a stringent Christian view of the creation of the world. More, Christian's, who are supposed to be a faith-loving people, should know that God does not give them all of the information.

We don’t know.

What evidence does is suggest what might have happened. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a criminal. In order to do that, though, the prosecutor has to have a theory. Theories can be based off of evidence, sometimes evidence is collected as a result of the theory. But in either case, it is up to professionals, lawyers, and judges to interpret that evidence. Evolution is a process of circumstantial evidence.

The evidence that exists suggests that homo sapien is an evolutionary offspring of homo erectus. That is interpretation of evidence. This is not interpretation of facts, this does not make Darwin some kind of a prophet, it is interpretation of evidence.

Do I believe science when they speak in terms of millions of years? No. And part of the reason for my disbelief is because scientists will also tell you that certain conditions have to have applied when the sample was laid down for their methods to work. There is no way too convincingly (for me) proving that the conditions existed, and as a result, I am always prone to ask, “What else can explain the geological or biological evidence?”

I want my religious view of the world to be the only view I can accept, and yet, I cannot accept that.

Ann Coulter is so set in her ways, she is Bush’s bulldog in such a way that she refuses to see there are other possibilities in the world. Admitting to another possibility is death in the political extreme environment. Her admitting the possibility of evolution is akin to AlGore admitting that global warming isn’t man made.

The problem with the religious view on creation is that it is not testable. That is why it is not taught, or wanted to be taught, in schools. What science is about (even if they are often wrong) is the ability to test a current theory or hypothesis. That’s it. Evolution is testable, Creation theory is not.

At present, with the information I currently have, I will go with an answer on Creation that includes God presiding over Evolution.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Posted by smokingpen at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was asked the other day why I hadn’t bothered to blog about a senator and the scandal he is currently embroiled in. I won’t share who asked, but the reason to ignore the headlines, I think, is somewhat important.

News agencies, more than 90% of the time, are entertainment venues. I know, I know, it seems weird to think of CNN or Foxnews or NBC or MSNBC or a whole host of other news outlets as being entertainment, but they are. They make money by sharing with the public something that, in some morbid way, entertains a part of the viewership. As a result, news agencies are not always the best resources for real news. In fact, unless you want the shocking or the explosive or a weather report, most of the time your time is better served scanning headlines in the newspapers or online and ignoring news channels.

What is happening in politics right now is that the news channels are following a whole host of candidates. I believe a lot of these are in the race to further their political careers and put them solidly in the spotlight specifically for re-election purposes with their current jobs and their current constituency. For the most part who said what or who did what in the presidential race is moot because we are still a long way away from actually voting for a president. That happens in an even numbered year, in November, traditionally on the second of the month. We are in an odd numbered year, in September, and we’re not even close to actually caring who the president will be, let alone whether or not Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting and if some other sot is better suited to do the job that all of these marginally qualified or interesting people seem desperate to do. Moreover, the amount of money being spent by the various candidates from Mitt Romney to Rudolph Giuliani is deplorable given the amount of time left.

The race hasn’t even begun and there is a multi-million to multi-billion dollar spending spree going on.

As for scandals taking place: they take place all of the time. Do I think this one senator who was caught in an airport deserves the crap he is receiving? It doesn’t matter. I do believe that we choose the punishment we receive by choosing to be a part of the process we are in. Was it fair what happened to Nixon? Clinton? Absolutely not. However, they chose to be presidents with Congresses that were opposed to them, moreover, both men did illegal things and were actually bad men while in office.

Does an affair, whether same sex or adultery really matter? Yes. I think it says a lot about our nation and what we are becoming. That we allow a politician to be in office when they knowingly and aggressively pursue affairs and illegal activity denotes that the voting public is more to blame than the individual. A child knowing it can steal a cookie isn’t going to stop stealing because he/she is caught; instead, they will apologize and go back to the same old game. I know. I was that child.

Is it right for the press to spotlight one man or one woman and to destroy their lives? Absolutely not. But it is entertainment. You, as the viewer, receives some level of satisfaction by watching the powerful fall. There is a notion of satisfaction in the everyman to watch someone in perceived or real authority lose that authority because they were caught. We don’t care that our representatives are corrupt, we care that they are caught. We don’t care if they affairs. We only care when those affairs become news. The problem, though, isn’t that it became news, rather the problem is that we are duped in to thinking that entertainment can be news.

Focusing on a senator or congressional representative or president or governor or a whole host of other individual is a whole lot like focusing on Hollywood. Sure, you love to watch them in the movies, and you love to read about their lives, and you are even willing to listen to them when they try to open their mouths and speak out; but actors and actresses and their lives, the pop-tarts, the stars and starlets of tomorrow are not news. Their antics on and off set are not news. The things they do, get drunk, flash people, do poorly on stage, break down, go in to rehab, whatever… none of it is news. It’s all publicity and its all worth about as much as the gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe.

The problem, though, is that we, the viewing public, are so sick and so thirsty for something real that we believe the crap that is being fed to us. We believe that if this pop-tart is having a nervous breakdown that we should care and pay attention and forgive her. Or if that star is doing drugs that we should look the other way for an appropriate amount of time, let him get over it, and then continue supporting the very habit that caused the problem in the first place, second place.

We, as a nation, look at musicians and actors and politicians and we listen to what they say and we care about what they do and we joy, secretly, in their failures and we do this not because it is good or nice or fun but because we don’t know the difference between real news and something that is designed specifically to entertain us. We ignore the fact that the news allots 2 minutes for a headline story and less than 90 seconds for something that doesn’t matter so much. And by watching this we feel like we are informed.

We choose to read the first paragraph or two of a news article and then discard it.

The outcome, though, is that we have these entertainment outlets that promote themselves as “News Stations” and we watch them not for what they are doing right now but for what they do when a crisis happens. I didn’t recognize that an anniversary took place yesterday. I knew it happened, but 9/11/01 is still too close to me for me to want to think too much about it. What was done right, during that time, was that the news agencies shared the news. They shared what was important. They updated their consumers with what was necessary to help the consumer understand the implications of what was happening in the world around them.

It is during a crisis that the news agency actually shares news. Not during an election cycle. Not, really, during a war. At those times, it’s sensational. Otherwise, and barring the laws that require news services or the like, most channels would ditch the news and would find a better way to entertain its viewing public.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Posted by smokingpen at 8:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Was over at MSNBC.com and came across one of their Newsweek articles on a group of men starting what amounts to a PAC (Political Action Commity). The name is the Punchbowl Group and consists of lobyists, ex-members of the fed, ex-politicians, hedge fund managers, corporate leaders, and more who want the government to legislate a change in the way the Fed can change the interest rates.

The article can be found HERE!!!!

Basically, the gist of the group is that interest rates should be legislated to remain low because we, as American's, are a country who has based its economy on borrowing money.

More, there have been more than 14 million people in "X" number of years go in to debt to buy a house, and as the housing market is the one that is currently under attack, it is up to the Federal Government and the Legislative branch (e.g. the House and Senate) to create a bail-out plan that will not cause various industries to lose jobs, have to lay people off, or just get uncomfortable as the market resets itself. Most of the men joining these Punchbowl groups are wealthy because of investments and being industry leaders.

Unfortunately, this group, as a lobbying group, is actually having a great deal of success as it approaches Congress to force an unnaturally low interest rate. Specifically, they want the interest rate to be kept low except for specific conditions they are setting forth. Congress is listening to them.

Part of the big issue with this is that the housing market, which does help fund a lot of other markets... one of the participants in this group, the auto industry.

The auto industry is actually really good at going to Congress for monetary assistance. The outcome, instead of making vehicles that are affordable and getting rid of the cancers that exist within their organizations, one of the worst of which is the unions, they raise prices and then cry , "Foul," when the public does not immediately leap and buy new SUV's or pick-up trucks. This, in turn, forces them to lose money, go through more lay-offs, and have to go through what is termed a restructuring and in my opinion is a way to get Uncle Sam to step in and buy the companies way out of the issues they are presented with.

In the case of the housing market, housing prices have unnaturally been on the rise first because the Fed has kept interest rates lower and mortgage lenders have been handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars at a pop because they could and because interest rates were low due to a recession back in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and forward. Moreover, there has been an active effort to convince every person that has a job that they are also entitled to the joys of home ownership and, as such, that they should go in to debt because building equity within something is better than renting. This I agree with and disagree with, but then, I agree and disagree with a lot of things.

The issue here, is that sub-prime lenders have offered loans based off of variable interest rates with promises that cannot and do not pan out. In other words, lenders have repeatedly and knowingly lied to home buyers doing two things: one, bringing a lot of people who normally would not be able to afford a house in to the housing market; and two, building a time bomb in to the housing market where, invariably, there will be an implosion when interest rates started to rise causing mortgage payments to also rise, considerably. This, in turn, causes people to default on mortgage payments leading them to lose their homes and declare bankruptcy.

Evidences of this can be seen in and around many big

There is a cascading effect to this. People start to lose jobs as different aspects of the economy are affected, which in turn means that those same people cannot spend money, which means that more jobs are lost as more revenue is lost, leading to another recession.

Recessions are bad things in the sense that recession equals a lot of people out of work; however, recessions are also good things as it means the market and economy is in a state of resetting itself to reflect more realistic values. The problem with the punchbowl groups, though, is that they want Uncle Sam, through the Congress, to artificially keep payments and interest rates low thereby allowing for them to also, artificially, keep housing and other prices high. Higher prices mean higher earnings; and higher earnings means that, publicly, it appears that these same individuals are doing extremely well.

The thing that really gets me going, though, is to claim that we, as a nation, need to keep our credit market stable to maintain markets in other countries. However, this, too, is a red herring as other markets will find other outlets and will also look to produce products for less money. China, for example, is in an explosive growth stage. If we were to enter a recession this would affect China negatively. What we fail to acknowledge is that our spending may not be good for the economic growth of China or other nations that produce what we are looking for. Moreover, product manufacturing is sent offshore to reduce costs; the more manufacturing that is sent to a nation, the higher the costs because, as a result of the business sent offshore it is necessary for businesses to become more competitive, salary-wise, to get and maintain employees. This, in case you don't pay attention, is the reason why phone support and manufacturing changes nations semi-frequently - it is to keep corporate costs down and low. When they start to grow because you've invested in India (or China or elsewhere) you move them to another nation that will charge less money.

The point, though, is that the market is in desperate need of resetting. A recession will help reset it. We are better off going through a recession than attempting to maintain the current, explosive, monetary standards we are keeping. If we try to artificially avoid a recession the outcome will be hyper-inflation and an unavoidable massive recession with every nation on the Earth being affected very negatively. The problem is that the movers and shakers in the country care less about what will happen in the near future over what they think should be happening, for them, under their watch, right now.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Bond. James Bond

Posted by smokingpen at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John McCain went to war for the United States. Since that time he has used his experience being tortured in Viet Nam. He’s served in the Senate for a lot of years. And he’s run for president a couple of time. Well, he is the current Richard Nixon. Running again and again in the hopes he will beat his own Kennedy.

So, the other day I was sitting around at MSNBC.com which links, pretty directly, to Newsweek.com and one of the pundits, the virtual talking heads, on Newsweek.com was talking about how not wanting John McCain as president was a bad sign for this nation. The reason, McCain is a Vet and had served in active military service and his fall from grace (potentially because he’s actively supported G.W. in Iraq) is a bad sign for politics and the voting public in this country.

The main issue I have with this assertion is that McCain has only ever achieved popularity as a centrist-reformist candidate who aggressively (allegedly, hard pressed to prove it to me) pushes election reform. This, however, does not denote a candidate that is a presidential contender. The Unfortunate Mr. McCain has never been a presidential contender no matter how frequently he’s chosen to run for the position. He doesn’t have the chutzpa necessary to hold the office, nor does he have the presence of someone who is meant to lead the free world OR make the important, necessary, decisions.

McCain, more often than not, is someone who is not consistent on the little decisions. After his previous attempt at running for president and G.W. winning, word on the street (and internet) was that he was considering moving to the Democrat side of the isle. He’d renounce his political religion (republicanism) and move over to a new belief structure (democratism). The outcome, at the time, would’ve been an immediate shift in power in the Senate. For some reason, he chose not to do it. My theory, at the time, was that Dick Cheney was ready to leave office and the party had promised him the vice-presidency. I was wrong; but I do believe that the party promised or threatened him with something – so he stayed.

McCain has actually acted, in public, more like the party opposition than like a party leader. He has dissented in a lot of areas. And only when it’s come to a war (that is not a declared war) that he and most of the Democratic and Republican leadership supported, has he found his voice as the chief supporter of the Iraq conflict. In short, he isn’t a party man; and he supports the Iraq conflict and troops there.

The voting public is not a bunch of idiots. They don’t look at the president and the party leadership and think, “I don’t care what he was like in the past, I like what he is showing us now,” and then vote for a man because he has a record for serving in war. A record for having been a soldier does not qualify a person to be president. We were told this, repeatedly, by the same press outlets that would suggest we are, somehow, less American or that the United States is somehow less because we refuse to vote for a man who, in many public decisions, can’t seem to make up his mind one way or the other, when Bill Clinton was running for president and his record of service (or significantly distinct lack of one) came in to question.

John McCain is a bad choice for president. The public knows, and understands, this. They know that if they vote for this man he is as likely to support the war effort as he is to pull the troops out. Under John McCain, I think the odds of our being pulled in to a much larger scale conflict increase dramatically. The American people don’t want this. They are tired of veiled information about possible threats and abrupt and uncomfortable changes to their travel schedules. They are tired of presidents who claim we need to support them, and then call the people unpatriotic for not supporting an effort that is, inherently, wrong.

Not voting for John McCain, not supporting his presidential bid, is a good thing. It is a way for the American people to strike back at the war machine that currently exists. This is the parties way of telling McCain he was last years news, and only then news when he is talking about reform. McCain’s war record should be lauded; however, that same war record should not be construed as a trump card or a prerequisite for being president. McCain, through his own actions, has proven himself a bad choice.

Posted by smokingpen at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Over at news.yahoo.com I came across an article here that states that Cindy Sheehan has quit her quest to get the United States out of Iraq. For anyone who doesn’t know who this woman is, she’s been camping out outside of President Bush’s property for the past couple of years trying to get G.W. to talk to her about her son’s death. His response, which I feel is the right one (go figure) has been to ignore her. If you ignore something long enough, as long as its not cancer, it probably will go away. In the case of Sheehan, she is now going away and, I’ve got to tell you, this is a good thing.

I am not for the war in Iraq. I think G.W. has done this country a disservice for taking us there. I have been rather vocal about this. When people (my father included) insist that G.W. is a good president I disagree with them. I think history will determine the man to be a bumbler and an oaf who did about as much as Jimmy Carter did in office (replace peanuts with oil) rather than someone who made this country a safer place or has improved conditions here. In the long run, I think G.W. will live to see the outcome of the mistakes he perpetuated on this country and he will be held (religiously) accountable for those mistakes.

This does not, in any way, change my opinion of what Sheehan was doing. At the same time I think G.W. is wrong, I still have an obligation to support the president. What Sheehan was doing was not supporting, or trying to build, what she calls a “country she loves.” Rather, she was trying to tear a gaping hole in that country. Her actions indicate that she felt she was more important than the rest of the population, that her loss was, somehow, far more devastating than the loss of any other mother, father, or sibling that has taken place. And as a result of this, she had more of a right to state her differences with the government and with the president than any other person.

She took it to an extreme.

I could deal with, and ignore, her actions; but the point where they became ludicrous and deplorable was when her quest to confront the president became more important to her than her family. She allowed her marriage to disintegrate. She allowed her life to fall a part. She moved herself to Crawford, TX and (according to the article) somehow acquired a parcel of land to continue her quest to confront the president. She’s remained there and became the de facto leader of a group of people who are rather vocal to get out of Iraq. They forgot the process. It still exists. If you want political change you have to elect different politicians who mirror your beliefs.

To elect different politicians, even if the president who dragged us in to a way is Republican, you actually have to change all of the politicians, or a sufficient number of them, on both sides of the isle to guarantee the change. If you leave a politician in office, he/she/it/they/them/their will continue to do what they were doing to begin with. Chances are, if said individual voted for the war once, they will vote for it again. If they supported the president, they will support him again. You actually have to make substantial, across the board, changes to both parties. Simply changing the dominant party is not/will never be enough.

Granted, the last elections changed control of both houses to Democrat; but, if the Democrats don’t have the clout to make substantive changes than the mandate doesn’t really exist. We, the people, have not made a statement for change; we’ve made a statement for remaining the same.

For a mandate to be real, enough of the population has to actually vote for change and that has not happened. Not enough Republicans are dissenting, not enough Democrats are pulling new blood in for elections, to dictate that we, as a nation, want a change. We are, currently, happy with what G.W. is doing. We are happy to allow him to continue running his war.

This, by the by, speaks louder than a minor change in control of the Senate and House. Believe it or not, many of the people who voted for Iraq are still in power. These same people refuse to declare Iraq a real war zone and, as such, we continue to pay higher prices at the pump. Rather than protecting the American people by legislating price caps (as in the first Gulf War), we continue to see the prices gouging that oil companies are applying in order to make enormous profits. We continue to flirt with, but not really get interested in, alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles, and we continue to grumble over what is happening.

I think the point to this is that if we want change the Sheehan’s in the world cannot be our leaders. They don’t have what it takes and she was in it for the wrong reasons. If we want G.W. to stop his war efforts we have to vote for new representatives (across the board) that represent what the people want. We cannot believe that merely changing power in the combined houses of congress is going to make real changes in how we are governed. It is not.

In order to be successful, we have to make real changes not the bandages we keep placing over the way the president, congress, and other governing bodies do business. In order to make real change, real change (in the parties – and possibly with a new political party) is absolutely necessary.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Denny Crane | Bond. James Bond

Posted by smokingpen at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, I have a few minutes and I was looking at the current slate of presidential candidates. No one, that I am aware of, has announced an independent bid for President, yet; but that doesn’t mean it won’t be coming down the pipe. Especially since this current turn of presidential candidates is happening earlier, this time, than it did last time; and earlier last time than it did the time before. We are a nation divided by politics and I am still a citizen who would rather see white states than RED or BLUE or whatever other colors the pundits and talking heads decide to name things.

Anyway, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the leading Democrat contender. Go figure. Seems to me the lady claimed she wasn’t going to run for president. At least, not this go round, and yet, there she is. Running for president. She’s got the war chest to end all war chests, allegedly, and has been giving money to other Democrats and their campaigns for a few years now. The outcome, she’s got a lot of establishment (Democrat) support.

Gotta be honest, here, I don’t think she has a chance in HELL of being president. Sure, she’s been successful in New York City in becoming one of the State Senators; but, really, she’s not the most approachable candidate. Sure, sure, you say that she is a candidate and she has an early lead on the other candidates, to include Obama, but does that matter. We have to vote for whomever the establishment gives us and that means Hillary and Obama and yet… at least for the Democrat side of things, and yet… I wouldn’t vote for either one.

We could step back to my issue with Kerry in the last election; which was why G.W. got my vote; but the truth is that this is a different ballpark and it doesn’t matter (to me) whether or not either candidate runs – they don’t have my vote. With that, if Hillary were to run she would actually, probably, get me to actively campaign for whomever the leading Republican candidate is simply because I think she is as close to being evil incarnate as they come.

In case you missed it: I DON’T LIKE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!!!

And I am not fond of Barack Obama either.

Maybe it is my conservative principles going on. Maybe it’s because, when I read their platforms (if they have one) I don’t agree with the direction they are trying to take the country. With Hillary, she (and her campaign staff and the rest of the world) would be hard pressed to convince me that she’s not going to push for another round of Health Care Reforms and trying to socialize medicine in the United States.

Yes, I think people need health care. No, I don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility or obligation to provide that for people.

With that said, I’m not exactly fond of the Republican candidates either. I mean, look at the top three candidates. You have Rudi Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. I think the idea of Giuliani is good; but the reality is bad. He was the hero of 9/11, was knighted by the Queen of England; and claims he hates to leave Manhattan. He’s a Yankees fan, which I have no problem with (even having lived around Boston and definitely in Red Sox territory for their World Series win); and I enjoy the trips I’ve made to New York City and all that the city has to offer.

However, I don’t know that Giuliani offers the nation what it needs right now. He is, in my mind, akin to Hillary and Obama in their approach to politics. To liberal for what I think and feel the country needs to be going in. I don’t believe we need to say, “Tomorrow we are done in Iraq,” and pull out all of the troops leaving the country to wallow in its own filth; and at the same time I don’t think we, as a nation, need the burden of Iraq and should pull out sooner than later. I think the Democrats have it right to specify a deadline (in ’08) that the U.S. should be out of that country.

Afghanistan, however, needs to be a deployment zone and we should be pursuing the reason(s) behind our being in this pseudo war. We should be pursuing Bin Laden and doing it again and again and again until the man is either captured, dead, or too scared to come out of hiding ever. His terror network and base of operations should be destroyed and destroyed when rebuilt, and destroyed again. Our military should be aggressive in the attack; hit him, hit him again, and hit him again and again and again.

We need to follow our original obligation and make the world safer. Iraq does not do that. Pulling out will force the region to stabilize Iraq where, now, we are fighting a massive insurgency. The insurgency is going to win. All we are going to do is lose more and more men (and women) and, truthfully, hurt our relations with our allies.

What Giuliani does not, on the surface, allow for an incoming international diplomat that can fix G.W.’s problems. Neither does Hillary or Obama. Which leads to:

John McCain. Here’s a perennial candidate. He’s the girl that always goes to the ball and never goes home with anyone. He’s always a bridesmaid and never a bride. I don’t think he will be president either. Ever. Ever, ever.

Really. I think he’s a bad guy. I think in the long run he will prove to be a bad person. I don’t care, one wit, whether he has served, and well, in the military. I don’t care. Truth told, when you vote for McCain you are voting for someone who is like Hillary and Obama. He’s a face people recognize and a voice people tend to listen to; but when it comes down to his politics I think he’s more Democrat and less Republican. Really! He’s the guy who could put on either political hat and be … well … identical.

And then we see Mitt Romney. Mormon. Ex-governor of Massachusetts. Mormon., CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics Committee. A man, on principle, I should like and yet don’t trust. There’s something about Mitt that I just don’t like and the notion that he’s running for president doesn’t make him any better in my eyes. The truth is I think Mitt is a bad choice for president and I think, when it comes down to it, he is the Party choice for president. Sure, sure, he’s not at the top of his game yet, he’s not the front-runner, but I think he will be.

This is why, I believe, Vice President Dick Cheney is coming to BYU to speak for commencement. One professor (that I have) indicated that BYU had asked him to come. When we discussed it (debated it really) he said that BYU had asked President Bush to come. When G.W. turned down BYU Dick Cheney’s office called to see if they would be interested in his coming. BYU said, “Sure,” effectively and then there was the protest against what Cheney stands for rather than his coming.

Another professor indicated that G.W. had been asked, two years ago, to come and turned the school down. This year Cheney’s office called and BYU accepted. This same professor indicated that his opinion of the approval for the protest was to separate the church and the school from the Republican Party. Members of the church are conservative and, as such, lean toward the Republicans. However, the LDS church is not a Republican organization, has no affiliation with the Republican Party, and it makes sense to distance themselves from the party and the vice president.

Cheney, however, is coming to BYU, in my opinion, to help circle the wagons and build support for the preferred candidate – Mitt. That party is going to throw, slowly, their support behind the man. Before the end of the summer G.W. will throw his support in that direction.

This, however, is just my opinion based off what is going on in the country and world today.

I don’t like the candidate pool; however, who do I vote for when the time comes to vote? I know that I will not vote Hillary or Obama or McCain; but, then, that decision hasn’t been as yet and I don’t have to decide today.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Denny Crane | Bond. James Bond

Posted by smokingpen at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Vice President Dick Cheney has been asked by the administration of Brigham Young University to be the commencement speaker during graduation at the end of this month. This announcement, that actually came through local and regional news sources a couple of weeks ago, has been confirmed through the school as well as through Vice President Cheney’s office. In short, Dick Cheney is coming to Provo to speak to one of the highest concentrations of his voting base in the country.

Utah County has one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in the country. This place is the hotbed of conservatism. It is also pretty significantly dominantly LDS. Since the LDS faith is a conservative religion people (pretty much) assume that they must be a part of a political party that touts conservatism. In short, LDS equals Republican in many people’s mind; but there is more to it than that. The Republican Party is trying to liven up its base of supporters for the forthcoming primary elections and then the general presidential elections in about 16 to 18 or 19 months.

V.P. Cheney is trying to build support for one of their candidates (now) by going around to conservative basis around the country and speaking.

What makes this interesting isn’t that V.P. is doing this, but rather that a protest was planned and approved and participated in on campus against his coming.

I think the protest was stupid. Well, maybe not stupid; I think the people participating in the protest are complete idiots. Yeah, that’s a bit better. They didn’t do anything today.

What I saw (and heard a lot of people talking about) on campus was a group of individuals gathering together and holding signs and being this pretty big nuisance. They were literally in the way of people walking to and from class. They stood in one of the quads and made a mess. And they drew the media outlets from the area to report on the protest. BUT they did nothing. They affected no change. They caused no one to care more about stopping V.P. from coming. And in the end, they stood around and occasionally lofted signs higher into the air.

Nothing was gained today.

Vice President Cheney will still be coming to Provo. He will still be speaking at commencement. He will still be an honored guest. And in the end nothing will have happened that will have changed anything.

Other than appease their consciences and feel as though they’ve done something, the students who protested Vice President Cheney’s coming accomplished nothing today…

That is, unless you count the number of people that were annoyed and put out with their antics. If you want to count the people who were fence sitters who are now supporters of the V.P. coming to Provo, you can probably count a higher number of students who care more that he is coming and who support the action than those who stood outside in the sun and kind of held signs aloft.

The protestors did nothing.

And that is where we lead into the question: What Happened to the Protest?

Well, first off, they planned it.

Yes, yes. I agree. A protest actually has to be planned. It has to have permits. It has to be approved by those who are in charge. We’ve come a long way since the 1960’s and you can’t just make a sign, sit down in a public area, and declare you are against something – and then encourage those who support you to be against it as well. The protest was a bust because they planned it and advertised it and it was a bust because the advisor over the group that planned and executed it (students) was opposed to it happening.

It was a bust because they made no real noise. They didn’t advertise ills or wrongs. They didn’t let the public know what Cheney had done to receive their ire. They did nothing except block foot traffic and occasionally hold up signs. No one knows more, now, than they did before about why people are protesting unless the curious individual walked up to a protestor and asked a question and then politely listened to the individual tell them what they thought about the V.P. coming here.

A good rule of thumb for a protest: If your audience doesn’t get your message quickly, and the message is more than a sign declaring something, than your protest doesn’t/didn’t work.

Finally, they made no noise. The people protesting against the V.P. coming made no noise. They didn’t chant or sing. They didn’t draw good attention to themselves. They did nothing that would cause the audience to stop and wonder what was going on further limiting their message from being delivered to the campus or the administration.

On top of that, the administration allowed an anti-protest to take place from those who supported the V.P. coming and speaking on campus. They allowed the anti-protest to take place in the same spot as the protest. And, this is genius, the anti-protest wore (from what I understand) shirts that stood out so that when you looked at the milling group of individuals your eye was drawn away from the white space (the signs) and to the bright color.

The problem with trying to protest is that you want your message to be heard by the right people. The right people, in this case, are the administration on campus and the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If either of those parties had heard and became sympathetic to the message, then something might have changed. But, in neither case was the message made clear to those parties. There was no noise made near the administration building. The students didn’t draft a letter and ask for signatures to be sent to both the administration and the board of directors of the university. The protestors (on both sides) did nothing to elicit the kind of change or recognition that would affect anything and, as a result, the protest was a bust.

That’s all it was. It was a futile action by young adults who look back over forty years and see that change can take place, and that their membership within the LDS church, and their attendance of BYU required them to jump through hoops; and, at the same time, that nothing significant was meant to have changed as a result of their actions because – in the end – their actions garnered nothing when held up against the need for change.

At the end of the day Vice President Dick Cheney will speak on BYU campus unless a real war is declared. His speech will be the hallmark event for the Republican Campaign season and may give Mitt Romney a brief boost in the polls (I am currently contending that Romney is the 2008 poster child for the Republicans). And in the end, no one will remember the protest or why they felt strongly enough to spend hours in the sun in a week or in a month.

The sad thing, for me, is that you can’t say, “Well, at least I did something,” because, again at the end of the day, nothing was done. Nothing was accomplished. Your voice was not heard.

The protest, by making it more mainstream, is really (and truly) dead. Congrats.

Posted by smokingpen at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One trend in politics today are for today’s politicians to apologize for mistakes made, in many cases, before the politician was even born, and in some cases before the politician was dreaming of being a politician. In the United States this practice includes (on occasion) the apology for whites have enslaved blacks during the years of slavery. There are other apologies that take place, but that one creeps up now and again. It’s disturbing to me to think that we need to feel, again and again, that we (as a nation) need to apologize for something that happened before any one of us were born.

In my mind, I would think it was enough that we are not only not practicing slavery, but that we vehemently view the practice of slavery. And yet, sooner or later, another politician will stand up before a crowd, and with cameras rolling, will state something like, “The state of Whatsitsname wants to apologize for our role in slavery.”

The end.

Not quite. In World War II Japan enlisted a corps of women they called “Comfort Women.” Basically, this was a group of women who were, for lack of better phrasing, prostitutes. There is some evidence that this might have been forced (on the women) and in 1993 the Japanese government (think, no one alive who was in charge then; no one in charge who was alive then) apologized for the practice. Granted, there is the possibility that someone who made that decision was still in power well past their retirement years, but the likelihood is actually rather small.

These women may have come from conquered territories of Japan. They may have been forced. That is a black smudge on the Japanese government of the time; but, and I love to repeat this, no one in power in 1993 was responsible for the acts done during World War II.

However, you can feel back about acts of previous generations, previous administrations, and a statement like, “The state of Whatsitsname feels sorrow over the historical role it played in slavery,” gives a different connotation. I still think it’s asinine and stupid, I still think it’s a government official pandering for votes and an assembly trying to prove that they do care about the public, and completely unnecessary and useless, but it changes the nature and tone of the statement. Instead of admitting (today) culpability for an act you had nothing to do with, you admit that collectively you might feel bad that someone in your state, a predecessor, had something to do with an abhorrent act.

And yet, we continue to pander to minority groups that have no further claim to fame than the abuse the supposed ancestors went through at the hands of someone else’s supposed ancestor. Now, I can’t say with 100% accuracy that I am not descended from someone who owned slaves (my dad’s side of the family history stops pretty quickly at present), but I am farely certain that I am not. I have a really good idea where most of my generations came from, and truth told, a lot of my families history deals with stereotypes and abuse; not to mention the religious history of persecution and abuse. And yet, I don’t expect, nor want, someone to say to me, “I apologize for my states (or the governments) role in the persecution someone you might be related to went through.”

I think that various communities look at situations and then think, “I can manipulate that to my own benefit. They then start to make noise. Enough people makes noise and Whatsitsname makes an open apology. Sooner or later someone says, “Let’s talk money,” and then makes more noise. The outcome, at least hoped for, is that the government, which has deep pockets, will reach deep down inside and will pay out post-mortem reparations. Because, deep down inside, Whatsitsname is sorry for it’s historic role in slavery.

There comes a point where no one is alive that suffered at the hands of slavery, or prostitution, or certain government abuses. There comes a time when it is necessary to say, “That was a bad thing, but there is nothing I can do to change it and your asking me to change things is stupid.” In my mind it falls under the same category as the statement:

There are no stupid questions.

Yes, actually there are stupid questions and, yes, some people ask very stupid questions. That shouldn’t be encouraged. Apologizing for someone else’s mistakes might make someone feel better today but it doesn’t fix the mistake that was made. It doesn’t change the history of slavery in America, Europe, South America, or Asia. We don’t get to look at our ancestors and speak for them. We don’t get to say, “I am sorry,” because we didn’t cause the problem to begin with.

Everyone alive today is a product of someone else’s choices. They are the product of slavery or war or prostitution or religious persecution or they are the product of the persecutor the religionist the pimp the warrior the slaver or a thousand thousand other things. We are all the product of decisions and choices that were made by other people. Some of those people made the best choice availably to them, they are good people. Other’s made bad choices and were inherently bad people. We will never be allowed to speak for them. We will never be allowed to apologize for them. No matter the platitude put forward by the Japanese government or the Whatsitsname government, it doesn’t change the facts. Whites (and other ethnicities) owned slaves. The slaves were gathered in Africa and taken to Europe and the New World. This took place for hundreds of years. Nothing stated today is going to change that and it is foolishness for someone, anyone, alive today and in some form of power to take credit for something they didn’t do.

Its closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out. Sure, closing the barn door was probably a good idea; but since it is after the fact, that good idea is a moot point. It doesn’t matter. The cows are out. The acts are done.

The real difference, though, is that you can gather the cows and put them back. You cannot gather slave owners or politicians and the slaves and make the former apologize to the latter. It’s not possible. That’s the beauty (and curse) of time.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Bond. James Bond

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10625961/

Posted by smokingpen at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just once I think I’d like to open a news article, or newspaper, and read something that could be politically sensitive and see a persons name next to it. Instead, these days, we see an article and we read things like, an official close… or, unnamed sources inside… or a thousand other ways of saying that the person giving the information, though known to the reporter, is unwilling to actually act upon their principles and risk being fired. Often this person is close enough to see what is going on (Deep Throat), but far enough removed that they are not culpable when the roof caves in.

This, I think, is becoming a real issue. G.W. and his staff, and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been using this for some time to leak information they want leaked to the press. Most presidents do this. Semi-authorize someone within the administration to leak information and then watch as no names are ever revealed. The outcome is that you have deniability for someone else’s actions because you never know, beyond a VERY LARGE shadow of a doubt, whether or not the person was actually authorized to say or do something.

As I write this I am thinking of some spy novels and movies where the protagonist is told, at the outset, that if he/she is caught the government will deny any knowledge of the individual and will leave them to die or be tortured by a hostile government. I believe this is called Black Ops where the U.S. (or in the Cold War era. Russian) government orders a hit on someone politically tied and then washes their hands of the whole scenario.

That’s what leaking information to the press has come down to. In essence, in government or corporate America, the source is told two things: one, we want you to leak specific information to the press; and two, if you are somehow figured out we will deny that you were told to leak information to the press and you will be fired.

Does that sound like a moral stand? Does it sound like we should be lauding the behaviors of people who do things because their superiors told them to? I mean, sure, there are probably just as many examples of people within government and corporations where the “source” is not under orders from someone higher up; but how much of a moral leg does that person have to stand on over, say, someone who is under orders to make a statement without allowing the reporter to reveal his/her name as having made the comments. This form of reporting actually makes it easier for the former example to do what they do. If the people who were speaking to reporters on principles, alone, always let the reporter use their name because they believed that the information was more important than the paycheck, than an anonymous source becomes unreliable and the government and corporations lose leverage.

And yet, people are interested in the paycheck. They want to see a positive (in the black) bottom line. The outcome is that they are unwilling to do anything that might threaten the bottom line so they say nothing with their names on the record and they do nothing that might threaten their jobs and what we have is a pile of human refuse, starting at the top, that makes many reports coming through the press circumspect because you can’t trust whether or not the source is doing the right thing by telling the world, or doing the wrong thing by allowing them to be used as shills in a high stakes card game.

Reading the news is interesting most days. Reading the news when something important is happening and the sources are those inside of an organization that are unwilling to share who they are and how they know what they know to the world at large make the stories, themselves, unreliable and bad journalism. Granted, lots of stories are broken this way and the Nixon administration fell because of it; it would be nice if G.W.’s would take a couple of real hits rather than the fake hits they seem to have gotten. The outcome, though, is that it is hard for me to trust the reporter, the report, or the source when a high ranking member within the vice presidents office has made a statement and we have to guess who that person might be.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson | Bond. James Bond

Posted by smokingpen at 1:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s not hard to walk into an airport and immediately feel as though you’ve, somehow, entered a police state. You pretty well have.

Last night Erin and I went to the Salt Lake International Airport to pick up her mom. She came in to town for a few days to spend time with Erin and get some one-on-one time in preparation for the wedding in August. Six (well, five-plus) months just doesn’t seem like enough time to plan everything that has to be planned before the whole sealing and wedding ceremony, the ring ceremony, receptions, parties, travel, etc. It’s just… well… I’m just window dressing – get to do what I am told.

The point is that her mom came into town and we went to the airport to pick her up; then I took them to a hotel, changed cars, and came home. All said and done, I was in bed by about 1 a.m. (I think), and Erin and her mom went and found a dress that (I understand) they liked enough to buy. Welcome to the wonderful world of engagements, marriage, and… I can’t come up with an and….

Anyway, we were in the airport, the Delta side, and the first thing you see, coming off of short term parking, is the baggage x-ray machine that everyone has to put their bags through. No choice. They ask, “Any guns, yadda, yadda, or yadda in your bags?” and then toss it on a conveyer belt that runs it through a rather large machine designed to (I would think) elicit a sense of peace, calmness, or at the very least understanding in the governments attempts (foolish) to make American’s calm about traveling, a feeling of safe.

And yet, I seem to be spending time in airports AND I seem to not feel any better about traveling now than prior to my experiences with travel post September 11th. You see, I don’t feel as though a group of old, infirm, and over-weight (I was going to say obese and fat) employees really help to protect me. The process of getting through lines to get on an airplane is ludicrous. The aspect to air travel that I kind of enjoyed, hanging out and waiting for planes to arrive, watching families say goodbye, or just shopping in the wide variety of stores you can only seem to find at airports, has almost completely died.

On top of which, I don’t feel safer traveling.

I said to Erin last night that if you took a poll of 2000 traveling American’s about whether or not they actually felt safer with all of the changes that have taken place in airports; the large majority of respondents would answer in the negative. People don’t feel safer and it is apparent when you deal with airports, security, the feeling of humiliation that you go through when trying to get past the security checkpoints; and I’d imagine it only gets worse when Homeland Security places National Guard units in the airports clearly sporting large automatic weapons, wearing Kevlar, and marching around as though they are on parade.

The problem with airports, today, is that we’ve allowed politicians to get their grubby paws too far into the transportation sector that it is impossible to allow for comfortable travel; as such, airlines are consolidating, they offer fewer services, and, in the end, alternative airline services and transportation services have risen in popularity enough that there is, off and on, talk of adding explosive and metal detectors to bus and train lines.

You’ve got to be kidding?

I mean, we know that I don’t like G.W. and he got my vote for two reasons: 1) Nader wasn’t on the ballot in New Hampshire; and 2) I couldn’t fathom John Kerry or Al Gore doing the job as both are/were activist candidates. The point, however, is that we have a president who, when he feels threatened, pulls out the terror-watch and tells America that we are safer with him as president, safer with the transportation reform, safer the way we are now than we were before September 11th.

Pardon this (and if you are sensitive to swearing don’t read what immediate follows) but that is a load of shit.

Seriously? We are safer? There is no substantive evidence of that. The government is asking us to take their word for it and yet, when polled, most American’s don’t trust politicians. They trust their politician; but they don’t trust politicians in general. I mean, come on!!! This is a problem. This is a real issue. We’ve given a lot up for the guise of security and safety and in reality all we’ve gotten for it is a lot more problems and a ton of hassle that is unnecessary.

You cannot tell me that we are safer or more secure now than we were before September 11th. I don’t buy. I don’t believe it. I don’t think most anyone else does either. And the outcome is that we are not dealing with the ramifications and aftermath of a situation that was devastating and disastrous but, at the same time, didn’t warrant the changes that have taken place in traveling America.

The reason I am pointing this out is really more economic. I don’t want airlines to combine. That’s bad for the nation and bad for travel. But, more than that, I do want to see a good increase in America as a destination place for world travelers. The however in this, though, is that America is being avoided by business and vacation travelers. Apparently, as a part of new security measures it is harder and harder (and more demeaning) to go through the Visa process and, as such, people are avoiding the United States.

Moreover, if you are someone of male Arab decent, apparently the Department of Homeland Security pulls you out of line and grills you for hours about your intentions on United States soil even though you’ve already degradate yourself in the Visa process in order to come to the United States (read MSNBC.com’s Newsweek article).

The problem with travel today is twofold: 1) We don’t feel safer because we’re not; and 2) If it is necessary to have these measures to get into and out of the boarding areas for planes, it should be so innocuous as to be practically invisible to passengers and guests of airline travelers.

What needs to happen is ALL of the changes under G.W. need to be rescinded. Homeland Security needs to be repurposed (if we choose to keep it; but as it is a part of a bureaucracy it won’t be going away). Air travel and visa applications need to become easier to navigate and invite visitors to the nation while allowing passengers and guests onto the causeways where airplanes actually take off and land. And, any necessary security measures need to be so easy to navigate, and without causing undue stress on the people passing through them, while maximizing feelings of humanity, that passengers don’t feel stressed out because of the need to travel through (or even just to) airports.

We need some serious change here, folks. Not in a few years. Not once we’ve further destroyed the national integrity and economic stability of the Middle East, we need it now. If this president (or the current candidates) aren’t willing or capable of putting forward measures of change that will accommodate this, then they need to be fired, refused, turned down, and someone else needs to be brought on board to take over the control and direction of this country.

Moreover, we need to pull out of Iraq and encourage Iraq’s neighbors to take a more active hand in rebuilding the country. Does this mean that Iran might be actively involved? Yes. Does it mean that more people might die? Yes. But what it also means is that we allow the people best suited to deal with the nation, as a whole, to deal with the nation. We also shouldn’t be afraid of losing Iraq as a nation, being broken into parts for ethnic majorities or annexed by stronger countries; AND we need to get our oil-glutinous president away from influencing change in how oil is produced or distributed from that area of the world (oil is the only reason we went there, and yet, we don’t get it at a decent price, and the cost-at-the-pumps has only gotten higher even if it has come down in the past couple of months).

It really is time for substantive change. Either open the airports back up or get fired. That should be the growing motto of the American People. We need to be tired of the threats that our leaders claim are happening. We need to move forward. We need our voices to be heard; and right now, they’re not.

Posted by smokingpen at 3:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think there is a facile misnomer in Washington, of late, wherein the debate isn’t about right or wrong; but rather about who is right and who is wrong. Right now G.W. wants to be right and everyone that disa